Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

What's your point?

Please see edited post for a more thorough analysis. Basically my point is that the differences ARE significant. Higher level, unavoidable repurcussions, fewer combat solutions.

Monte never said healing, raising , etc. were gone, he just said they were harder to come by. And if you read carefully, this will be evident.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dinkeldog said:
Other than that, I find many of the arguments here superficial. Art, raising the dead (like that's always not been in the DM's purview)

That's not superficial, you're just poo-pooing. "DM's purview" aside, Monte said the system will be one in which characters can should not take being raised for granted. That is not the case in AU. Characters can get raised, and if nobody in the party has the spell, they can purchase it somewhere. It may not be for sale in a nearby town, but they have plenty of time to get to Ptolus or whatever the campaign's metropolis is.

For me, Monte's design diary comments were a big selling point. They may not matter to you, but that doesn't make them superficial.

You may well be right; some people will go to lengths to defend the system even when someone's a blatant case of false advertising.

But as to casually dismissing complaints about AU as people finding reasons to dislike, you are certainly incorrect in my case. I have been emailing my friends excerpts from Monte's design diary. I have been counting the days waiting for the book's release. I almost begged the guy at the FLGS to hold the last copy for me. And in fact, I do like the book on the whole--I went and bought the value pack after buying the book. I will buy The Diamond Throne when it comes out. The classes alone make the book worthwhile, not to mention generally good design in the areas of feats, spells, and spell templates.

But there are definitely areas of disappointment, and this is the one I'm genuinely upset about, because it's just flat-out not the way the product was described.
 
Last edited:

Truenames are another big limiter. If a character chooses to be unbound, then they will be significantly harder to bring back. And cannot be brought back permanently.

How hard did you expect it to be. How rare? Monte did not specify. He was general. He said harder, and it is harder. The level are which characters will be doing these things will be significantly higher. An since the level of the spells is higher there will be fewer caster available to cast it. Price is a concern, but if there is no one around that CAN cast the spell. The characte is out of luck.

How many 13th level NPC casters are in your campaign? One? A few? A dozen? Hundreds? A thousand? Apart from the money, the level loss, the con loss, this is the next big limiter.

In a typical DnD campaign it takes only a 9th level caster to effect a raise dead. There a many (an order of magnitude at least) more 9th level characters in a given DnD world. Significantly so. So by this alone the "significantly harder" value holds true.
 
Last edited:

Re: Re: Re: Re: From his wife...

Negative Zero said:

you really ought to read more :p (j/k)

Iron_Chef:
the more you write, the more it looks like you're opposed to the marketing of the product rather than the actual product itself. most of what you complain about has to do with personal taste, and speak nothing of the actual quality of the content. now if this is not the case, feel free to point out where i'm wrong, but based on what you've written, this is what it really seems like.

~NegZ

No, the last post was in response to someone else insisting I was wrong for lambasting the book's look. The fact that I dislike the look of the book intensely is not my sole reason for not liking it overall.

I don't consider Greyhawk to be truly integrated in any meaningful way into the D&D core rules as the default setting, so my complaint with AU is that Diamond Throne is TOO integrated into AU. If the DT setting were even remotely interesting or original, I might feel differently about its presence... AU becomes less useful to a larger number of gamers because of its close connection to the dreadful DT setting. It is not easily ported over to D&D worlds such as Greyhawk, FR, DL, PS, DS, RL or whatever. This is a monumental mistake on Monte's part, as he is aliennating a significant number of customers who wanted it solely to mine for their D&D game.

DT is a bad setting because it relegates humanity to the background, under the shadow of the giants. This is even worse than the Midnight setting, where all "good" people are relegated to the status of fugitives and saboteurs. To make a truly great game setting, humanity must be in the forefront, and there must be options for different types of people, religions and governments to clash against each other. Playing in a world where the battle has already been won or lost is not only boring, but an exercise in sheer frustration for the players, unless they are on the winning side. Doubtless fans of Midnight and DT will disagree.

