PHB2 vs. Arcana Evolved

[Turjan]

But a recurring theme in AE that did rub me the wrong way was a frequent need to re-invent the wheel just to do it different than 3E. Even if it is easy to undo, when the change seems to not really add any value, then why bother messing with it when I've got more stuff than I'll ever use already sitting on my shelf.

What looks like "reinventing the wheel" was the result of a long-going survey among 3E players. People were asked what they didn't like about 3E, and the result were things like the arcane/divine divide, the inflexible magic system, the marriage of healing ability to the cleric class or that it wasn't possible to build a good DEX-based fighter without buying the rogue package. Arcana Unearthed was the result of this survey and tried to address most complaints. Keep in mind that it was the first alternate PHB for D&D that deserved this name, except maybe AEG's Mercenaries. Saying that AU/AE doesn't provide anything new is an awkward characterization, given that it mostly predated all WotC offerings in this regard and is still a viable product nowadays.

I'm also not getting this assumption that you need the Diamond Throne setting (which I don't like) in order to use the mechanics. The Diamond Throne is completely unnecessary for AE's use, and I still don't think it was a good decision to put it into the AE book. Those Diamond Throne snippets in the descriptions are just explaining the flavor concept of the class and don't have any mechanical importance. You can use AE classes in your standard D&D game without problems. The only restriction is that you should not multiclass any spellcaster classes from AE and core D&D and keep the magic systems strictly apart.

 

[phindar]

While I agree the Magic Systems should be kept separate, I think characters can still mulitclass between them. What I mean to say is, Magisters shouldn't get access to Wiz/Sorc spells, and Druids shouldn't be taking AE Simple or Complex spells (at least without burning a slot on the Unique Spell Feat, which is how I let them take spells across system lines, one spell at a time).

But a Cleric/Magister (for example), who keeps his cleric list separate from his Magister slots can work. You still have to go to one of the multiclass caster PrC's (like Mystic Theurge) to avoid kneecapping yourself, but I don't have a problem with it.

The only class I didn't like was the Oathsworn. It was too much like the Monk, and I found oaths to be a pain. That was my experience.

 

[Turjan]

But a Cleric/Magister (for example), who keeps his cleric list separate from his Magister slots can work. You still have to go to one of the multiclass caster PrC's (like Mystic Theurge) to avoid kneecapping yourself, but I don't have a problem with it.

Heh, sounds a bit unwieldy, though. Usually, an AE class should get full caster level progression over all spellcaster levels; one thing I like about them.

The only class I didn't like was the Oathsworn. It was too much like the Monk, and I found oaths to be a pain. That was my experience.

I think you are not alone here. The Oathsworn is generally seen with contempt. Some of the Witch variants should also be left to NPCs.

 

[BryonD]

What looks like "reinventing the wheel" was the result of a long-going survey among 3E players. People were asked what they didn't like about 3E, and the result were things like the arcane/divine divide, the inflexible magic system, the marriage of healing ability to the cleric class or that it wasn't possible to build a good DEX-based fighter without buying the rogue package. Arcana Unearthed was the result of this survey and tried to address most complaints. Keep in mind that it was the first alternate PHB for D&D that deserved this name, except maybe AEG's Mercenaries. Saying that AU/AE doesn't provide anything new is an awkward characterization, given that it mostly predated all WotC offerings in this regard and is still a viable product nowadays.

You appear to be assuming that the issues are limited to those you listed.
Further, I disagree that all these issues were WELL addressed in AE.

I'm also not getting this assumption that you need the Diamond Throne setting (which I don't like) in order to use the mechanics. The Diamond Throne is completely unnecessary for AE's use, and I still don't think it was a good decision to put it into the AE book. Those Diamond Throne snippets in the descriptions are just explaining the flavor concept of the class and don't have any mechanical importance. You can use AE classes in your standard D&D game without problems. The only restriction is that you should not multiclass any spellcaster classes from AE and core D&D and keep the magic systems strictly apart.

I don't get it either. But it seems a significant fraction of AE players DO use the base setting. Thus, it is a perfectly valid to discuss that context.
Also, I certainly never said I don't use the classes in D&D. I DO use a few of them. Others I just a) don't like, b) feel "re-invented the wheel pointlessly", or c) are to tied to the setting to be worth the bother. Is it easy to remove the setting ties? In most cases yes. But why bother? Frankly, I don't find the value added in the parts that are required to make it worthwhile. Why use something I need to mod at all when I've got a stack of ready to go stuff on my shelf? There are lots of minor examples, but since you brought up magic I'll point that one out as a big one. I've read through it a few times and just never felt at all motivated to bother. There is no added value to me. A different system for psionics goes to point buy and a different feel for a different kind of power. But two different systems to get to the same arcane spellcraft end is not a selling point for me. If the system blew me away then I'd readily consider it. It doesn't.

