Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[BryonD]

I don't see how any of that can't be pulled out, though, just like you could easily remove, say, the dwarf/elf antagonism. Especially if you're not using the default setting, you're going to have to rethink the racial relations anyway.

Then we disagree. I do not see the dwarf/elf antagonism as being as built into the system as various racial relations in AU are.

Sort of like the D&D Vancian magic system, eh? Another system with presumptions about magic that clash with just about any existing fantasy setting. The only reason the akashic record doesn't seem to fit is because it wasn't a default assumption at the beginning of the game. Maybe you're lucky like Piratecat and going to play the same campaign for 10 years, but most people restart with new games after a while...

Pointing out that the D&D system may not fit with other systems is irrelevant. If D&D was advertised as compatible with some other system and the Vancian system disutped that, then the claim would not be correct. Which is my point regarding AU and how it was advertised.

But anyway, I don't see how the akashic record concept would clash with most settings - not when you've got spells like tongues, find the path and legend lore. Spells like that could have been developed (perhaps unknowingly) to tap into the record. You could even make Tenser's transformation such a spell, calling on the memories of great warriors of the past.

The Akashics themselves could be an isolated sect/temple/monastery somewhere in the Flanaess or Faerun - living in the archetypical secluded mountain valley, keeping apart from the world. Maybe they even use some kind of akashic effect to keep the memory of their existence out of the record so that they are not easily found.

So, now we've got a deeper explanation for some spells (better than "uh, it's magic"), we've got a new location to explain our character class, and we've got some plot hooks - why did this monastery choose now to send people out into the world? Or do they know about this akashic-trained person who has left? Has he been sent out to learn? Did he escape? And I can't believe that such a scenario wouldn't fit into most "standard" D&D worlds.

If I found the akashic worth any of this, then perhaps I would go to that.

I don't.

I don't see how confining the effects of magic is a net plus.

Actually, I said that it could replace or it could exist side by side. I wasn't "mandating" anything.

I understood that. I was simply ruling out one of those options.

The magic system was designed to be an alternate system. There's no way to do an 'alternate system' yet have it be the same as the existing system (or if you did, it would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?).

Other books have done this - Sovereign Stone and Midnight come to mind, as does Elements of Magic and almost the entirely of the Mongoose Encyclopedia Arcane series. Are they not "compatible" with D&D because they have a different magic system? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. They might not be compatible with a specific campaign - but 100% compatability with your specific campaign is not what was promised (and even the core rules don't deliver that.)

What would a variant magic system have to do to be "compatible" in your view? Or is that just an impossibility?

To be compatible it would need to work side by side with the standard system without overshadowing players that choose to use the standard system. I expected that from AU and feel that I clearly did not get it.

I clearly stated this already. So I do not know if you did not pay enough attention or you are ignoring what I said.

Oh, come now - I can't think of a single product from any publisher that didn't have some "debatable balance points". By that line of thinking we should be debating the "total compatability" of Savage Species, the ELH, and half the stuff in the splatbooks.

Swallowing camels and choking on gnats.

I find certain issues in AU, particularly the magic system, to be markedly out of balance.

I felt safe assuming that a Monte Cook product would be better balanced than the Ninja of the Cresent Moon.

 

[volcivar]

total compatibility

...total compatibility

Nobody said anything about total compatibility.

This keeps coming up and is extremely irksome.

"Is compatible with"

and

"totaly compatible"

are NOT the same.

It seems to me that some of the complaints coming out about AU simply stem from a lack of english comprehension and a tendency to read more into someone's comments than is meant to be there.

 

[Mallus]

The *rules* are eminently divorceable from the setting presumptions, if you so choose.

Exactly. Or put another way, any given set of game mechanics can be adapted/rationalized/shoe-horned into a specfic setting in a way that jives with that settings underlying assumptions/flavor/cosmology. Provided that the DM finds the game mechanics justify the effort.

In my homebrew, the Akashic class is going to be used to a range of characters from adventurer scholars to traditonal bards and rogues. I might lose the whole 'delve into collective memory' thing [replacing it w/some bonus feats], or chalk it up to latent psionics, or ancestral spirits like Ezrael suggested. Maybe I'll create an order monks who are Akashics as the book describes them, only 'cause I find the concept so cool.

