AU - first impressions?

[JoeGKushner]

I can see the new ads now, "Arcana Unearthed, bringing gamers together."

 

[Hammerhead]

Maybe someone could start a game on the boards.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

The only non-spellcasting class that might be a tad unbalancing would be the Akashic, if for no other reason than it totally outshines the Rogue in every area except Sneak Attack damage.

I'm not entirely convinced. An akashic certainly will deliver more skill-using ability than a rogue. But not getting the combo of evasion and a fast Reflex save schedule is kind of a big deal in a fireball-rich environment like D&D, and I'm not sure that the akashic's combat-related abilities really make up for the 7d6 gap in sneak attacks over the course of a career. I'm not saying they don't, either, it's just that they're so different in nature that it's hard to tell, and seven dice is a lot.

 

[Storminator]

Akashics should play completely differently from rogues. They have heavy armor and shields, and all martial weapons. They fight like clerics, even tho they have rogue skill levels (only better).

They have a lot of style if you ask me.

And if you think they're weak now, you should have seen the playtest version!

PS

 

[woodelf]

It is the D20STL that forbids describing progression. And clearly that part is irrelevant because AU does not use the D20STL.

However, the point is not that the OGL does not forbid it, rather, that it does not provide an allowance for using the D&D system. So under the OGL only a progression may be allowed. BUT, the D&D progression does not exist in the SRD and is not Open. Your point that it could be re-produced because it is simply a mathematical progression is way beyond my non-lawyer assessment. But I think that would certainly be a possible point of contention.

So one the one hand, that would make a possible legal vulnerability that just isn't worht the trade-off (the 10% revised system is fine; I'd guess that the "more powerful" comment is a hand wave as much as anything; and a house rule to D&D standard is obvious and simple)

And on the other hand, and far more significant in my mind, the D20 community, so far, has shown a clear spirit of working together, above and beyond the legal requirements. Monte has been among the more out spoken advocates of this approach. So even if he could reproduce the D&D chart by using a simple loophole, I tend to doubt that Monte would.

From the D20 Guide, v3:

Definition of Applying the effects of Experience to a Character:

Applying the effects of Experience to a Character means a description of the process for comparing the accumulated experience point total of a character to a chart to determine if the character's level should be incremented.
[snip]
Applying the effects of Experience to a Character does not include creating or modifying an experience point chart, defining a new class (including describing what benefits that class provides at each level).

So not even the D20STL prevents you from providing a progression table--it just doesn't let you say what to do with said table. Advancement, not the progression itself, is what's forbidden.

Now, if you sincerely believe that the triangular number progression is something that WotC has *any* sort of dominion over, then, yes, you're better off creating your own chart. However, i sincerely doubt that there is anything in IP law that can prevent you from reusing a simple, known-since-antiquity, mathematical progression. He could've recreated the standard XP chart, so i suspect the "slightly more powerful" is *not* a handwave, but an actual concern.

WotC also didn't explicitly release material to the effect that when you multiply a number by 1.5, it becomes half-again as large as it was, so a 6 becomes a 9. It's basic math, and thus public domain.

Now, you *might* have a problem with recreating the entire XP chart--the one that puts BAB, saves, skill rank caps, feats, and ability increases all on one chart. I really doubt it, but i can see the argument. But just the level & XP columns from that chart? Too close to basic mathematics.

I hardly see including an XP chart as "exploiting a loophole".

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Akashics should play completely differently from rogues. They have heavy armor and shields, and all martial weapons. They fight like clerics, even tho they have rogue skill levels (only better).

I wasn't counting on the heavy armor and shields because we were side-by-siding them with rogues, and if an akashic is taking the stealth and athletic skills he can ill afford the armor check penalty. Outside of the question of whether they eclipse the rogue, that's definitely more significant.

The broader weapon proficiency does help with their damage output, but only by a point or two per blow unless they go for something really heavy.

The real stuff comes with their battle memory, feat memory, and bonus feats, plus the little bit of sneak attack they can select (up to 3d6). The upshot seems offhand to be that their combat ability is less situational (not relying on sneak attack), but more resource-bound (having limited uses per day for many abilities). Plus those battle memory abilities come with a significant start-up opportunity cost and risk (concentration for one round, which is a big deal in a battle). But how it comes out in the final analysis, I couldn't say.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

He could've recreated the standard XP chart, so i suspect the "slightly more powerful" is *not* a handwave, but an actual concern.

I seriously doubt it. The two tables are only different by 10%, and (the aside from any psychological effect) a 10% difference in experience totals is pretty insignificant. Because of the quadratic progression of level XP requirements, that's only about 5% of a level over the long haul, or about a level in 20. I would be willing to bet good money that there are greater imbalances between either the 3.0 or even the 3.5 PHB classes than that.

