AU - first impressions?
- Thread starter Desdichado
- Start date
Tsyr
Explorer
The more I read Arcana Unearthed, and the more I just stop and think about what I've read, the more I am comming to the realization that, in terms of flavor, style, attitude, and general "This is the way fantasy should feel!", this is as close to the game that I've been waiting to find all along as I think you can make within any sort of set framework of rules... There I thinks I don't like, like the magic system (I still prefer a more free-form, force-of-will approach to magic... But it just doesn't balance with non-magic users... Even in fantasy novels that use that sort of magic (The Velgarth books, for example), it's quite clear the magic is simply far to powerful to, in game terms, let into the hands of PCs.
Last edited:
Okay, here is my 2 cents (and likely then some)
Let me make this initial caveat, that I am not a Monte fanatic or a Monte hater. Just some RPG consumer who has liked some things that he has put out, and not others.
Next, let me say that after listening to Monte's comments on these boards for the last few years and after seeing most of his products, one can say the following as fact: Monte loves DnD. He loves 3E. He acknowledges that it has its problems, but he loves it. He likes playing the DnD genre as well (and DnD fantasy is a genre). And after three years he has created an alternate players guide for DnD. Note that this offers alternatives, and is not necessarily geared as a replacement (despite being able to stand on it's own). Is it compatible? Sure is. Is it for everybody's campaign. Probably not, but then that was not the claim.
Lets look at the issues above in a little detail to see what I mean:
Classes:
DnD is a game that has classes that are truly archetypes: fighter, cleric, wizard, etc. It even has some non archetypical classes Bard, Monk, Ranger (with spells), sorcerer that are really specialized versions of an archetypical class. UA offers this. The classes in it are specialized alternatives. Are they balanced? I have never really cared about that issue, but some do, and I believe the answer is yes. Are they neat and unique? You bet! Do they have a place in you game? I would say that if you are the type of person whose setting who allows a wilderness fighter who can cast magics (the Ranger) then nothing in UA really wouldn't fit. If you play a more realistic game setting like something more medieval europe where rangers are just wilderness warriors, then probably not. But that is not the point. Monte has given you a book of DnD alternatives - in the DnD genre. I could see these classes being used in FR, Kalamar, Greyhawk, etc. Dragonlance maybe. Midnight may be pushing it. But that is the point isn't it? One needs to decide if it is ones cup of tea or not, not knock it for not being compatible ( which is a vague complaint, because what about it isn't compatible - and compatable with what?) This issue at hand is whether it fits your style.
Races:
Well obviously this represents a Monte's DnD. The races included may not be your cup of tea. Thats not a compatability issue, its a taste issue. The races are fine, and will be very useful depending on your world... if they are your cup of tea.
Magick:
It is a great alternative to the DnD magic. Is it compatible? Can it work in your game? Why not?" Why can't a world have several types of magic that work different? It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Whether alone or with trad vancian magic, this is a nice alternate magic method.
Compatibility in General:
I have never rreally understood this complaint. If I am reading a supplement and I find something that would be neat in my world, then it takes very little effort to make the adjustments to get it to fit. Compatibility is not taste or flavor, and I think people get distracted by this. If this did fit my world, I would have no trouble dropping stuff in, as it is designed very well.
Art:
C'mon folks. This is pretty subjective. I have seen art that is better and worse. This too is a "cup of tea" issue
Overall:
Monte's stuff tends to be a little too much DnD genre for me. No surprise obviously since he is one of the authors of the 3rd edition. But his stuff has always been top notch, design wise. It has always been a question of "Does his stuff fit me?" rather than is this high quality. My only complaint is that many of his products have been a litle brief in my opinion. However, UA is an unqualified success in my opinion. He really let loose with this, and while all of it is not useful to me, some of it is. And what is, is really good. A lot of neat things are in here.