I'm going to use Mageblade for most of the combat-capable cleric orders. Most casting centered priests will be Magisters, w/the staves replaced by holy symbols. Runethanes will become Alchemists... you get the idea.

Its far easier for me to alter the setting-specfic flavor stuff from AU than to retool all the 3.0/3.5E core mechanics I'm dissatisfied with. That's why I find AU to be valuable.

Semi-related question: Has there been a paradigm-shift in gaming? It was my impression that most gamers kludged together their settings/systems from an array of house rules, published products, TV/book/film inspirations/adaptations, etc. The kind of work required to adapt and personalize AU to ones own chosen setting was once par for the course. How many gamers out there really demand "plug and play" from the material they buy.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Originally posted by BryonD
Then we disagree. I do not see the dwarf/elf antagonism as being as built into the system as various racial relations in AU are.

Where in the stat block does it say that, for example, the Sebbecai must have been created by giants? There is nothing in the mechanics which seems blatantly incompatible with D&D. This is entirely a flavor issue. You could just as easily use the exact same mechanics and say they were developed by natural selection, or are the descendents of Anubis' personal guard, who liked to sneak down to Earth for a quickie with mortal women. Why is this different than, for example, making gnomes in your world the result of an ancient dalliance between dwarves and fairies? Or making halflings into crazed, desert-dwelling barbarians?

Why is changing the underlying flavor assumptions of the WotC PHB somehow easier than changing the underlying flavor assumptions of AU?

It's not. It's a matter of personal preference. If you don't find the Sebbecai, for example, interesting enough to alter their backstory in order to fit your world (in the same way you might have done for gnomes, dwarves, or halflings), then that is the result of your personal preference and not necessarily a reflection of a lack of quality in the book.

Same thing with the classes. A number of reasonable suggestions have been put forward for the Akashic mechanics to fit into a world without breaking the existing cosmology. At worst, it would be a minor "behind the scenes" (or maybe "behind the screen") change which would be completely invisible to players unless they really chose to look into it. And in a world where a geas can be forced upon someone, who's to say that some diety or power wouldn't be impressed enough with someone who voluntarily took on a oath to give them the powers of an Oathsworn? It's never happened before? OK. Simple answer: someone just figured out how to draw sufficient power and attention to himself to pull it off. Evil necromancers are always figuring out new ways to empower themselves or bring about the apocalypse. Why can't someone else figure out a way to harness a previously untapped power to some other end? And maybe a diety of death got sick and tired of LG dieties having the lock on champions of faith in the form of paladins and decided to empower a few Champions of Death. That's a campaign right there, actually. Heck, all of the classes seem a LOT easier to fit into vanilla D&D than psionics, IMO.

 

[drnuncheon]

Then we disagree. I do not see the dwarf/elf antagonism as being as built into the system as various racial relations in AU are.

But the racial relations aren't built into the system at all. It's not like there's a piece of the racial description saying "giants get +2 to all social skills when dealing with Sibbecai".

Heck, there's a lot more 'racial relations' built into the PHB races. Dwarves and their bonuses vs. orcs and goblinoids, for instance - there's none of that in AU.

If I found the akashic worth any of this, then perhaps I would go to that.

I don't.

I don't see how confining the effects of magic is a net plus.

I don't see how it's "confining the effects of magic", since it's not altering the effects of magic one bit.

And the fact that you don't like the akashic is not a measure of its compatability, which is what you were trying to imply.

To be compatible it would need to work side by side with the standard system without overshadowing players that choose to use the standard system. I expected that from AU and feel that I clearly did not get it.

I think it's too early (unless maybe you were a playtester) to tell whether an AU magister would overshadow a wizard in terms of power. There's too many subtle changes - things like many classic favorite spells (mage armor, disintegrate) being exotic so that not everyone will have them, less powerful high-end spells (especially on the 'blaster' end of things - no equivalent of horrid wilting, chain lightning, or meteor swarm), etc.

I think that in many instances (mostly dealing with direct damage) the D&D wizard would outshine the magister.