 

[BryonD]

From the D20 Guide, v3:

So not even the D20STL prevents you from providing a progression table--it just doesn't let you say what to do with said table. Advancement, not the progression itself, is what's forbidden.

Now, if you sincerely believe that the triangular number progression is something that WotC has *any* sort of dominion over, then, yes, you're better off creating your own chart. However, i sincerely doubt that there is anything in IP law that can prevent you from reusing a simple, known-since-antiquity, mathematical progression. He could've recreated the standard XP chart, so i suspect the "slightly more powerful" is *not* a handwave, but an actual concern.

WotC also didn't explicitly release material to the effect that when you multiply a number by 1.5, it becomes half-again as large as it was, so a 6 becomes a 9. It's basic math, and thus public domain.

Now, you *might* have a problem with recreating the entire XP chart--the one that puts BAB, saves, skill rank caps, feats, and ability increases all on one chart. I really doubt it, but i can see the argument. But just the level & XP columns from that chart? Too close to basic mathematics.

I hardly see including an XP chart as "exploiting a loophole".

Like I said, I am only speculating.

Clearly the PH chart is not open. The question, as you have described, is: "Is the PH chart something that could be protected as IP or is it to basic?". You seem highly confident that it could not be protected.

OK. I don't know what background you have to be so certain. I know I don't have any background to make me certain. I do tend to think that if it could not be protected at all, there would be minimal value in excluding it under the D20STL (or even not just putting it in the SRD). So these things make me tend to think that WotC feel they can protect it.

But I agree that your point makes sense. I certainly do not think they can protect a simple mathematical progression. That, of course, would be silly. But perhaps the relationship between a given progression and a game mechanic is a different matter? I really do not know.

But, like I said before, to me it is not that AU certainly could not use the PH progression. But that the alternate progression used is really no big deal.

So there is a slim chance that WotC could claim that he could not do this. Even if they were wrong, that hassle is not worth the bother.

More likely than that, because Monte knows (and in many cases is friends with) many people at WotC, he understands that they would not appreciate him reproducing the PH chart, regardless of legal authority. So possibly Monte choose to do so purely because he felt it was the right thing to do. That would certainly be within Monte's character as I have observed him.

So I do not know. But without any presumption on the ultimate legal status of the PH progression, I am comfortable presuming that the AU system progression is different do to at least an informal acknowledment of WotC's control over the standard version. And Monte made the choice because it was the "good guy" thing to do.

[end of non-lawyer wild speculations]

 

[Henry]

More likely than that, because Monte knows (and in many cases is friends with) many people at WotC, he understands that they would not appreciate him reproducing the PH chart, regardless of legal authority. So possibly Monte choose to do so purely because he felt it was the right thing to do. That would certainly be within Monte's character as I have observed him.

Of course, not knowing Monte's mind, there's also the old adage, "Better safe than sorry" to consider.

But yeah, if there is one thing I don't think the chart is for, it's to compensate for more powerful classes than 3.0 or 3.5, for the exact reasons Dr. Rictus says.

 

[Apok]

Rogues are amazing when it comes to skill use. Akashics are even better, and get some abilities that can only be used a few times per day that give them even more of a boost. They also basically get Bardic Lore, and some spell-like abilities relating to skill use.

Right. So, we are agreed that in terms of skills and skill usage, the Akashic has the definite edge.

But they get no spells, and their combat ability is truly pitiful - they can pick up some minor Sneak Attack (3d6 tops, at something like 15th level), and while the various "Battle Memory" abilities are very nice, again, they're only useable a very limited number of times per day.

Rogues don't get spells either, so it's even there. Combat-wise, they get better weapons and armor and use the same BAB progression as Rogues. The only thing they lack is good Sneak Attack damage, which the Battle Memory abilities help to make up for by increasing not only the Akashic's damage output, but his Attack bonus and AC as well. Yes, they can only be used a certain number of times per day, but honestly; how many fights do you get in over the course of a day?

Which means that they can't hold their own in a fight, and while they can upstage just about anyone when it comes to skill use a few times per day, overall, they're only a little better than a Rogue or a Bard when it comes to skills. Bleh.

I disagree. With their Battle Memory abilities, proper feat selection, and some choice weapons and armor, an Akashic can easily hold their own on the battlefield. Not as well as a more martial oriented class, perhaps, but then again neither can the Rogue, so in that respect they are relatively equal.

Personally, I think the only reason someone would take the Rogue over the Akashic is for the Sneak Attack ability. Unless, of course, the overall concept of how the Akashic works just doesn't appeal to them.