Arcana unearthed Vs. Unearthed Arcana
- Thread starter Red Viper
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
Uh, the purpose is completely different. Arcana Unearthed is a variant PHB with all new classes, races and setting assumptions. Basically D&D if it wasn't D&D, in many ways. The book is designed to go hand in hand with the Diamond Throne campaign setting. It is written by Monte Cook (author of the DMG) and published by Sword and Sorcery (White Wolf.)
Unearthed Arcana, on the other hand, is a hodge-podge of alternate rules to tack on to your existing game or new homebrew, and certainly can't all be used in conjunction with each other. It is published by Wizards of the Coast.
You really can't compare the two of them despite the similar titles, they have nothing in common really. Both are pretty good. I'd suggest going to the main site (not the forums) and looking for reviews of the two to get a better idea.
Unearthed Arcana, on the other hand, is a hodge-podge of alternate rules to tack on to your existing game or new homebrew, and certainly can't all be used in conjunction with each other. It is published by Wizards of the Coast.
You really can't compare the two of them despite the similar titles, they have nothing in common really. Both are pretty good. I'd suggest going to the main site (not the forums) and looking for reviews of the two to get a better idea.
Last edited:
AFGNCAAP
First Post
Red Viper said:
Well, to go alphabetically:
- Arcana Unearthed is a d20 setting that uses new races, core classes, & even mechanics (IIRC) for a new world setting. It's different from the traditional D&D-style fantasy, & it has a healthy fan base.
- Unearthed Arcana is a D&D 3.5 book full of optional rules for D&D. It features such things as environmental racial variants, variant class builds, gestalt and generic classes, different defensive & injury systems, magic variants, & more. It's a nice book that takes a lot of options that are already out there (as well as some new ones) & puts them all into 1 book.
kilamanjaro
First Post
This is an easy question. They have pretty much nothing in common. AU is an alternate PHB with new races, feats, an alternate spell system, everything that's in the PHB. UA is a book of variant rules, new hp systems, new armor systems, action points, spell point systems, experience pt systems, class abilities. UA is like a collection of house rules, they don't all mesh together.
Which one is better? That's pretty subjective. It depends on what you want.
Which one is better? That's pretty subjective. It depends on what you want.
Wombat
First Post
There is actually very little in common between the two products.
Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed is, essentially, an alternate PHB. There are new races (Faen, Litorian, Giants), new core classes (Unfettered, Totem Warrior, Magister), a new way of casting spells (I very much like the flexibility of the system), new equipment, etc. It also has repeats several "core" Feats, weapons, and the like -- many of these are things available in the SRD. This book could replace the PHB for some games, or serve as an adjunct in others.
WotC's Unearthed Arcana is very different -- it is a series of alternate rules that could be plugged in, individually or en masse, to any D20 game. The usefullness of any individual rule is open to much personal taste and interpretation, but in many ways that is the point of the book; actually, including all the rules would be impossible, as several of them would contradict (or massively impact others). Example rules include a Wound/Vitality Point System, variant races and Bloodlines, and Reputations.
Which book you might choose would depend on the type of campaign you either are or are considering running.
Monte's AU is good for a new campaign or for some interesting variants; most people take the book as the starting point for a campaign, therefore making the whole book useful. On the other hand there would be problem mixing the magic system from this volume with the core rules.
WotC's UA is good for any campaign, but you will probably only use a small portion of the rules and material. Those rules, however, may make the difference between a campaign that feels almost right (using the Core Rules) and a campaign that feels Very Right (using variant rules from UA).
Of the two, I have personally gotten more use out of Monte's book as I am using it to design a new campaign; many of the ideas in UA I had already found, in one variant or another, on the Net for free or had previously rejected for my own games. OTOH, you will find many, many people on this board who have gotten hordes of use out of UA -- besides it has that "official" cachet, which never hurts.
Hope this has been of some use to you
Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed is, essentially, an alternate PHB. There are new races (Faen, Litorian, Giants), new core classes (Unfettered, Totem Warrior, Magister), a new way of casting spells (I very much like the flexibility of the system), new equipment, etc. It also has repeats several "core" Feats, weapons, and the like -- many of these are things available in the SRD. This book could replace the PHB for some games, or serve as an adjunct in others.
WotC's Unearthed Arcana is very different -- it is a series of alternate rules that could be plugged in, individually or en masse, to any D20 game. The usefullness of any individual rule is open to much personal taste and interpretation, but in many ways that is the point of the book; actually, including all the rules would be impossible, as several of them would contradict (or massively impact others). Example rules include a Wound/Vitality Point System, variant races and Bloodlines, and Reputations.
Which book you might choose would depend on the type of campaign you either are or are considering running.
Monte's AU is good for a new campaign or for some interesting variants; most people take the book as the starting point for a campaign, therefore making the whole book useful. On the other hand there would be problem mixing the magic system from this volume with the core rules.
WotC's UA is good for any campaign, but you will probably only use a small portion of the rules and material. Those rules, however, may make the difference between a campaign that feels almost right (using the Core Rules) and a campaign that feels Very Right (using variant rules from UA).
Of the two, I have personally gotten more use out of Monte's book as I am using it to design a new campaign; many of the ideas in UA I had already found, in one variant or another, on the Net for free or had previously rejected for my own games. OTOH, you will find many, many people on this board who have gotten hordes of use out of UA -- besides it has that "official" cachet, which never hurts.
Hope this has been of some use to you
Forced to disagree with the tone, if not the fact, of Crothian's post. I haven't played AU, so I have no basis for comparison, but I didn't want another setting. I wanted a collection of alternate rules. I use different variants in different one-shots and campaigns, making UA a good buy for me.
But mileage is certainly going to vary -- and if you have a very good collection of d20/OGL material already, you may already have many, if not most, of the alternate rules presented in UA.
But mileage is certainly going to vary -- and if you have a very good collection of d20/OGL material already, you may already have many, if not most, of the alternate rules presented in UA.
Similar Threads