The races are in AU just for the sake of being "different," even though they are hardly original... they are just not races presented in the PHB. Nobody in their right mind would lose their humanity to become an asexual bipedal dragonoid capable of giving birth to a whopping three asexual kobolds, especially given the fact that pretty much everybody in the DT setting hates dragonoids. "Let's see... I'm giving up sexual gratification, gender identity, racial identity and everybody hates me and wants to kill me? Yeah, that's a groovy trade-off. Where do I sign up?" The Mohj were poorly thought-out as a "race" and make for a ludicrous PC choice. Don't get me started on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle type furry races, or the faeries... :mad:

AU has some good ideas, but it is NOT a shining example of good game design, setting design or presentation. I will steal what I can from it, but I feel cheated by the book's content and design, and will dispose of it at the first opportunity.

In short, Monte has taken a huge gamble with AU/DT and I believe he has failed (not spectacularly, just failed), and he has damaged his credibility as a game designer and publisher, at least to me... not irreparably, but it is quite tarnished as a result of this book.

My complaints go on, but this post doesn't. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From his wife...

wow ... um ... i think i disagree with you a lot more now than i did before.

Iron_Chef said:
... Diamond Throne is TOO integrated into AU. ...
how so? there are a few mentions of racial relationships in the races chapter. how does any of this prevent any self-respecting GM from not using those few paragraphs if he doesn't like them? he simply vigourously waves his GM-arms about, points and says: "hey, ... i'm not using that" (he can even leave out the arm waving bit) where else does the implied setting creep in?

... AU becomes less useful to a larger number of gamers because of its close connection to the dreadful DT setting ...
see above for my issue with this "close connection" that you speak of. as for the "dreadful setting" bit, that seems a bit harsh, especially when one considers that the setting hasn't even been released yet.

... It is not easily ported over to D&D worlds ...
now why would anyone port over a "setting" to an existing campaign world? for the most part, you don't. you port over aspects of it; the races, the classes and so on. unless of course you plop it into a previously undiscovered country, in which case, where's the problem?

... This is a monumental mistake on Monte's part, as he is aliennating a significant number of customers who wanted it solely to mine for their D&D game. ...
sorry, i don't see it. your comment seems to imply that because of the hideous [your opinion, which i disagree with] setting that is inseperable [again, your opinion, which i disagree with] from the rest of the game, nothing else can be used. that is just flat out, not true.

... DT is a bad setting because it relegates humanity to the background, under the shadow of the giants. ... To make a truly great game setting, humanity must be in the forefront ...
if only one type of game appeals to you, then so be it. but you shouldn't assume that the same holds true for the rest of the world. i personally see nothing wrong with a world where humans are relegated to the background. lots of people like to root for the underdog. besides, once again, it is very easy to simply change this to suit your world/game if you don't like it. (with or without vigourous arm waving)

... Playing in a world where the battle has already been won or lost is not only boring, but an exercise in sheer frustration for the players ...
... only if the GM is lacking in imagination.

... The races are in AU just for the sake of being "different," ...
gotta disagree with you here too. but this is a taste issue, and i suspect we will never agree. but you probably shouldn't go around making absolute statements that are only based on your feeling and personal taste about something. your tone (and yes, i admit that it could just be the way i'm interpreting it) sounds like you're trying to convince others to not buy the product because it didn't suit your tastes. i don't think that's cool at all.

... Nobody in their right mind would lose their humanity to become an asexual bipedal dragonoid ...
there are a lot of things that happen in a fantasy world that "nobody in their right mind" would do. for that matter, there are a lot of things in the real world that would fall into this category as well. very few people only do what's right/sensible/logical all the time. just ask anyone who's ever been in love. (and before you pull a Maraxle-dock-worker on me, it's just an example!) therefore, that statement really isn't a justifiable reason. for that matter, a lot of people could very likely say that nobody in their right mind would play RPGs; they'd get ridiciuled and alienated, and who wants that. but clearly, a lot of people do.

