Arcana unearthed Vs. Unearthed Arcana

[Desdichado]

Arcana Unearthed is much better. The classes are well thought out, the races are interesting and it was written by Monte Cook.

Unearthed Arcana is a collection of options and at most one or two might get used but for the most part it is a dust collecter.

It's better in the sense that it's much more coherent, and if you use it, you use the whole thing. But UA is hardly a dust collector in my campaign; I have integrated rules from it in all kinds of places. It all depends on whether or not there's anything in there you like. And with the variety of things in there, it's hard to not find something...

 

[kilamanjaro]

I've used a lot of stuff from UA, gestalt classes, reserve hit points, action points, the options for specialist wizards, etc. I enjoyed AU, but I haven't used any of it. For me AU is the dust collector.

 

[diaglo]

Diaglo, right-hand lane, and put it in drive, not reverse!

what are you talking about. i'm going so fast i've lapped youse guys. that's what happens when you approach the speed of light, isn't it? einstein's theories and all....


all of them are collecting dust on my shelves. UA (EGG version), UA (newer edition) and AU.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Yeah, there's really no comparison. I rushed out to get AU and it revitalized my game and desire to play. I still don't own UA, but not because I think it's a bad book or anything. Just don't have a need for it.

 

[Barcode]

Bought AU pretty much because of the raves from rabid Monte fans. Have since learned to disregard raves from rabid Monte fans. Though the book has some good ideas, unless you are using it to start a new, totally different campaign (ideally based in Monte's Diamond Throne world), it is not really useful except as a novelty. It is not really D&D, so I guess it appeals to people who want to play D20 fantasy, but not D&D. As an "alternate PHB" be warned that a significant part of the book is just reprinted SRD, similar to other alternate setting D20 rulebooks like Spycraft and Star Wars. I ended up selling my copy cheap to my FLGS, where it sits on a shelf to this day.

UA is a book of optional rules, that can be picked through and experimented with as you like. It was much more useful to me, since I was able to apply some optional rules to my D&D game immediately, and others as the campaign has evolved. Joshua Dyal is right, you can't use the whole book, as several optional rules conflict with others. If you like D&D but have a problem with the magic system, or the way armor works, or the ability progression of the bard, or such like, there is a chance you will find an alternate rule in UA that you like better. It remains on my shelf where it is only occasionally referred to.

So I guess the difference in my case is the brand of dust.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me, UA gets a lot more use than AU, though I still use AU as a sort of "regional sourcebook" for regions of my world.

 

[Desdichado]

Bought AU pretty much because of the raves from rabid Monte fans. Have since learned to disregard raves from rabid Monte fans. Though the book has some good ideas, unless you are using it to start a new, totally different campaign (ideally based in Monte's Diamond Throne world), it is not really useful except as a novelty. It is not really D&D, so I guess it appeals to people who want to play D20 fantasy, but not D&D. As an "alternate PHB" be warned that a significant part of the book is just reprinted SRD, similar to other alternate setting D20 rulebooks like Spycraft and Star Wars. I ended up selling my copy cheap to my FLGS, where it sits on a shelf to this day.

I don't think it's fair to characterize it as a poor seller, though, as this kinda implies. AU sold a buttload of books. Last year at GenCon, when it wasn't officially released (but was about to be) it sold more books than White Wolf has ever sold at GenCon. Also, the nature of the book shouldn't really have been a surprise to anyone who ever heard a Monte Cook fanboy rave, because it was all over the 'net. Not only that, if you just flipped through the book you would have seen what kind of book it was, and that you'd have a lot of material redundant with your basic D&D books.

And for what it's worth, I have a character playing a slightly modified (mostly just so the skill list fits in with the rest of a more D&D like skill list) Unfettered, so AU gets used every session in my campaign too.

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

Am I the only one that is annoyed by the similar titles.

Granted, they are very different books, they both basically can be summed up as 'alternate rules'. So one is always hearing about both of them, and isn't sure what is in which, and has to buy them both.

Either that, or UA was trying to ride AU's appeal, or something.

I'm prattling.

 

[SinisterMinister]

Am I the only one that is annoyed by the similar titles.

Granted, they are very different books, they both basically can be summed up as 'alternate rules'. So one is always hearing about both of them, and isn't sure what is in which, and has to buy them both.

Either that, or UA was trying to ride AU's appeal, or something.

I'm prattling.

That seems unlikely as the original UA came out in the 80s. More likely, Monte named his book AU as a tip of the hat (sarcastic or genuine) to the then old book. Don't know if the new UA was in the works at the time that AU came out and which if either party was aware of the other.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've got to come down firmly in the "more use out of UA (WotC) than AU (Monte)" camp. AU(M) is well put-together, but I just didn't personally find it all that inspiring, or to my taste. If I ever do use it, I'll be pulling a few ideas out of it, rather than running an AU campaign.

UA(W), on the other hand, has a great many optional rules that I've already incorporated, and many others I plan to use in future campaigns as appropriate. Further, it's given me new campaign ideas.

Very different books, despite the names. And I'm not denegrating AU(M). It's well done for what it is. It's just that "what it is" wasn't as useful to me as UA(W).