[AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

[drnuncheon]

Or put another way - why does being disturbed by a night attack hose the arcane casters and not bother the divine casters one whit?

Because the arcane casters get their power from within themselves, while the divine casters are granted it by their deity.

J

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think the picture is quite as black as you painted it though. The raising from the dead spells have to be cast every day over a six (?) day period, so it is a long and solemn process, not just a quick 5th level spell and he's up again.

If I remember correctly, it requires even 6 castings of the spell, so it becomes much more expensive to make it.
But the problem stays: If your comrade is fallen, but the battle is over, and you have plenty of time and money, you can still raise him, so there is no need for sorrow and crying...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Aulayan]

If you've been raised more than 6 times, your true name becomes a generic one for your race, which is extremely dangerous obviously.

Also, casters charge up to 5 times more for Raise Dead spells because it's so valuable a commodity.

And when you come back, you lose your first level ceremony feat. You can redo it to gain it back, or choose a different ceremony feat. Or become Unbound and gain a new talent in its stead.

 

[Negative Zero]

... Also, casters charge up to 5 times more for Raise Dead spells because it's so valuable a commodity. ...

casters can charge anything they want for spells. as a GM who says you have to use the table in the book? don't like it? change it to (caster lvl x 100) x (spell lvl x 10) if you like. don't like the raise dead rules? change them to whatever way you like them! what's the big deal??? i will never understand this argument.

~NegZ

 

[Plane Sailing]

Because the arcane casters get their power from within themselves, while the divine casters are granted it by their deity.

Nothing personal, but that is a bogus rationale - why shouldn't arcane casters be able to prepare spells without a good nights sleep because their power is from within (or from external paraphenalia as in the wizards case) while divine casters can't if their "night of prayer" is disturbed? What about the divine casters who don't serve a diety but just get their magic because they follow a philosophical principle?

One of the things I *really* like about AU is the unified spell list for all casters, I think the division between arcane and divine magic has grown increasingly silly over time, and would be better done away with entirely. The above issue of clerics not needing uninterrupted rest to regain their spells was just another case of 3e powerups for clerics, and I wasn't impressed.

Cheers

 

[drnuncheon]

Nothing personal, but that is a bogus rationale - why shouldn't arcane casters be able to prepare spells without a good nights sleep because their power is from within (or from external paraphenalia as in the wizards case) while divine casters can't if their "night of prayer" is disturbed?

You might also ask "why can't a wizard create water at first level" or "why can't a cleric use the power of his god to fly all day long without asking for a miracle". Those are just as "bogus" as anything else in the system - assuming that "bogus" means "gives a result that the speaker disagrees with." It can't really mean anything else, since the magic of D&D has no basis in reality, and can't be tested.

You could call the jumping rules "bogus" because they give unrealistically large results compared to the real world, and that's fine...but to call an explanation that is a) logical and b) fits the observed facts "bogus" just because you don't like the aforementioned observed facts is not exactly conducive to discussion.

J

 

[Felon]

But the problem stays: If your comrade is fallen, but the battle is over, and you have plenty of time and money, you can still raise him, so there is no need for sorrow and crying...Mustrum Ridcully ]

Right, that is my point. It really just boils down to "while disfigurement and death are merely inconvenient in the PHB, in AU they are really really really inconvenient in AU". It sitll doesn't back Monte's statement up; the game is still diminished by characters coming back from the dead all the time, and the grizzled old commander can get his leg back by buying a Regeneration spell. If magic--to use Monte's turn of phrase--"took something away" from the genre in D&D by making raising the dead and curing maladies routine matters, it still does the same in AU. The ante is just somewhat higher.

I didn't catch the part about losing ceremonial feats though. I'll go back and check that out, thanks.

I've spoken at great lengths about this in another thread that most of you are already participating in, so I'd rather not regurgitate too much of it here since crtiicizing AU is not as germaine to the topic.

casters can charge anything they want for spells. as a GM who says you have to use the table in the book? don't like it? change it to (caster lvl x 100) x (spell lvl x 10) if you like. don't like the raise dead rules? change them to whatever way you like them! what's the big deal??? i will never understand this argument.
~NegZ

Well, Neg, I don't think I'll ever understand how a thread can't go one page without someone tossing out the dog-eared rule zero line, when A) contrary to claims to the otherwise, rule zero doesn't alleviate every problem, and B) the truth is it's often pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand.

First off, people buy supplements to have content they can actually use. They don't buy books to turn around and not use what's in'em, and I don't think it's all that hard to understand why it's frustrating and wasteful when exactly that happens.

I bought AU with the hope that it would offer some cool new options that I didn't have the time to make up myself, or the resources to playtest them. The fact that the options regarding resurrection are essentially just high-maintenance versions of PHB spells is quite disappointing. While I can rule-zero the rules I don't like out, I'm still back to square one as far as having some other option to implement. If I don't like what Monte says the cost for hiring spells should be, I'm left to my own devices to figure it out. Again, I think it's too hard to understand why this is disappointing.