... Don't get me started on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle type furry races, or the faeries ...
once again your personal taste, and not an example of flawed game design.


so, to summarize,
  • you don't like the setting and the way it's so closely tied into the book ... even tho, the setting book isn't out yet and it only appears in a few paragraphs in one chapter.
  • humans aren't the "main race" ... deffinitely a taste issue
  • the races are lackluster ... that's fair, i wasn't blown away by them either, but does that make them "bad" or even more appropriate to this discussion, that doesn't make the book bad.

all of the above are issues of personal taste. which is what i said to begin with.

~NegZ

[EDIT]
edited for minor formatting changes only.
 
Last edited:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From his wife...

Iron_Chef said:
DT is a bad setting because it relegates humanity to the background, under the shadow of the giants. This is even worse than the Midnight setting, where all "good" people are relegated to the status of fugitives and saboteurs. To make a truly great game setting, humanity must be in the forefront, and there must be options for different types of people, religions and governments to clash against each other. Playing in a world where the battle has already been won or lost is not only boring, but an exercise in sheer frustration for the players, unless they are on the winning side. Doubtless fans of Midnight and DT will disagree.

Isn't the point of Midnight (I haven't played) that the battle was lost, but that you are the people that are going to fight it again?

As for the DT setting, I can see plenty of options for different types of people, religions, and governments to clash against each other. Just because one battle is over does not mean that all of them are. Let's look...hmm. "Some humans resent the ginat's rulership of their land. This minority seeks to stir dissent and eventually drive the giants back to their homeland across the sea." Page 12, the first page with anything really setting-related, and there's already potential conflict.

Iron_Chef said:

The races are in AU just for the sake of being "different," even though they are hardly original... they are just not races presented in the PHB.

Forgive me for saying this, but..."duh". The classes arent "original" either - the whole point of AU was to work with fantasy archetypes without the accumulated baggage of 'this is how D&D did it before'. Of course they're not original, they're archetypical.

And even if you don't like the implied setting, you can yank it out as easily as the implied setting in the PHB. If you don't like the races you could use elves and dwarves. Monte didn't need to put elves and dwarves in, and if he had people would have bitched that he was reprinting stuff.

What about the classes? The new magic system? Even if you don't like the races and the setting leaves you cold, those are damn good bits. You could excise the wizards and sorcerers and clerics and druids from a FR game and replace them with magisters and greenbonds and runethanes and witches. You could ditch fighters and use unfettered and warmains, but keep paladins and rangers and bards (or use the alt.bard from BoEM2 for that matter. You don't have to use the DT setting, any more than you'd have to use (say) the Sovereign Stone setting to use the archer class.

It's not that your opinion is wrong, BTW - it's just that the way you're expressing it does not seem to be getting to the core of why you don't like AU.

J
 

I already said I liked the classes and feats in my first post. The magic system I'm not sure about, though individual spells can always be lifted as needed. The book just looks so damn sucky that I haven't bothered to pick it up again to reread the magic section (or any other). It's like *work* trying to read it. Nothing stands out off the page except the bad art and layout that hurts my eyes. This is a very bad thing. :( I want to read it and like it, but it is so awfully bland looking that I get sleepy just thinking about picking it up! zzzzzzzzzzzzz
 

volcivar said:
Truenames are another big limiter. If a character chooses to be unbound, then they will be significantly harder to bring back. And cannot be brought back permanently.

That's true, and I will have to see how that plays out to see if it's meaningful (everyone may just decide the drawbacks to being unbound totally outweighs the advantages, rendering the distinction meaningless). Never let it be said I don't give people their due for raising good points. ;)

How hard did you expect it to be. How rare? Monte did not specify. He was general. He said harder, and it is harder. The level are which characters will be doing these things will be significantly higher.

Monte said that people should die, and that if people never die the feeling of accomplishment for success diminishes right along with the consequences for failure. He's even said it's just outright weird to have a campaign where death is just a speed bump. Volcivar, it's like you skipped right over all of that to focus on the part where he said it could still be done. That last bit isn't some loophole that gives him an out on all of the stuff he said before it. Based on his statements as a whole, I don't think anything I've said (or go on to say below) is based on unreasonable expectations. If raising the dead just amounts to a spell--even one that requires higher levels and more costly components or even a Con point--then this does not bear out Monte's assertions. People still come back from the dead all the time even at lower levels (see below), and that's still weird.