And the best part for me, is not the magick or the classes, but the attitude. The attitude is that lets put the control back in the hands of the GM/DM, which is kind of contrary to 3.5, IMHO. It doesn't force minatures down your throat, which is ironic, because if I remember correctly Monte uses minatures. He has sense enough to know that there are those out there who do NOT use minatures. He states that many items should be adjudicated by the GM/DM - as they should be. There doesn't need to be a rule for *EVERYTHING*. I was pretty grateful for the presence of this philosphy.
The only thing that may be missing from this whole book is a conversion to standard DnD. I heard that it is coming in a later product, but I think its inclusion in the UA "core" book might have silenced many of the criticisms this book is getting.
Bottom Line:
This is not a replacement for the PHB. This is a book of alternatives to the PHB which present a certain flavor that may or may not suit your tastes. It is also a guide and starting point for a new campaign designed by Monte and supported by other affiliated companies. I would say, check it out and see if it meshes with your style. There is som much stuff in here, that I would be surprised if something in there didn't fit you right - whether it be new classes, races, truenames, magic etc. And if the whole package doesn't suit you, maybe just check out the PDFs coming out of the broke down sections.
While I may not be using all of UA, it is obvious that this is a well made product - and the best product I have seen from Monte.
Razuur
Let me make this initial caveat, that I am not a Monte fanatic or a Monte hater. Just some RPG consumer who has liked some things that he has put out, and not others.
Next, let me say that after listening to Monte's comments on these boards for the last few years and after seeing most of his products, one can say the following as fact: Monte loves DnD. He loves 3E. He acknowledges that it has its problems, but he loves it. He likes playing the DnD genre as well (and DnD fantasy is a genre). And after three years he has created an alternate players guide for DnD. Note that this offers alternatives, and is not necessarily geared as a replacement (despite being able to stand on it's own). Is it compatible? Sure is. Is it for everybody's campaign. Probably not, but then that was not the claim.
Lets look at the issues above in a little detail to see what I mean:
Classes:
DnD is a game that has classes that are truly archetypes: fighter, cleric, wizard, etc. It even has some non archetypical classes Bard, Monk, Ranger (with spells), sorcerer that are really specialized versions of an archetypical class. UA offers this. The classes in it are specialized alternatives. Are they balanced? I have never really cared about that issue, but some do, and I believe the answer is yes. Are they neat and unique? You bet! Do they have a place in you game? I would say that if you are the type of person whose setting who allows a wilderness fighter who can cast magics (the Ranger) then nothing in UA really wouldn't fit. If you play a more realistic game setting like something more medieval europe where rangers are just wilderness warriors, then probably not. But that is not the point. Monte has given you a book of DnD alternatives - in the DnD genre. I could see these classes being used in FR, Kalamar, Greyhawk, etc. Dragonlance maybe. Midnight may be pushing it. But that is the point isn't it? One needs to decide if it is ones cup of tea or not, not knock it for not being compatible ( which is a vague complaint, because what about it isn't compatible - and compatable with what?) This issue at hand is whether it fits your style.
Races:
Well obviously this represents a Monte's DnD. The races included may not be your cup of tea. Thats not a compatability issue, its a taste issue. The races are fine, and will be very useful depending on your world... if they are your cup of tea.
Magick:
It is a great alternative to the DnD magic. Is it compatible? Can it work in your game? Why not?" Why can't a world have several types of magic that work different? It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Whether alone or with trad vancian magic, this is a nice alternate magic method.
Compatibility in General:
I have never rreally understood this complaint. If I am reading a supplement and I find something that would be neat in my world, then it takes very little effort to make the adjustments to get it to fit. Compatibility is not taste or flavor, and I think people get distracted by this. If this did fit my world, I would have no trouble dropping stuff in, as it is designed very well.
Art:
C'mon folks. This is pretty subjective. I have seen art that is better and worse. This too is a "cup of tea" issue
Overall:
Monte's stuff tends to be a little too much DnD genre for me. No surprise obviously since he is one of the authors of the 3rd edition. But his stuff has always been top notch, design wise. It has always been a question of "Does his stuff fit me?" rather than is this high quality. My only complaint is that many of his products have been a litle brief in my opinion. However, UA is an unqualified success in my opinion. He really let loose with this, and while all of it is not useful to me, some of it is. And what is, is really good. A lot of neat things are in here.