 

[Turjan]

You appear to be assuming that the issues are limited to those you listed.
Further, I disagree that all these issues were WELL addressed in AE.

I don't know your personal issues with D&D that you want to have addressed. As I said, it were the issues of the majority of posters in that survey. Of course, I don't mind if you disagree with the solutions. You're talking about your game, after all.

I don't get it either. But it seems a significant fraction of AE players DO use the base setting. Thus, it is a perfectly valid to discuss that context.

Yes, it's valid to discuss the setting in that context. I find it bland and uninspiring, and I'm one of the few people who think that the change to AE made it even worse. I hate dualistic settings. I was just opposing the point that had been mentioned several times in this thread: that the mechanics are tied to the setting. I don't see that. I don't see that at all.

There are lots of minor examples, but since you brought up magic I'll point that one out as a big one. I've read through it a few times and just never felt at all motivated to bother. There is no added value to me. A different system for psionics goes to point buy and a different feel for a different kind of power. But two different systems to get to the same arcane spellcraft end is not a selling point for me. If the system blew me away then I'd readily consider it. It doesn't.

Fair enough. The system as presented is a flexible approach to standard D&D magic and somewhere situated between sorcerer and wizard. It's nothing terribly exotic. It's just adding a bit flexibility to the good old Vancian system. AE was meant as a different take on D&D3E after all, not as anything revolutionary.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Blade and magic is what the Mageblade is about, I feel.

My own opinion is that those things are both a bit too narrow to revolve a class around. Yes, he has a sword and he casts spells, but that's what he does, not who he is. A good class should have an effect on the world around it, I feel. The Duskblade has a sword and casts spells, but he's also an elven archetype of battle magic, channeling magical essence through the ancient art of his people. I think that's a stronger archetype than a guy with a sword who casts spells.

Not that Mageblades can't be more than that, just that the core AE document doesn't really suggest they're much more than that.

The Champion is a much better take on the Paladin than the Paladin could hope to achieve. Plus, it's not just a Champion of Good, but I can be a Champion of Death. Can't do that in D&D without some major overhaul to the rules.

#1: The Paladin works well as it is, and whether or not we even *need* Champions Of Banjo the Puppet God are definately open to questioning.

#2: "Paladins of Different Alignments" are dealt with well right in the SRD...paladins of slaughter, of tyranny, of freedom...all good archetypes for the other three extremes. If, that is, you were interested in going beyond the regular paladin.

This leads me to #3: The Champion is too broad for my liking. I want my champions of whatever to have distinct flavors that are best reflected by completely seperate classes, not by one generic "fighter of X" class.

So, that's not nessecarily true (though certainly, if someone wants generic champions of X, the class does an admirable job...it's just not something I want).

I can play a warrior mage right out the box without multiclassing.

Compared to PHBII's Duskblade (or even CW's Hexblade or CA's Warmage), I think the "mageblade" is underwhelming. That's not really a knock -- AE was the first to do something like that -- but it's not a selling point for AE *now*.

I have a wizard class that actually feels like a wizard to me.

Obviously, not everyone feels that a wizard has to be what you feel a wizard has to be.

I have stopped comparing the Oathsworn to the Monk, although this is one comparison where I do think the Monk is better than the Oathsworn.

Which is that central issue of "reinventing the wheel."

I have a runecaster who gains runic abilities.

...I can claim runic abilities from 1st level magic items (all magic scrolls consist of a single rune, which corresponds to a spell...). A totally seperate class isn't nessecarily needed for my concept of what runes can accomplish. Indeed, I think it does the concept of runes an injustice, to assume that it requires some very narrow specialized focus training, instead of just being part of overall magical training.

I do agree that the Witch name doesn't really mesh with the usual sense of what a witch is, and in my mind it's more like a Elementalist mage...so that name doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but the class rocks.

Again, part of why I feel the PHBII classes are stronger, overall. They all have some great archetypal basis....the witch really *doesn't.* It's a cool class, sure, but it isn't an existing, strong archetype like the Beguiler or the Knight is...heck, even the Dragon Shaman has some pretty okay archetypal strength to it (the Power of Dragons in my hands!).

 

[Turjan]

Not that Mageblades can't be more than that, just that the core AE document doesn't really suggest they're much more than that.

I like the concept of an athame. A weapon that grows with your character (like in Weapons of Legacy) and that you develop an inner bond with and can summon at will? I think that's a rather strong concept for a class, even if a bit narrow.

This leads me to #3: The Champion is too broad for my liking. I want my champions of whatever to have distinct flavors that are best reflected by completely seperate classes, not by one generic "fighter of X" class.