How hard do I think it shoud be? Well, if we're talking solely about my opinion, and not speculating on Monte's designs, then here we go: magical defribulation is OK, but once the body has grown cold and stiff, or the head has become detached, or there's nothing left but a pile of ashes, and so on--well, you've got a serious problem. Fixing it should genuinely fall under the "DM's purview" Dinkledog alluded to. It should not just be inconvenient, it should be like unto a quest. It should require special permission from the powers that be, and should not become an everyday event for even high-level adventurers. Perhaps something more akin to the Incantations in the ELH and Urban Arcana, where characters are facing grave difficulties in raising characters, dire consequences for failing to use the proper magicks, and in the end there's no guarantee that it all pans out.

Maybe those desires are too lofty, but at the very least some conditions should be attached to resurrection that follow Monte's "give the power to the DM" philosophy. Not just scratching off some daily uses of spells and expending some treasure. I don't see where there's much room for DM's purview in that situation, other than whiting out pages on the rulebook he paid $30 for.

And it sure as heck should not be so easy that you can buy the spell off the rack. That represents a total cop-out on making death and other permanent injuries more than an incovenience. Dolcivar, did you notice that the "spells-for-hire" section makes buying high-level spells incredibly cheap? One would think, following the same arguement you use below, that the increasing rarity of higher-level casters would cause an exponential increase in costs, but in AU it's linear. Buying a 9th-level spell costs a mere 1530gp (somebody wanna check my math on that..?). That's not hard for even lowbies to scrape together. And here I figured it should require a quest. How nutty was that? :)

An since the level of the spells is higher there will be fewer caster available to cast it. Price is a concern, but if there is no one around that CAN cast the spell. The characte is out of luck.

Why can't you just keep the body in packed salt until you can get to Ptolus or wherever and buy that high-level spell? You do have months, after all. At worst, the only real deadline is that the player may became impatient and go ahead and roll up a new character lol.

How many 13th level NPC casters are in your campaign? One? A few? A dozen? Hundreds? A thousand? Apart from the money, the level loss, the con loss, this is the next big limiter.

I used the Banewarrens to kick off my campaign, so Ptolus is known to my PC's. 13th-level casters aren't too hard to find, and magic shops that sell scrolls aren't either. I suspect that when The Diamond Throne comes out, you will find those 13th-level casters and magic shops won't be rare at all. Monte definitely has a fondness for spellpunk fantasy, where magic is as common in his world as technology is in ours. Again, remember that spell-purchasing has a linear cost, not an exponential one. 1530gp. Doesn't sound like it's meant to be all that rare. I still haven't heard any explanation as to why the peg-legged captain can't get that leg regenned for a couple thousand gold (less actually).

In a typical DnD campaign it takes only a 9th level caster to effect a raise dead. There a many (an order of magnitude at least) more 9th level characters in a given DnD world. Significantly so. So by this alone the "significantly harder" value holds true.

I don't follow. Why are there a magnitude more casters in D&D than AU?

At any rate, I'm afraid this particular discussion is destined to go nowhere. To me, It seems irrefutably clear that at the very least Monte overstated the impact that death and disfigurement will have in AU, because he certainly expressed that they should represent more than temporary inconveniences. Yet, sure enough, others refute that's what he said, even though I provided the #@%$ direct quote. :mad: Maddening! While I can live with other people disagreeing with me (happens all the time), there's nowhere for a discussion to go if we can't at least agree on the empirical evidence that's right in front of us.

Playing AU as its written, the tragic demises and acts of heroic self-sacrifice that we read about in fiction and see in movies will come to pass about as often as they do in vanilla D&D--which will be pretty much never unless the DM really guns for it (as it generally requires soul-annihlating magic). Bottom line: if you want to come back from the dead in AU, it can be accomplished in a routine manner.
 
Last edited:


Sure, people do the rule-zero white-out treatment with the PHB's spell list, so no doubt it can be done here. But paring away parts of AU doesn't offer me new options, and it doesn't alleviate my disappointment and frustration with Monte for not making good on "things magic won't take away in AU". ;)
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top