And the best part for me, is not the magick or the classes, but the attitude. The attitude is that lets put the control back in the hands of the GM/DM, which is kind of contrary to 3.5, IMHO. It doesn't force minatures down your throat, which is ironic, because if I remember correctly Monte uses minatures. He has sense enough to know that there are those out there who do NOT use minatures. He states that many items should be adjudicated by the GM/DM - as they should be. There doesn't need to be a rule for *EVERYTHING*. I was pretty grateful for the presence of this philosphy.
The only thing that may be missing from this whole book is a conversion to standard DnD. I heard that it is coming in a later product, but I think its inclusion in the UA "core" book might have silenced many of the criticisms this book is getting.
Bottom Line:
This is not a replacement for the PHB. This is a book of alternatives to the PHB which present a certain flavor that may or may not suit your tastes. It is also a guide and starting point for a new campaign designed by Monte and supported by other affiliated companies. I would say, check it out and see if it meshes with your style. There is som much stuff in here, that I would be surprised if something in there didn't fit you right - whether it be new classes, races, truenames, magic etc. And if the whole package doesn't suit you, maybe just check out the PDFs coming out of the broke down sections.
While I may not be using all of UA, it is obvious that this is a well made product - and the best product I have seen from Monte.
Razuur
Monte At Home
Explorer
BVB said:
Hey, you stole my standard answer!
Razuur said:
And, on the flipside, D&D has always *claimed* to be fairly "generic", refusing to acknowledge its fairly strong implicit setting assumptions. So, frex, D&D3E may claim to be for everyone's D&D-genre campaign, but i'd say it isn't. D&D3E doesn't really handle Midnight, either (i'd say tossing half the classes and ripping out pretty much the entire magic system to be replaced with something else constitutes "not compatible"). I'd have real trouble using out-of-the-box D&D3E (or 3.5E) for the setting i developed around the AD&D1/2 rules, frex. I'd have less trouble using AU for this setting.
And, let me just jump on the bandwagon to say that i think AU is better at being "D&D" than D&D3/3.5E is. D&D3E is trying to straddle an awkward line: it wants to preserve the implicit-setting elements while being generic. IMHO, you have to go one way or teh other. AU embraces the implicit setting (albeit a slightly different one). I'm currently working on a fantasy D20 system that excises as much of it [implicit setting] as possible.
I disagree. This is just as much a replacement for the D&D PH as the Everquest or Spycraft core books are. There's no reason you can't use this either for a Diamond Throne campaign, or as the toolkit for a homebrew setting. It's certainly no more limiting in the latter regard than D&D3.5E is.
I certainly intend to use it as is, but probably not with the Diamond Throne. I'm not enamored enough of D&D3E to buy the books (or, actually, to put up with playing it, really--tried it for 2 years, and it got worse the more familiar with it i got). AU, OTOH, is like Spycraft: it has me wanting to play, or even run, a game, despite not caring for class/level systems, the huge variability of the d20, the combat-centric mechanics, or the relative unimportance of skills.
More importantly, i haven't seen this much D20 stuff worth stealing outside of Spycraft or Dynasties & Demagogues. Given access to the OGC, i'll be reusing a *lot* more stuff from this than from the D20SRD.
Second this: previously, i've been very hit-n-miss with Monte's stuff. Some, i love (his new bard and the spellsongs). Some is just too, well, "D&D3E" for me. AU, i *love*. Only minor quibbles so far: every race except humans get racial levels, and yet every one of them in the description says, "Unlike humans and some other races..." they can take racial levels. It just seems both silly and overblown--the only non-human race that can't take racial levels is pre-metamorphosis faen, and since sprytes are the same race, and can.... I think it would've read much more cleanly if it just said "[insert race name here] can take racial levels." Period.