And then there's the fact that AU just isn't consistent with everything Monte said in the afore-posted quote. I might've thought twice about buying it had it been explained accurately.

I should also point out that the marvels of rule zero are totally dependent upon the irrate gamer being the GM. You can't rule-zero other folks' campaigns.

You might also ask "why can't a wizard create water at first level" or "why can't a cleric use the power of his god to fly all day long without asking for a miracle". Those are just as "bogus" as anything else in the system

Yes, it's self-defeating to dwell on whether or not a rule pertaining to magic is logical. It's probably more appropriate to discuss what the actual point is of a cutting edge variant PHB retaining D&D's hefty, unheroic, and occassionally problematic sleep requirements. Does it serve to address some as-yet unknown issue of game balance? It doens't seem to.

 

[volcivar]

It's probably more appropriate to discuss what the actual point is of a cutting edge variant PHB retaining D&D's hefty, unheroic, and occassionally problematic sleep requirements. Does it serve to address some as-yet unknown issue of game balance? It doens't seem to.

How many novels have you read where the "wizards" have an unlimited store of energy? How many have you read where they were exhausted (physically and mentally) from mystical exertion? I have read plenty like that. I have no problem with the "8 hours rest". How is the rest period hefty, unheroic, or problemmatic?

Should casters never run out of spells? I hope you don't mean that.

Did monte promise to take that out? NO.

So why are you harping on that so much? If it was an expectation, perhaps it was unfounded. There was no indication that this was to be the case.

Is the magic system he presents more flexible that 3.x? Yes.

That's what he promised. That's what he delivered. If you cannot see the flexibility in this system, then you either:

a: skimmed the book. Not a good way to grasp it. I suggest READING it to full comprehend it.

-or-

b: you read, but failed to comprehend. Not sure how this is possible.

If you read and comprehend the book, yet it's flexibility doesn't suit you, that is clearly a matter of taste on your part (which I respect), not poor design on Monte's.

Is death more costly/frequest? Yes.

from Montre Cook's design diary:

Death
People should die. Harsh but true. If the magic of the game makes it so that people never die (because they are so easy to heal, cure, or raise), not only does the setting get really weird, but the feeling of accomplishment for success diminish right along with the consequences for failure. Arcana Unearthed has the means to raise the dead, but they are not as common or simple as in other games.

Let us examine this:

...If the magic of the game makes it so that people never die

Will people ever die in AU. Yes.

...because they are so easy to heal, cure, or raise

Is healing less effective? Yes. Are unwanted conditions harder to shake? Yes. Is it more costly/rare to be raised? Yes.

Just because he used the same mechanics should be no problem. We understand them, and they make the game more familiar. I think Monte stated many times that he was not trying to rewrite DnD. He just wanted to take familiar things and present them in a new way. Did ne do that? Yes he did.

It seems to me that you skimmed the book, instead of READING it. (I could be wrong). But it is VERY clear you did not COMPREHEND the content.

What's more it also seems you have read into Monte's statements more than was intended, or visualized what you would have liked him to have done. That's YOUR fault.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Hi there! For the record, I thought I'd repost part of Monte's Design Diary that *mentions* death and then look at the math for permanently bringing someone back.

Here's the 3/21/03 entry:

Death
People should die. Harsh but true. If the magic of the game makes it so that people never die (because they are so easy to heal, cure, or raise), not only does the setting get really weird, but the feeling of accomplishment for success diminish right along with the consequences for failure. Arcana Unearthed has the means to raise the dead, but they are not as common or simple as in other games.

Look at the last sentence. That's the relevant one.

Now, as to the math. The spell raise the dead (lesser) is available to someone who can cast 7th level Complex spells. It has a Positive Energy and truename descriptor. (You must have a truename to have it cast on you.) Any 13th level magister, 13th level greenbond or caster-who-can-cast-7th-level-simple-spells-and-took-Complex-Spell (7th level) has access to it. (Diminished lesser raise the dead has only a 50% chance of success. You only get diminished spells if you have access to the regular version, so let's just assume that the 7th level version is being cast.)

So it's a 7th level spell. Spells for Hire, p.136 AU gives us the cost which we should assume is for a single casting. Raise the dead must be cast on 7 consecutive days. So that's seven castings. The cost is caster level x 70 gp for a 7th level spell.

13x7x7=4459 gp.

But wait, we're not done. Each casting requires a 500 gp pearl. That's another 3500 gp. (The spell specifically says one pearl is required per casting.)

So you have to spend (4459+3500=) 7959 gp. Probably reasonable for the person approached to round up to 8000 gp.

Please reread 171, Bringing Back the Dead. Here's a few choice quotes:

Enemies can take steps to make it more difficult for a character to be returned from the dead. Keeping the body prevents others from using raise the dead to restore the slain character to life. Casting consume soul prevents any sort of revivification or raising unless the soul is first released....