I think it's here where our opinions fundamentally differ. The charm of the Champion class is that you can take nearly all fundamental ideas that evoke strong emotions and adapt the class to it. You don't need a special class for every tiny variation.

Indeed, I think it does the concept of runes an injustice, to assume that it requires some very narrow specialized focus training, instead of just being part of overall magical training.

It's a completely different mechanic. There are definitely other valid concepts of rune mages (if you want to combine the concepts of "rune" and "mage" at all), but this specific concept doesn't really fit in a mage's repertoire. Actually, a runethane is much more similar to other classes than to mages. Incidentally, the word "thane" means "servant", which is vague enough.

Again, part of why I feel the PHBII classes are stronger, overall. They all have some great archetypal basis....the witch really *doesn't.* It's a cool class, sure, but it isn't an existing, strong archetype like the Beguiler or the Knight is...heck, even the Dragon Shaman has some pretty okay archetypal strength to it (the Power of Dragons in my hands!).

I find the concept of a "Winter Witch" or a "Mind Witch" strong enough to evoke a fitting picture. And what is so intriguing about a "Duskblade" that doesn't have anything to do with "dusk", or a "Knight" that has some silly core mechanic that doesn't remind much of an archetypical knight?

 

[phindar]

A lot of what I saw in AU/E has ended up in D&D, sometimes in a way that feels mildly incestuous. The Unfettered for instance, a classic agility-based fighter who gets to add his Int bonus in to his AC. Not long after, CW comes out with the Swashbuckler, who gets a class ability called Unfettered Defense that does pretty much the same thing. The Warmain is a heavy armor fighter with d12 hit points, and the PHB2 makes the Knight. The Mage/Dusk-blade is another good example. So there is a case to be made of D&D re-inventing AE's wheel.

I read somewhere that D&D is up to 68 base classes. (That was the total someone had posted, in response to someone else saying there were "more than 50". I won't pretend to have exact numbers, but I will say that with new classes in every book, it doesn't sound outside the realm of possibility.) You could make an argument that D&D is re-inventing its own wheel. Or at least, churning out shiny chrome replicas.

 

[BryonD]

I don't know your personal issues with D&D that you want to have addressed. As I said, it were the issues of the majority of posters in that survey. Of course, I don't mind if you disagree with the solutions. You're talking about your game, after all.

I agree.

Yes, it's valid to discuss the setting in that context. I find it bland and uninspiring,

I agree.

and I'm one of the few people who think that the change to AE made it even worse. I hate dualistic settings. I was just opposing the point that had been mentioned several times in this thread: that the mechanics are tied to the setting. I don't see that. I don't see that at all.

Since I don't play in the world I honestly don't remember that much specifically. I do recall it being in there. I'll agree it was lower down the list than items such as: Stuff I just didn't like, re-invented wheels, and balance concerns.
Fairly heavy use of true names and some of the giant mechanics (builds made to support the old world guardian type) seem to stick in my mind, but I know it was more broad than just that. I'll, again, agree that I don't have a long "proof" and I'll readily admit that I'm not running the world. So by all means ignore my opinion. It is still my opinion.

Fair enough. The system as presented is a flexible approach to standard D&D magic and somewhere situated between sorcerer and wizard. It's nothing terribly exotic. It's just adding a bit flexibility to the good old Vancian system. AE was meant as a different take on D&D3E after all, not as anything revolutionary.

I agree.
As you are responding to thread themes, so am I. It has been stated several times that side by side magic systems are perfectly fine. Setting aside some minor concerns about the ability of templated spells to really crack the system, etc..., I agree completely with your assessment. So is it worth it to have two different systems running for nothing more than a different take? IMO, in this case not remotely.

 

[BryonD]

A lot of what I saw in AU/E has ended up in D&D, sometimes in a way that feels mildly incestuous. The Unfettered for instance, a classic agility-based fighter who gets to add his Int bonus in to his AC. Not long after, CW comes out with the Swashbuckler, who gets a class ability called Unfettered Defense that does pretty much the same thing. The Warmain is a heavy armor fighter with d12 hit points, and the PHB2 makes the Knight. The Mage/Dusk-blade is another good example. So there is a case to be made of D&D re-inventing AE's wheel.

This really greatly stretches the argument.
I'm not buying that no one at WotC had thought of a Swashbuckler or Knight concept before Reading AU. As a matter of fact, that is patently absurd to consider. And I also don't consider AU to have any kind of ownership of fitting words such as "unfettered".

And if you are suggesting that splatbooks "re-invent" AE's wheel, then I'd suggest you don't quite understand what the term means. You could claim "copy". I'd dispute you, but it would be a rational claim. But re-inventing the wheel indicates redundancy with an existing system. Since nothing in D&D is intended to support or enhance AE, there is nothing to be redundant with.

The claim kinda smacks more of "I know you are but what am I?" than an actual point.