PHB2 vs. Arcana Evolved

[Pants]

I'd go for any kind of damage that works on a Feint as appropriate. Sneak Attack does the job just fine.

IMHO Improved Feint is the Swashbuckler tactic par excellance.

Cheers, -- N

Sudden Strike (extra damage when the target is flatfooted) works too and comes with less baggage IMO.

 

[Nifft]

Sudden Strike (extra damage when the target is flatfooted) works too and comes with less baggage IMO.

I'd buy that just fine.

It didn't exist when AE was first created... but it wouldn't have been too much of a stretch.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Pants]

I'd buy that just fine.

It didn't exist when AE was first created... but it wouldn't have been too much of a stretch.

Cheers, -- N

It wouldn't have been too much of a stretch to make up a mechanic like that while all those fancy-schmancy new spellcasting rules were being created.

 

[prosfilaes]

For those who think that the AE classes are too specific in some ways to be core classes, why would somebody write an Alternate Player's Handbook but keep the same classes as in the core d20 fantasy game???

There's a difference between not too specific and the same. You can have a different breakdown of spellcasters without being more specific than the PHB.

 

[Nightfall]

I don't think it is, because sneak attack is very dependent on setting up flanking and or catching someone off guard. Besides it doesn't fit the archetype much at all.

For an actual swashbuckler, I maintain that using either a highly modified scout (skirmish == mobile fighter == swashbuckler more than sneak attack). Give the scout some Int bonus to damage ability, drop some of its Wilderness abilities, give it a bonus to AC, better BAB, and swap its skills around.

But then you're saying you want WotC's Swashbuckler huh? Cause to me that was...silly.

Psion,

So true about Holy Warrior.

 

[Pants]

But then you're saying you want WotC's Swashbuckler huh? Cause to me that was...silly.

Uh no.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

AE is probably the better value. It has new base classes that cover most of the same ground, plus quite a few more, it has new races (which are 100% compatible with those in the PHB, although obviously they need to be placed somewhere if you want to use them in an existing campaign), it has a few new PrCs (most of which are interesting but weak, as is Monte's wont), it has new feats (albeit this is an area it falls down relative to the PHBII), and it has new spells. It even has a few (well-done) monsters.

Aside from not being able to cross spell lists, I've yet to encounter a single thing that required 'conversion' to use with the PHB and other WotC supplements. Even the spellcasting is as simple as saying the AE classes have a separate spell list, just as psionic characters have a separate power list.

Over AE, the PHBII offers the beguiler (and the dragon shaman, I guess) - which AE doesn't really have an equivalent to -, high-level fighter feats, and the retraining rules. It's not that the remaining stuff isn't *good*, it's just that there's a good deal *less* of it.

 

[BryonD]

For those who think that the AE classes are too specific in some ways to be core classes, why would somebody write an Alternate Player's Handbook but keep the same classes as in the core d20 fantasy game???

The context of that statement has been regarding AE stand alone in the Shattered Throne setting.

Under that assumption you are left with even bigger gaps if you use AE only then PHB only. Also, you get back into some cases that just seem to be change for change sake.

I've seen numerous world books that supplied tweaks to core classes, core classes to leave as is, and supplemental world specific classes. I find that approach much preferable.

 

[phindar]

I've only glanced through the PHBII. My group tends towards low to mid level play (say, the sweet spot between 3rd-10th level), so maybe I'm missing out on the benefits the PHBII would bring to higher level games. I read through the classes, and while I thought knight was fairly well written, none of the other classes made enough of an impression on me that I can even remember them. (Except maybe, Spirit Shaman? A fellow player has one of these now, I'm assuming it comes from the PHBII. It looks okay in play, but I haven't seen anything that made me think it was better/worse/replacing/all that different than a cleric or druid.)

AE, however, I really like. The classes, the races, the magic system; there's a lot of good stuff in there. As a GM, I've run AE/D&D games that left all race/class/magic combos open, and I've never found a problem with it. Because of certain rules tweaks (mainly in skills), I decided to run it as an AE game with the D&D material supplemental to that, in a homebrew setting. But for me, AE and D&D are chocolate and peanut butter. Unfettered/rogues, barbarian/bear totems; I'm all about it.

 

[Psion]

Except maybe, Spirit Shaman? A fellow player has one of these now, I'm assuming it comes from the PHBII. It looks okay in play, but I haven't seen anything that made me think it was better/worse/replacing/all that different than a cleric or druid.)

Spirit Shaman is in Complete Divine. Dragon Shaman is in PHBII (and is not a caster.)

As it turns out, the difference between the Spirit Shaman and the Cleric or Druid is that it uses a magic system a bit more like AE.