Some casters refuse to bring back the dead of those unworthy,
those who do not believe as they do, or those without a good reason. For example, most greenbonds will not cast raise the dead on a character without some unfinished task —and the task must be one that the greenbond also wishes to see accomplished.

It's not quite as simple as saying "I spend the money" if you apply the rules. In fact, it's almost the basis for an entire adventure! Heck, my PCs already have scars. I've run 2 sessions so far....

 

[Felon]

How many novels have you read where the "wizards" have an unlimited store of energy? How many have you read where they were exhausted (physically and mentally) from mystical exertion? I have read plenty like that.

That comment of mine you're responding to says outright that reasons of game-logic are too argumentative to be worth dwelling on, and it should rather be examined on its value as a game mechanic.

/deep-throated, condescending tone on
Perhaps you didn't READ my post, but if you did it's VERY clear you did not COMPREHEND it.
/deep-throated, condescending tone off

(pretty obnoxious ain't it? )

I have no problem with the "8 hours rest". How is the rest period hefty, unheroic, or problemmatic?

OK, you don't have a problem with it. Do you see an actual point to it though? Isn't just establishing a rule that casters can't prepare spells more than once every 24 hours sufficient (not to mention less cumbersome)? I already covered the pacing problems in an above post with regards to having no real choice but to allow for periodic 8+ hour time-sink, no matter what other circumstances or deadlines an adventure dictates. Review, read, comprehend, refute, inflame, etc.

Should casters never run out of spells? I hope you don't mean that.

No, again, see previous post please.

Did monte promise to take that out? NO. So why are you harping on that so much? If it was an expectation, perhaps it was unfounded. There was no indication that this was to be the case.

Hmm. Seems you've gotten so fired up about haranguing me on my profound disappointment with AU resurrection that you're not up to speed with my minor greivance about the 8-hour recharge lol. Promise or no, it seems like an odd choice to keep this particular PHB artifact if a guy's re-inventing the entire magic system. He should just keep the good stuff.

Is the magic system he presents more flexible that 3.x? Yes.

If everyone casting from the same basic, homogeneous list equates to flexibility, then I guess so. I know I know...greatest thing since sliced bread...failure to comprehend...yadda yadda. I'll wait 'til the honeymoon's over to see how this all pans out.

It seems to me that you skimmed the book, instead of READING it. (I could be wrong). But it is VERY clear you did not COMPREHEND the content.

Like I said, pretty obnoxious.

What's more it also seems you have read into Monte's statements more than was intended, or visualized what you would have liked him to have done. That's YOUR fault.

See my comments in the other thread about this dubious defense (and reply there please, if you must). Or don't, whatever. My interest in the topic has cooled considerably since Monte chimed in himself.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Look at the last sentence. That's the relevant one.

This is a big reason why I'd rather keep this on the other thread, because I'm responding to comments I already addressed a day or two ago with Volcivar. See for yourself:

Monte said that people should die, and that if people never die the feeling of accomplishment for success diminishes right along with the consequences for failure. He's even said it's just outright weird to have a campaign where death is just a speed bump. Volcivar, it's like you skipped right over all of that to focus on the part where he said it could still be done. That last bit isn't some loophole that gives him an out on all of the stuff he said before it.

And here you've done the same. Only the last sentence is "relevant" for some reason.

Now, as to the math. The spell raise the dead (lesser) is available to someone who can cast 7th level Complex spells. It has a Positive Energy and truename descriptor. (You must have a truename to have it cast on you.) Any 13th level magister, 13th level greenbond or caster-who-can-cast-7th-level-simple-spells-and-took-Complex-Spell (7th level) has access to it.

Hmm. That actually sounds like potentially more classes than are capable of casting Resurrection in the PHB, does it not?

(Diminished lesser raise the dead has only a 50% chance of success. You only get diminished spells if you have access to the regular version, so let's just assume that the 7th level version is being cast.)

That's probably best.

So it's a 7th level spell. Spells for Hire, p.136 AU gives us the cost which we should assume is for a single casting. Raise the dead must be cast on 7 consecutive days. So that's seven castings. The cost is caster level x 70 gp for a 7th level spell. 13x7x7=4459 gp. But wait, we're not done. Each casting requires a 500 gp pearl. That's another 3500 gp. (The spell specifically says one pearl is required per casting.) So you have to spend (4459+3500=) 7959 gp. Probably reasonable for the person approached to round up to 8000 gp.

Yes, I agree--it puts quite a dent in the coinpurse!

Please reread 171, Bringing Back the Dead. Here's a few choice quotes:

Feh. So they lug their coinpurse over to a mercantile magister's place of business instead some idealistic greenbond's grass hut.

It's not quite as simple as saying "I spend the money" if you apply the rules. In fact, it's almost the basis for an entire adventure! Heck, my PCs already have scars. I've run 2 sessions so far....

Scars, huh? Yeah, I like those hero points! I'll be trying to start a campaign up this weekend, and I'll see how this all pans out. Actually made a note or two based off of these threads, much thanks.