Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[Felon]

Are D&D/D20 players really so spoiled that anything beyond "open the book, use as written without even idiot-checking for typos/imbalance" is "too much fuss"?

Spoiled? Maybe in some instances, but often it has to do with being a grown-up whose free time is at a premium. I can't sit around Algebra class anymore writing up new spells and doodling pictures of my character posing with his big-ass sword...and believe me, nobody's more depressed about that than me.

Yes. In general, spellcasters in the games i've run and played in have preferred single-target attack spells to area attack spells.

Well, I've already pointed-out that's woefully inefficient, since a fireball does a lot more damage than just about any ray (not to mention the potential to take out multiple foes), and it doesn't take a slide-rule to figure that out, so I don't what they're going for. Flavor, maybe, or something equally ineffable.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Felon, fireball's strength of affecting an area goes away if your campaign uses a lot more of the single tough opponent than the multiple weaker opponent paradigm.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Felon, fireball's strength of affecting an area goes away if your campaign uses a lot more of the single tough opponent than the multiple weaker opponent paradigm.

Or in your case, you Bastard, multiple tough opponents...

Wulf

 

[Negative Zero]

on a slightly different note; has anyone else noticed that the classes in AU seem to be almost too good? i mean, after reading through them, i kept thinking, "wow! that's awesome, i can't wait to play that! ... and that ... and that!" after a while though, i started to wonder, why anyone (in-game NPCs) would follow one of these career paths to do anything mundane with them.

the witch class seems too exotic for any witch to use her powers in a town, say for profit. same thing applies to the runethane. not sure if i'm explaining myself well enough or not, but it seems (to me)like any AU campaign outright needs the NPC classes from the DMG.

anyone else get this impression?

~NegZ

 

[buzz]

not sure if i'm explaining myself well enough or not, but it seems (to me)like any AU campaign outright needs the NPC classes from the DMG.

What campaign *doesn't* need the NPC classes from the DMG?

PCs are adventurers; they're supposed to be better than everyone else.

 

[Rugger]

on a slightly different note; has anyone else noticed that the classes in AU seem to be almost too good? i mean, after reading through them, i kept thinking, "wow! that's awesome, i can't wait to play that! ... and that ... and that!" after a while though, i started to wonder, why anyone (in-game NPCs) would follow one of these career paths to do anything mundane with them.

the witch class seems too exotic for any witch to use her powers in a town, say for profit. same thing applies to the runethane. not sure if i'm explaining myself well enough or not, but it seems (to me)like any AU campaign outright needs the NPC classes from the DMG.

anyone else get this impression?

~NegZ

I got the same feeling...but if anything, it made me realize that the DMG NPC classes have a MAJOR place in the AU world...

What would normally be a "thief" in other worlds, becomes an expert. As does the crazy old herbalist woman down the street.

The town guard and other tough folks? Warriors.

The PC's and other movers and shakers? THEY get the good AU classes...

-Rugger
"I Unearth!"

 

[DMScott]

on a slightly different note; has anyone else noticed that the classes in AU seem to be almost too good? i mean, after reading through them, i kept thinking, "wow! that's awesome, i can't wait to play that! ... and that ... and that!" after a while though, i started to wonder, why anyone (in-game NPCs) would follow one of these career paths to do anything mundane with them.

Well, kinda the point of a class system is to have classes that people want to play. If your reaction to a class is to yawn and say "yeah, whatever", it's probably an indication the class is poorly designed. As for doing mundane things with them, it's the same in 3.0 or 3.5 D&D - why the heck would somebody with the 80-zillion combat feats of a Fighter or the gods-granted abilities of a Paladin want to be the sheriff of some rustic dogpatch in East Nowhere? The answer is they mostly wouldn't - this is why we have Warriors. Where they would, the reason involves character motivation and roleplaying rather than class abilities.

There's nothing at all that stops you from having a Magister running the potion shop in town, if that's what you want. On first reading the class that seems like a colossal waste, but really it seems like a colossal waste for a Wizard, too - we're just used to it now.

 

[Mallus]

The answer is they mostly wouldn't - this is why we have Warriors. Where they would, the reason involves character motivation and roleplaying rather than class abilities.

This problem [well, I think its one at any rate] isn't limited to low-rent NPC's found in backwater towns. The AU classes are great, but a few of them need to be mixed-and matched else in order to create the classic fantasy archetypes. If you want to make Conan the Barbarian, you'll need a few levels of Totem Warrior, then the rest Unfettered, unless you like your Conan's w/funny animal-heads and a natural pelt. The Akashic is great, but I'd prefer a way to make an uber-theif that didn't also come with mystical memory powers.

None of this is really hard to fix. Primarily use NPC's classes for the NPC's [hmm, I should trademark that idea]. Mix NPC class levels with few PC classes levels for more noteworthy NPC's. Carefully select/rationalize skill choices for your Akashic, seperate the close relationship between character and class [ex. "I'm going to use 2 levels of Totem Warror and the rest Unfettered to make Bob the Barbarian" rather than "Well, Barbarians don't exist as a class in AU so I guess I'll make a Totem Warrior"].

I'd also consider beefing up some NPC classes, to give PC's an option to cut their AU PC class levels with something less exotic, something a little more in line with the iconic fantasy heroes from books and film...

 

[buzz]

The AU classes are great, but a few of them need to be mixed-and matched else in order to create the classic fantasy archetypes.

Wasn't the whole point of AU to create *new* takes on the archetypes? This isn't something I think needs to be "fixed." If you want Joe Barbarian in your AU campaign, use the barbarian class form D&D.

 

[Mallus]

Wasn't the whole point of AU to create *new* takes on the archetypes? This isn't something I think needs to be "fixed." If you want Joe Barbarian in your AU campaign, use the barbarian class form D&D.

The intent of AU is pretty much irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. AU is a resource that I'm going to use for my game. I like it because it does the archetypal fantasy characters better than D&D, and these are the kinds of characters I want in my game, more or less. While I find some of the more unique elements [like the Askashics] quite cool, and inspirational [they're going in my homebrew unaltered], I also need mechanics that allow for the creation of more typical [D&D-style] bards and rogues [so bards and rogues will be bulit using slightly modified Askashic rules].

I think AU is a great toolset, and I'm going to use it with [hopefully] a minimum of monkeying. But any set of rules is going to be in service of the setting I've created, and no set of rules [save the one I'm never going to design for myself] will be a perfect fit.