Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[KenM]

After looking at AU more, some more thoughts:

CON- With the new classes, it says how the races in AU usally react/ act as the class. It would have been nice if Monte put in how the regular PH races do this as well. It seems to me that AU is just one big alternate setting. It was not marketed as one, IMO. AU was promoted as an alternate PH. I see that and I think it has things I can take and things I leave in my own game.

 

[Bagpuss]

Alternate being the noun of alternative implies to me that you use that instead of the other.

The generally excepted meaning of alternative is that you have two (or more options) of which only one is possible.

Actually if it was marketed at as an Alternative PHB then really there should be no complaints at all, since an alternate PHB would indicate you are not ment to use the infromation in it with anything in the existing D&D player's handbook.

But its cover says its "A Variant Player's Handbook", variant implies only a slight deviation from the standard, which I'ld say is true it still has more in common with the existing player's handbook than say Mutant's and Masterminds one of the few other OGL non-D20 product, based of the SRD. You can use most of the stuff in AU with little or no modification in D&D, and visa versa. The only tricky bits really are the spellcasters, due to the difference in the magic system.

 

[RobNJ]

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

Just about everything you've said amounts to, "I don't like it, so it's bad, and everyone hates it." That was the point of my first post on this thread, to illuminate this sickness in your part of the discussion.

AU becomes less useful to a larger number of gamers because of its close connection to the dreadful DT setting.

Bullcrap. You don't like the setting, that doesn't mean a large number of gamers don't.

DT is a bad setting because it relegates humanity to the background, under the shadow of the giants.

It's not a bad setting because of that. It's a setting you don't like because of that. That doesn't make it bad. Your opinions aren't objective reality. Quit acting like they are.

By the way, your feelings and opinions on this matter are wrong. Humanocetricism is not necessary to have a good setting.

To make a truly great game setting, humanity must be in the forefront,

Do you mind if I borrow elements from your post for the racist Humanist movement in my campaign?

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.

Nothing in the Arcana Unearthed book requires that anything above not be true.

And you're wrong. Those things aren't necessary to have a good world. They may be necessary to have a world you like, but they are not necessary to have an objectively good world. Quit thinking your preferences are absolute received wisdom.

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,

If you weren't so closeminded you'd see the story-value in that. What would make someone do that? A megalomanical need for power? A need to feel more strongly connected to something ancient and powerful? True insanity?

I'd suggest that your readings of history are pretty limited if you think people wouldn't self-stigmatize and give up sexual pleasure for causes they think are profound.

especially given the fact that pretty much everybody in the DT setting hates dragonoids.

Please indicate where in AU it states this objectively? Nowhere? Thanks, move along.

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.

Fortunately, you don't matter. Because the sales on this book have been overwhelming.

 

[RobNJ]

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".

I want to be harsher with death, too, but with what Monte has done, it's much easier to exise the death-defying spells. There are fewer of them, and they're more rarified, and everyone has the same spell lists so we're not unfairly slanting things to one or another class by taking them out.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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".

Out of interest, do you think it is easier for DM's to remove stuff they don't want to use, or invent new stuff which they do want?

In the case of the raise dead spells I'm sure that it is easier to say "campaign setting rule, no raise dead" than it would have been to invent some raise dead rules yourself (even to the extent of simple porting of D&D raise dead spells).

n.b. when I used to run Empire of the Petal Throne we had really *brutal* raise dead spells. The target comes back to life, the caster of the spell dies (maintaining cosmic harmony). Raising the dead became an issue of self-sacrifice and only kings could demand it of their priests!

Cheers

 

[Staffan]

Dolcivar, did you notice that the "spells-for-hire" section makes buying high-level spells incredibly cheap?

I only have the PDFs which don't mention said spells-for-hire section, but from the looks of it it is exactly the same as in the D&D PHB: Caster level*Spell Level*10, plus extra expenses like material components and XP.

 

[Aulayan]

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

To make a truly great game setting, humanity must be in the forefront,

This reminds me of the chief 1930s sci fi magazine editor who said that science fiction was only good if Humans had the supreme technology. This is a taste issue.

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.

Why would someone become a stinking undead being when everyone hates stinking undead beings? Yet in fantasy worlds people become liches all the time.

What you get out of being a Mojh, spell like abilities and a very very long life span. People do crazy things in search of living longer. Turning into an asexual bipedal dragonoid would definitely be one of them.

Don't get me started on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle type furry races, or the faeries...

Again, taste issue. If you had to come up with new fantasy races what would you do? There's only so much, and unless you go really weird or Human with Bump on head, you pretty much have to go into anthros. Unless you want 87 more kinds of elves.

This is the first thing of Montes I ended up buying. Partially because it came out when I actually had a job. And I'm pretty pleased with it. There are a few things I don't like, or agree with, but overall I'm pleased.

 

[RobNJ]

The complaints about this remind me of a problem I have with the human race in general, and intenet "fans" in particular. There seems to be this rising expectation that producers of entertainment products (or goods and services in general) are able to tailor a product to one's exact expectations. People seem to have lost the understanding that entertainment is broadcasted, not individuocasted. They work themselves into a towering Jesus-based rage when a handful of things in a book are not useful to them, instead of just saying, "I didn't find this part useful, but I see why it's in there, a lot of people like this sort of thing."

If, on balance, there's less stuff in there that you like than there is that you don't, maybe it's not worth it to you (depending on how much money and inclination to spend you have), but far too many people expect that everything has been produced for them, specifically, and if any small element is not to their liking, then it's a failure, rather than taking into account that there are other people out there consuming these things.

 

[Desdichado]

Good point, RobNJ.

 

[Godzilla]

Personally, I really like Arcana Unearthed. The magic system is genius. The classes are cool. Races are fuctional. Layout and organization of the book is great. The tweeks to several skills like tumble are WONDERFUL. Artwork is good save for the one artist (the one who likes black undefined images).


My only con is I wish there was more setting info but heck it's a Players handbook not a setting book.