Also, i'm a bit disappointed that runethanes cast "regular" spells, in addition to their runes.
Oh, an actual question i haven't figured out for sure:
I take it that taking the Runechild "race"/template gives you ECL +1, and he just says it in a slightly convoluted way? Or is it actually that your XP totals behave as though you were ECL +1, but your total character level is unchanged (as the text seems to be saying?)
Last edited:
I don't have books easy to hand at the moment, so I'm going ot make up numbers.woodelf said:
Let's say that level 5's XP total is 7000 and level 6's is 13000.
I am 5th level, and at the end of session, my XP total is 13249.
I tell my DM, "Instead of gaining 6th level in Whatzis, I want to be a Runechild."
DM looks over her notes and thinks to herself, "Has he sacrificed, been altruistic?" etc. She decides yes.
I am now a 5th level Whatzis Runechild with 7000 XP.
Last edited:
drnuncheon
Explorer
Razuur said:
I'm not sure I agree. Many of the classes in UA are really just as archetypical as the ones in standard D&D - and some are more archetypical than their closest D&D counterparts.
For instance, many years of playing D&D has conditioned us to accept the heavily armored knight and the swashbuckler as to instances of the 'fighter' archetype - but really, they aren't the same, and probably shouldn't be the same. Monte realized that and split them into Unfettered and Warmain.
The Magister as far as I'm concerned is just as archetypical as the D&D wizard - in fact, with the staff and the aspect of power class features, they are arguably more archetypical. Like I told a friend, "these guys outwizard the wizard." (Was anyone else thinking of Gandalf talking to Bilbo about the Ring when they read about the 'Display Power' ability? I'll bet a copper Monte was...)
The Champion is mostly what I was thinking about when I said some are more archetypical than their D&D counterparts, though - it encompasses the paladin, and other similar concepts without limiting itself by alignment.
Classes like the akashic are more heavily tied to the implied setting, it's true - but not really any more than the D&D paladin or ranger or other specialized classes.
J
Lousifer
First Post
Hammerhead said:
lol. I just find this quote ironic, as I was trying to convince someone that the 3.0 monk isn't hideously overpowered just a few weeks ago. He is convinced that a monk is worth any 2 other characters of equivalent level. I, obviously, disagree.
The 3.5 monk looks pretty tough. Picking up AU next week, so I'll have a look at the Oathsworn then.
Mythtify
First Post
Well, I just got my copy of Au today. I wasn't going to, but all the good things said about it sold me. I respect Monte as a designer, but a lot of the things he has written in the past just isn't for me.
I have enjoyed what I have read so far. I like the races, and the classes. I havent gotten t othe magic system yet.
The only thing that realy bugs me is all the space that is used to give rules that are already in the players handbook.
Monte states that AU is written for experinced players who are familiar with "other games" that use system. If thats the case, the book is written for people who already know how combat works, how skills work, what the core mechanic is, ect, ect.
Basicly he is reprinting rules he already expects people to have and know.
Why reprint all this material. I understand that he wanted to make it stand alone, which it isn't anyway.
This is a shame, since all the orginal material seems to be very good. I would have loved to see more orginal designed material than reprinting rules we all have.
I am realy looking forward to the conversion document.
All in all, Good Job Mr. Cook.
I have enjoyed what I have read so far. I like the races, and the classes. I havent gotten t othe magic system yet.
The only thing that realy bugs me is all the space that is used to give rules that are already in the players handbook.
Monte states that AU is written for experinced players who are familiar with "other games" that use system. If thats the case, the book is written for people who already know how combat works, how skills work, what the core mechanic is, ect, ect.
Basicly he is reprinting rules he already expects people to have and know.
Why reprint all this material. I understand that he wanted to make it stand alone, which it isn't anyway.
This is a shame, since all the orginal material seems to be very good. I would have loved to see more orginal designed material than reprinting rules we all have.
I am realy looking forward to the conversion document.
All in all, Good Job Mr. Cook.
Similar Threads
