Obligatory Unearthed Arcana thread

[Mercule]

I'm excited about UA. Both because of the OGC and for other reasons.

I really love the addition of a Defensive bonus by class and the Paladin as a PrC -- those I know will find a place in my game. The WP/VP system will be good to have officially available for D&D, even if I'm not sure I'll use it.

I do have a couple of concern, though, and the fact UA is being released as OGC only heightens them.

1) A Ranger PrC? I'm really not sure how this would work and have been leery of it since the first announcement. I haven't completely written it off, but it certainly seems like the Ranger archetype (almost any of them) should be a base class.

2) Now magic system. Don't get me wrong, I hate the spell slots and see it as the only sacred cow that needs to be turned into hamburger. I just don't want to see it replaced by an update of the old "Player's Option" magic book. None of the cute little tweaks in there did anything for me.

2a) That, and I don't just want them to go with a spell point system, either. spell points are nothing more than quantum spell slots. Are they better than the current Vancian set-up? Sure, but they aren't a great solution.

3) The new metamagic system has me both excited and concerned. I'm excited because new metamagic could add a lot to the feel of the game and customization of spell-chuckers. Concerned because I'm terribly afraid that it'll just be an expanded version of the "sudden metamagics" from the Miniatures Handbook. Those do nothing more than make the problems with the Vancian system worse. I'd like nothing better than to see "sudden metamagics" disused, forgotten, and swept under the rug as an embarrassment.

If those three concerns prove to be unfounded (and the Ranger PrC is pretty minor), then I'm sure I'll be just tickled with the book.

As far as the OGC goes, my suspicion is that it is a bit of a dry run for some of the ideas they considered for 3.5, but decided were too extreme for a revision coupled with some things that they are thinking about for 4E. By releasing them as OGC, WotC can get a bit better idea of what floats and what doesn't. And, by the time the gems are added into 4E, none of the changes will seem that extreme -- just swapping around what's the core rule with what's the variant.

 

[Gez]

I like the Vancian system.

That said, I would have nothing against a skill check system instead of the spell slot/spell point system.

About metamagic, I've merged sudden metamagic and normal metamagic. If a metamagic feat is level+X, you may use it "suddenly" 4-X times per day, and the traditionnal way after.

 

[JPL]

I'd like to have some good, solid alternate magic systems to choose from, for settings that have a different feel from standard D&D.

The incantation system from Urban Arcana is interesting, for example.

 

[Mercule]

I like the Vancian system.

It works great for some people. And, mechanically, it's quite sound and well balanced.

After twenty years of dealing with it, though, I've just grown weary of coming up with "flavor" reasons to answer questions about it. The flavor of the Vancian system is lacking, IMHO, and there are no good ways to link an in-game flavor to the mechanic that doesn't boil down to "slots" or something similar.

I want a system where a wizard either knows a spell or he doesn't; that gives an advantage to large libraries, but does not require a book to be carried around at all times; and does not cap the number of spells that a wizard can have at his overall disposal. There, of course, need to be balances in place so the fighters have something to do. I'll spare you the whole though because I'm pretty sure I could write a five page paper on just the questions, without answering any of them. I keep meaning to start a thread over in House Rules, though.

 

[Anabstercorian]

After twenty years of dealing with it, though, I've just grown weary of coming up with "flavor" reasons to answer questions about it. The flavor of the Vancian system is lacking, IMHO, and there are no good ways to link an in-game flavor to the mechanic that doesn't boil down to "slots" or something similar.

In Sepulchrave's system, there's an interesting description.

In character, a mages mind can be visualized like a series of atomic electron shells. Each spell 'level' fits inside a specific valency, which explains why magic fits so neatly in to 'levels'. It's an interesting system and worth looking at.

Plus, well, heck, it's an AMAZING storyhour.

 

[Kesh]

Still Andy Smith. He's mentioned a few months back that the drafts of the ELH and Dt&Dg were done, but were pending approval and that 3.5E was holding everything up.

I guess UA has also been holding everything up.

Cheers!

Well, according to some of the stuff Andy's posted, it's mostly a combination of lawyers and the web folks that hold things up so long. Posting OGC to the site is considered 'low priority'.

As to the book, I really hope they provide a 'skill based' spell system. If you're familiar with Shadowrun, you'll know what I mean. Also, I'd love it if they included d20 Modern's 'incantation' system.

 

[Gez]

In Sepulchrave's system, there's an interesting description.

I know. I've used "valence" to translate "slot".

 

[jester47]

Well, according to some of the stuff Andy's posted, it's mostly a combination of lawyers and the web folks that hold things up so long. Posting OGC to the site is considered 'low priority'.

As to the book, I really hope they provide a 'skill based' spell system. If you're familiar with Shadowrun, you'll know what I mean. Also, I'd love it if they included d20 Modern's 'incantation' system.

A skill based spell system would be really cool. I would like that a lot. Isn't that what d20CoC uses?

Aaron.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Sort of. The way it works in d20CoC is you either know a spell or you don't, and if you know it, you can cast it as often as you like. but every time you cast a spell, you lose sanity and take some ability damage (or drain, for permanent effects like Gate). Sometimes you lose a LOT of life force (A 10-lightyear Gate sucks down some 20 constitutiton points, I think, but you can share it with multiple casters.)

 

[Ranger REG]

I admit the 100% OGC label was an eye-opener.

WotC hasn't done that since -- well -- ever.

I dunno. Does that mean Andy Smith will be out of a job? I have to ask since he's the guy that is supposed to add new Open Game Content into the SRD. And since the 3.5e SRD is posted, there is nothing new.