More reasons to love Monte

[Monte At Home]

One question, though; why not just call it Unearthed Arcana?

I didn't want to tread on anyone's toes. I don't know if they're ever going to use that title, but they should certainly get the chance.

Besides, I wanted something that suggested the old book, but I didn't want to confuse people into thinking it was a re-hash of it. (There's no thief-acrobat in this book...)

 

[Apok]

There's basically a book like this already...

AEG came out with it a few months ago. It's called Mercenaries, for some strange reason...

Mercenaries didn't have an alternate spellcasting system (but Magic has a few) nor did it introduce a new system of combat rules (but I don't think AU is going to either).

It did have some alternate classes, which were okay but nothing spectacular. They also had new races as well. I think what Agnostic Paladin is trying to say is that AU is going to take all of these elements and build them together as a cohesive whole and not just a random collection of new mechanics. Mercenaries is meant to be generic, able to fit into any kind of fantasy campaign. AU is going to be more focused and is going to have a definite unique feel to it.

Question for Monte; will this book contain any specific world information or will it remain somewhat generic in that respect?

 

[Geoffrey]

I believe the idea is all-new races, all-new spells, all-new classes, with none of the originals from the PHB included. So imagine a fantasy campaign without dwarves, halflings and elves, without wizards and rangers, without magic missile and cure light wounds and I think that's what the picture starts to look like. I think many of us will be pretty shocked at how much we mentally rely on these "old standbys" when thinking about D&D, and it could be very nice to see D&D done with a whole new set of assumptions about the "world" of D&D.

This sounds like it might be my cup of tea.

 

[Apok]

Hey, wait a minute...

I just remembered a thread at montecook.com (look here) asking "what would you change about D&D" started by Monte himself. Now, he's proposing an alternate Player's Handbook with certain new rules, one of which just happens to be No Alignment (good show, btw!) which was an oft-picked response...

Coincidence?! I think not!

 

[Agnostic Paladin]

Joshua, I was half asleep when I was posting earlier, so I wasn't entirely clear.

I don't want exactly what WoT has (and I do have it, and only because of the magic system). I want more of a skills based system, where a caster has a skill rank in say, fire, illusion, charm, whatever, and different spells have DC checks to be made. And the spells that are listed are only examples. Really, a person has to be familiar with The Elder Scrolls games (esp. Arena) to really "get" what I want I think.

Looking at what Monte's book's going to be, I think I'll wind up passing. If it's just a different take on D&D, I don't have any more interest in his than on the original. Besides, Monte's a great writer, but I think that having the three core books done by three different writers with a wide net of input was a Good Thing™.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I am glad that this is being done, if only to give us some different options. Maybe this will be D&D E3.5 or not, I'll still buy it. But, like someone else has said, why does it have to be GenCon, why not earlier??????????

As for his alternate classes, I didn't like the Ranger because I felt it was to power hungry in the bonus feats, but I do like is take on the Bard and Sorceror, and it would be nice to see various variants out there. One location where one can find some different core class variants is on FFG's Behind the Curtains section in the archives. Very cool stuff, if a little different.

To Monte: I am glad your doing this, thanks for the heads up and thank you even more for not sticking with alignments. Very cool.

 

[kkoie]

My only question is whether or not this book is going to mostly replace the players handbook with its new rules? Or is it ment to be more of an accessory? I personally would not want to buy a book that adds dozens of new or differn't rules that changes the system. I guess it just all depends on if this PHB2 would require a DM to rework all his old NPCs if he implemented the new rules.

Is it ment as a replacement or a compliment?

 

[kenjib]

Thanks for the link to the FAQ Monte. It sounds really great from the description -- providing many options that people have been asking for repeatedly. I look forward to taking a look!

Among many other things that sound promising, the race-as-class thing caught my attention. If I'm interpreting it correctly, it's nice to see a new incarnation of this classic original D&D concept - and making it an optional path so people can still play other classes is a great improvement.

 

[Turjan]

Sounds very interesting. Can this material be mixed with material from the PHB? And has it a similar power level?

 

[Rasyr]

Quote from the FAQ:
Likewise, the sibeccai (SIB ba kai) were once beasts but the giants mystically elevated them to the status of intelligent humanoids -- but they retain aspects of their feral, canine natures.

Hmm.... In Rolemaster, there is a race EXACTLY like this called the Sibbicai, who happen to be somewhat feral humanoid canines, whose name is pronounced EXACTLY the same.....

Just as the Chaos Mage was apparently swiped from Rolmaster's Chaos Warrior (who used living deomns melded to his body as armor), we get to see another case of Monte trying to swipe his ideas from Rolemaster (and his time at ICE)...

It makes me wonder how much of the rest of the book is swiped...... We know the name is (although it is reversed from the name of original book it was swiped from)...

To me this shows an extreme lack of creativity on the whole.....