J

 

[Plane Sailing]

Same goes for disfigurement: I genuinely thought that characters would come to face their own limitations and mortality through a lasting scar or even a more debilitating effect. That's certainly what I took from Monte's remarks on the subject.

I really like the hero point suggestion Monte uses for this - the "use a hero point to avoid death and get a disfigurement instead".

That strikes me as a reasonable way to bring disfigurement or wounds into a hp based game which almost by definition doesn't care where your wounds are.

Cheers

 

[BryonD]

But the racial relations aren't built into the system at all. It's not like there's a piece of the racial description saying "giants get +2 to all social skills when dealing with Sibbecai".

Forcing an absurd example onto my issue does not invalidate it.

I find the (for example) human - Mojh, Giant - sibbecai, verak - everybody relationships to be clearly apparent and tied to certain mechanics. I'm really not interested in going through a point by point debate. But as a single example off the top of my head, one of the Council of Magisters was praising the Wis progression of giants as helping define their nature. Is this one thing reason to be displeased? Of course not. But as I read the book I felt constantly nagged by this type thing. Little thing after little thing that permeates the tone of the game.

Heck, there's a lot more 'racial relations' built into the PHB races. Dwarves and their bonuses vs. orcs and goblinoids, for instance - there's none of that in AU.

OK, well if a +1 to hit against a non player race makes the point in your mind, more power to you.

I don't see how it's "confining the effects of magic", since it's not altering the effects of magic one bit.

"Effects" was a poor choice of word on my part. You were praising a explanation of various spells potentially provided by Akashics as being better than "it is just magic". I disagree that this is better. Though, really, this is simply an example you created. I don't claim that this in itself makes AU any worse. Just that your example does not mitigate the problems I see.

And the fact that you don't like the akashic is not a measure of its compatability, which is what you were trying to imply.

If you just want to try to get a rise out of me by turing my reply to one of your comments into a basis of my overall position, then let's just drop the discussion.

I actually think the akashic is an ok class in and of itself. But, in my existing game I don't NEED it. It would not add anything to my game that would justify adapting the concept in to it. I own all of the other Malhavok supplements (I think, off hand). I do not recall a single occasion where re-defining the nature of a rather standard setting has been required to use any of it.

Again, this is a specific thing. Does this one thing ruin AU for me? Of course not. But it is in the steady cadence of build your game around AU that I found.

I think it's too early (unless maybe you were a playtester) to tell whether an AU magister would overshadow a wizard in terms of power. There's too many subtle changes - things like many classic favorite spells (mage armor, disintegrate) being exotic so that not everyone will have them, less powerful high-end spells (especially on the 'blaster' end of things - no equivalent of horrid wilting, chain lightning, or meteor swarm), etc.

I think that in many instances (mostly dealing with direct damage) the D&D wizard would outshine the magister.

I disagree.

Like I said before, before AU came out the understanding was that a magister should use the AU system to be balanced with wizards. Then people start posting examples of how magisters blow wizards away (including direct damage). So then suddenly the point starting being made that it is unfair to compare wizards and magisters unless they use the same magic system. Why is that, unless the systems are not really compatible? If the spin prior to release was accurate, why was it reversed after release?

So, bottom line, you can debate and dispute this tiny detail or that one. Some things I find to be sufficently un-balanced as to meet MY standard of non-compatible. Other things I find to impose themselves upon the setting sufficiently that they again meet MY standard on non-compatible.

 

[Negative Zero]

pay attention and learn to admit when you're wrong!

DISCLAIMER:
most of what follows will just be me ranting, so be guided accordingly.

i agree with volcivar when he says that it is extremely annoying when people blatantly disregard comments and then turn around and make thier point based on a previously disproven issue. it's as if they just ignore the fact that what they're complaining about really isn't an issue, or that they've misunderstood, or that they developed misguided expectations.

what's the big deal with admitting that you were wrong?

someone quoted Monte where all he said was essentially, "i'll make ressurection harder" and then went on to complain that it's not hard enough. it's real simple: is it harder? if the answer is yes, then he not only accomplished what he set out to do, but he also lived up to his promises.

