Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[buzz]

The intent of AU is pretty much irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned... 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.

Well, it's not really a "problem" then, is it? It's simply the nature of RPGs.

I guess I'm just saying that the intent *is* relevant. M&M is intended to be a supers game. If you use it for espionage and find it lacking, it's not really a "problem," as that's a purpose for which it was not designed. Likewise AU; it may take some fiddling to handle some of the more standard fantasy archetypes, but, well, AU is very much not a "standard" fantasy RPG. Ergo, the required fiddling is not a fault.

But maybe this is all just semantics. I'm not trying to argue with you, bt just contest the use of the word "problem".

Anyway...

 

[Mallus]

AU is very much not a "standard" fantasy RPG. Ergo, the required fiddling is not a fault.

I don't have a problem with your problem with my use the word problem

But I am curious why you feel that AU isn't a standard fantasy RPG? It's not standard D&D, but it feels pretty much like classic fantasy fiction [the steward giants and Oathsworn are so right out of Thomas Convenant that Monte thanked Donaldson in the credits], and fantasy RPG's ought to be simulating the stuff found in fantasy literature, not defining it.

I feel that a number of gamers [not you specifically] are putting the cart before the horse. They're starting to complain that Monday Night Football doesn't look enought like Madden 2004...

 

[DiFier]

My Dm made an interisting point about AU. If we were playing it instead of our current campaign both charachters would be single classed rather than the multiclassed charachter we are now. I'm a fighter/wizard/spellsword/eldritch knight and the other charachter is a fighter/rogue/wizard hunter. In AU I'd be a mageblade and she'd be an unfettered. I think that it is cool that the classes that we wanted to play but had to create are core classes in AU.

 

[buzz]

But I am curious why you feel that AU isn't a standard fantasy RPG?

Well, if you read "standard fantasy RPG" as "D&D", then no, I don't quite think it's "standard." It deliberately messes with many elements that D&D considers "standard." Otherwise, yeah, I agree with you that it is fairly standard in the "classic fantasy fiction" sense.

However, it definitely has some assumptions built into its "implied setting", much the same way that D&D does. Ergo, I can see that AU may not directly emulate some things in D&D, and vice-versa. But, thanks to the whole d20 thang, you can mix-n'-match to achieve what you want, with a little work, much like you say you're going to do.

 

[DMScott]

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.

Sure, but the same holds true for D&D. Conan isn't a straight D&D Barbarian, at various points in his career he's very likely picking up Rogue and Fighter levels, too. Your uber-thief in D&D is necessarily also an uber-assassin with a sneak attack that will utterly destroy low to mid level opponents (and perhaps high level Wizards, who are uniformly frail, as opposed to the sword-wielding Gandalfs of fantasy literature)... even if you just wanted to make the ultimate cat burglar who prides himself on never drawing a blade, the class abilities require him to become a killing machine.

That is all part of the implied setting, to use a Monte Cook concept. In D&D, "Barbarian" has a specific meaning that doesn't necessarily match with any particular meaning from history or literature, but it's a strong enough archetype that we can build settings around it. AU also has strong archetypes, but they're different from the D&D ones. That's basically the point of the exercise - to provide a different implied setting. That's why it says 'Variant' on the cover, after all.

I still think the AU classes look exotic more because they're new - I've been playing around with AU concepts for a week and a half now, whereas I've had 25 years to get my head around the *D&D implied setting. When I stand back and look at it, a Magister is no more exotic than a Wizard or Sorcerer, he's just different. Barbaric cultures in my campaign won't necessarily be focused around a single class for their main fighter. The head of the Thieves' Guild is no longer necessarily a nasty assassin. There's a different set of paradigms, and it'll take a bit to internalize them all and turn out a believable campaign world, but I don't think it'll feel forced or weird when that's done. Unless I do a bad job, of course .

 

[Felon]

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.

Well, we're retreading old ground at this point, but let me just ask this flat-out: what single-target spell outdamages fireball's d6 per level? Most of them are of the relatively unimpressive dfoo + 1pt per caster level variety.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Well, we're retreading old ground at this point, but let me just ask this flat-out: what single-target spell outdamages fireball's d6 per level? Most of them are of the relatively unimpressive dfoo + 1pt per caster level variety.

Hold Person.

 

[woodelf]

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.

And my problem has been just the inverse: D&D doesn't have classes that match the basic archetypes i'm trying to play. if you want to make Conan the Barbarian in D&D, you basically need to use fighter, perhaps with a dash of barbarian or ranger--but since when is Conan a berserker? There's really no class for the Noble Savage--it should have all the wilderness/combat abilities of a barbarian, but rage is antithetical to the concept; tracking but no favored enemy, spellcasting, or animal companions; and way more skills than a fighter gives you. And i'd love to be able to make a skillmonkey that didn't also come with a whole bunch of dirty fighting abilities.

 

[Psiblade]

For me, the the problems I have with AU have nothing to do with the archetypes which I do like. I really like the Mageblade and the Champion. I think the Champion is far supior to the Paladin as a general archetype. The Mageblade is so much better than the fighter/wizard/spellsword/eldritch knight mess. I have a problem integrating AU with my 3.5 campaign because of the different power levels. I bought AU because I thought the material would integrate easyly into a DnD campaign. This is not the case. I am going to make the effort to translate the Mageblade and Champion into a more DnD compatible form. I like the ideas in AU, I am not happy with the way the implementation was handled.


-Psiblade

 

[drnuncheon]

Hmm...which way do you think the power level is different? I've heard "AU classes are way more powerful than PHB classes" and I've heard "they look a little underpowered" (which is usually an indication that they're relatively balanced...)