Arcana Evolved

[GoodKingJayIII]

Just caught wind of this thread and had to chime in. I love AU/AE, and I do run a game that uses the system exclusively. Currently I am working in the Diamond Throne, but I have been constructing homebrews ever since the book came a few years ago. It's a fantastic system and I haven't found too many people who dislike it. The classes offer something really different and the magic system is a fantastic improvement on the 3.x system.

Someone made a comment earlier how there seems to be less roleplaying in AU games. Perhaps its only in my gaming groups, but both of the AU campaigns I have run involved a great deal of roleplaying. My players got into their roles right away, and I found that they were not resorting to fantasy stereotypes simply because they couldn't! It forced them to come up with interesting and unique characters. We also did a lot of talking about their characters out of game, developing both within and out of game sessions. I was really amazed how much my players were invested in their characters.

 

[Khorod]

The idea that AE inspires less roleplaying is funny to me. I run it because its conducive to *more* roleplaying than D&D.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I have only played 1 one-shot AE adventure but found that it was very conducive to roleplaying as long as the players take the time to discuss the flavor of the game material before and/or after the session. It seems that without some of the stereotypical elements, it seems that one could get lost in the mechanics at a loss of a frame of reference.

 

[Nifft]

I think we should separate "AE Mechanics" from "AE Races" here. IMHO, the AE Mechanics are better for RP'ing, while the races are half better and half worse. I hate Verrik, Sibbeki, and Litorians -- oh, great, a bunch of animal-people, and "alien mindset" humans.

Humans, Mojh, Giants and Faen -- those are cool races.

Dracha -- undecided.

-- N

 

[Kanegrundar]

Let's not get on the tangent of AE/AU or D&D encourages or discourages roleplaying. It's a dead end arguement. Every group plays eavery game differently. 'Nuff said.

Kane

 

[Staffan]

Power creep, to me, is a wizard being pretty useless compared to a well stocked fighter until fifth level, then gaining fireball, and suddenly able to toast his opponents. Power creep, to me, is gaining a spell that automatically hit, each time, every time, with no save to avoid, and no possible way to avoid the damage (at least, early on).

That's an odd definition of "power creep". I always thought of power creep as the tendency for each supplement having slightly more powerful stuff in it, with the designers thinking "Well, this is about as powerful as the thing from that supplement, maybe a little more powerful but still within the margin of error." Then, after ten supplements, those ten "margins of error" have added up to things thar are really way too powerful for their cost.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I'm not that impressed by AU/AE.
Maybe it's because I already was using racial levels and something like diminished/heightened effects in my own campaign, I don't know.

I think the races are a bit unimagitive, I'm afraid. Why not just stick with some of the more traditionel races? And the classes as well. They just had to have new names? Warmain? What the hell kind of a name is that? :\
Reminds me of Gygax's Lejendary Adventures where your character was called an avatar. Why? Changing names and terms every roleplayer is familiar with is not new thinking and innovation in my opinion.

If you design a new class in an alternate player´s handbook, you shouldn´t use the old names. It will inadvertly cause confusion. Especially if there is a high chance that someone might want to use them together or at least uses both, just in different campaigns.

The game terms are still the same - Base Attack Bonus, Level, Skill Ranks, Feats, hell, even the names of a lot of abilities are the same - Sneak Attack, Power Attack and so on...

And speaking of an alternate player´s handbook: Why not introduce different races. Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Halfling are all well known, but would you want to see them reprinted in a book about alternatives? It is obvious you can still use them alongside the new classes, if you want.

And some of the classes are overpowered which to some makes them kewl, IMO. The warmain is better off than a fighter with better HD, better will save and just as many feats IIRC. Sure, his limited in his choices, but if you're going for the tank fighter, no big deal. How many fighters do you know that do not take weapon specialization at 4th lvl?

Actually, I know a lot of fighters without weapon specialisation. Most of the fighters I play, as an example. Simply for the fact that I don´t like to be focused on a single weapon - you never know what the DM treasure table will give you next, and you can´t always count on improving your favourite weapon or buying exactly what you want. And, even worse: Weapon Focus/Specialisation doesn´t get you any additional combat options, and without them, playing a fighter is boring in the long run - at least to me, and members in my group will agree...
And this might in fact be what makes the Warmain similar in power to a Fighter - the fighter can sunder, disarm, and trip at higher levels quite decently, while the Warmain just has options to do more damage and do one of the afromentioned actions.

 

[Dagger75]

Tried it agian, took the suggestions using fireburst and what not. Nope didn't work I rolled crappy damage and had no fun. I am finished with AE.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I blew 50 bucks on AE, and I was not impressed. Too much weird stuff for me. I prefer ellves to cat people and fighters to warmains. I ended up trading mine in for HARP, which I may not play either, but at least I could actually see myself playing at some point.

Note: I'm not bashing AE, if that's your kind of game, fine, it just ain't mine.

 

[Ashanderai]

Wow, I am surprised to find this thread after the first book having been out for so long now - just goes to show how word doesn't get to everyone right away, even in todays day and age.

I am a big supporter of AU/AE; I'm even writing a supplement for it. But, I can see how some folks just don't get it or prefer elves, dwarves, fighters, and wizards over the material in AE. It is a different flavor of fantasy RPG; one that I think has been a long time in coming. Their taste buds are just different. So, yes, I can see that attitude in people and I can respect it, just don't expect me to understand it - I prefer the AE flavor. Most folks like chocolate. I happen to get nauseated if I eat more than a couple bites of chocolate; always have. So I don't care for chocolate. Around my work place that's sacrelege. I guess I'm rampling... What was my point?

Oh, yeah. Opinions are cool. It is also cool to just respect the opinions of others and don't knock something till you try it.

To address the original post in this thread, I have been running several mini-campaigns and demos over the last couple of years for AE. My current and longest running will end this coming weekend - I have been running an early playtest campaign for my book and we have been having a lot of fun with it, but it is not the standard AE/diamond throne game. This book is for an oriental game for the AE rules (Check the link below for details).