if all Monte did was made all the Raise/Res spells one level higher, then he would have lived up to his claim. as it is, he's done a hell of a lot more than that! so what the hell is there for you to complain about? that he didn't live up to your expectations? he never said that he would. as it is, he only has to live up to his expectations.

what makes you think that you're so important that he must satisfy you? you're one person, and as much as you (or i) may like to think differently, you (or i) are not all that important. the majority, on the other hand, is. one person, is not a majority. sure it's not fun being in the minnority, but sometimes, that's life. deal. blaming someone who really has no obligation to care about you, just makes you sound childish and spoilt.

now, if what you wanted to do was rant, then you should have labled it as such. if what you wanted to do was simply express your opinion, then you should be more careful how you word your statements so they don't sound like accusations. even so, when you make even a statement, and you're in the minority, you kinda have to expect a lot of opposition.

as for the whole compatability issue, i suspect that the two opposing views on this will never see eye to eye. however, i still maintain that with even a modicum of creativity, there is no (lack of) compatibility issue.

in any event, this meandered over a lot of things that i really didn't mean to talk about or say, but i'm like that, i guess. all i really wanted to say is: it's very annoying when you/your statements get ignored.

~NegZ

(for someone who doesn't like to write, i sure do a lot of it! weird!)

 

[Tsyr]

Forcing an absurd example onto my issue does not invalidate it.

I find the (for example) human - Mojh, Giant - sibbecai, verak - everybody relationships to be clearly apparent and tied to certain mechanics. I'm really not interested in going through a point by point debate. But as a single example off the top of my head, one of the Council of Magisters was praising the Wis progression of giants as helping define their nature. Is this one thing reason to be displeased? Of course not. But as I read the book I felt constantly nagged by this type thing. Little thing after little thing that permeates the tone of the game.



OK, well if a +1 to hit against a non player race makes the point in your mind, more power to you.

You aren't making any sense.

Your complaining that the races are too interconnected... And you hold up one race getting a wis bonus (??) as a mechanical example of that... But treat a bonus towards killing another race as an "Ok, well, if so, more power to you" thing?

You say they are clearly tied to certain mechanics. Show me one. Not all of them. Just show me one. A wisdom bonus is not a mechanic relating to their relation with other races.

 

[BryonD]

You aren't making any sense.

Your complaining that the races are too interconnected... And you hold up one race getting a wis bonus (??) as a mechanical example of that... But treat a bonus towards killing another race as an "Ok, well, if so, more power to you" thing?

You say they are clearly tied to certain mechanics. Show me one. Not all of them. Just show me one. A wisdom bonus is not a mechanic relating to their relation with other races.

I am trying to avoid a point by point dissection of AU.

As I have stated over and over, it is the sum total of elements that made me decide I did not like the product.

There was no point in reading the book that I went, "This sucks" and put the book away. I read the book and had mutliple times throughout when I thought, "hmmm, I don't care for the way that would work" or "I don't want to bother with that in my D&D game." Then I tried working on some characters and stuff and only enhanced my perception. Up until that point I actually was still trying to find what it was I was missing. Then I went back to Monte's boards to try to find answers, still hoping someone would show me. Instead I found AU defender's changing their tune and making excuses. So it is an accumulation of things. I have no intention of going point by point, particularly when quite a few of the topics have been covered in detail already.

If you don't agree, fine. I am mildly amused that so many people are offended that I dare have an opinion that does not match theirs.

I am HIGHLY amused that a few people think making my personal judgements based on MY PERSONAL preferences is bad. Apparently I am supposed to take a poll to find out what the majority like and then agree with that.

Just for completeness, I'll point out that your re-phrase of my quote dramatically changes its point.
I did not hold up the WIS bonus as an example. I held up that a Council of Magisters guys held up this mechanic as a means of nudging the race towards a particular role in the game as an example of racial realtions reflected in mechanics. That is vastly different than just saying, "Hey, they have a WIS bonus, that is bad."

So, yes, I think that a strongly implied understanding that the various standard player character races interact socially with each other in a stereo-typical manner is, to some finite extent, more significant than a combat perk against a group of mook class non-player races.