The more I read about Arcana Unearthed...

[thundershot]

I'm in the minority, and I wasn't going to say anything, but I guess I will. The more and more I read about it, the less and less it seems I'll be able to integrate it seamlessly into my d20 campaigns. Today I realize that it's not even going to be d20, which adds to the doubt. I don't want to run a new campaign using just these rules. I want to be able to pick a few classes and races from it, and have them available as balanced character options with my regular D&D/d20 game. I want compatability in my d20 games, and I'm afraid I won't see that here.

By no means is this anything against Monte, because I love his work, and I really wanted to want this book, but it's just not happening. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's just doesn't sound like a book for ME.

I will, however, keep an eye out for reviews and such when it comes out; that may sway my decision.



Thanks
Chris

 

[psionotic]

On d20 vs OGL: Just because something doesn't carry the d20 logo does not mean that its not compatible with your D&D game. One of the rules WotC wrapped into the logo is that you want to include it on your game, you cannot include character creation rules. Therefore, any game that is made as a standalone game (like Arcana Unearthed) has to be released under the OGL, and not under the d20 license.

Arcana Unearthed is compatible with D&D, and it classes, feats, spells, and other rules bits will be balanced with your current D&D game. So your adventuring party can consist of an elven rogue and a faen akashic, if you want to integrate AU into D&D.



Ok, Rant off, it just peeves me when people talk about games not being useable because they are 'not d20'.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It...needs a different XP chart?!

Oh, dear, that's not a good sign.

But for everything else, I believe Morrus said it best:

Originally posted by The Man, Morrus
I'm looking forward to this so much more than D&D 3.5!

 

[BlackMoria]

I'm in the minority, and I wasn't going to say anything, but I guess I will. The more and more I read about it, the less and less it seems I'll be able to integrate it seamlessly into my d20 campaigns. Today I realize that it's not even going to be d20, which adds to the doubt. I don't want to run a new campaign using just these rules. I want to be able to pick a few classes and races from it, and have them available as balanced character options with my regular D&D/d20 game. I want compatability in my d20 games, and I'm afraid I won't see that here.

As a AU playtester, let me assure everyone that AU is fully compatible with D&D 3E and 3.5.

One of our playtest group's jobs was to playtest balance and compatibility issues with the Core books..... and our group has found no significant issues with balance of AU material to the Core book material. Nor, any significant compatibility issues.

That is not to say that some concepts and material may not need more work than simply plopping the material into an existing campaign. But there will be material in the book or as web enhancements that will ease any 'conversion' issues for material that just can't be dropped in 'whole cloth' into an existing campaign.

Our group has already made changes to our existing campaign by including a fair amount of the AU material. And we have not had any significant issues or problems and in fact, our group is in complete agreement that the changes have been nothing but postive for our game.

So, wait for it to come out and take a look and judge for yourself. Simply don't dismiss out of hand because it doesn't have a D20 logo on it.

 

[Voadam]

Does anybody know if AU is being released as pdfs as other Malhavok products are? Will it be multiple pdf books? How much it will be.

I think I remember hearing a reference that they would be, but I can't find the reference now.

 

[Merlion]

I read all the design diaries and find the book disappointing for the most part.

I really like some of the changes Monte has made to the magic system because I have grown very disappointed in the very limiting D&D memorization system. I like how he has folded psionics into the magic system to provide a fluid reason and usable mechanic. I also like the true name system.

However, I find most of the rest of the book pointless. The idea behind a Magister or MageBlade class that requires a staff or weapon as a focus is so Tolkien it makes me laugh. Also the new warrior classes do nothing. One of the few things 3E did get right were the distinctions between the Fighter and Barbarian classes. They provided two different approaches to the same problem. Also the Rogue class is perfect. I also see no reason at all for all these new classes or races.

Maybe I'm a D&D only mark, but I prefer rule systems that can be seemlessly folded into my exhisting world and 90% of AU cant be.

Uhh...what does using a staff or especialy a sword as a focus for casting spells have to do with Tolkien? Gandalf carried a staff, and some times made it glow. he was also an angel incarnate not really a wizard so....and even if they idea was Tolkien inspired why would it make you laugh?
As some AU playtesters have already pointed out AU is being created to be fully compatible with standard DnD.
And if you see no reason for al thease new races and classes I assume you dont own any sourcebooks beyond the PHB, DMG and MM.

 

[LGodamus]

I am looking forward to AU alot more than 3.5 my house rules fixed every problem I had with D&D but AU has things I never would have thought of.

 

[Outlaw]

Fence Rider

Well, I'm definitely stuck on this one. I'm the first to admit that I haven't been a big fan of Monte's work. His modules aren't my style (I still have a sour taste in my mouth from 2e's Labyrinth of Madness). But when I read his website, his ideas and just his attitude make me think he's definitely someone I'd like to game with.

So with this product, I'm really conflicted. I'm dying for something fresh and new to reignite my imagination. And this book seems like it would be worth picking up, but at the same time, if it has the same high-powered creatures and combats that I've come to associate with Monte's writing, it won't be worth the $30 as I'll never use any of it.


I'm officially on the fence.

 

[Zarrock God of Evil]

Actually Faen, or Fan/Fäen in Swedish, just means Satan or the devil. The reason the word has appeared is due to the fact that you couldn't say the name of the devil in older times and therefore we created new names for him.

In Swedish: (These are also curses)

Fan
Hin Håle
Satan
Djävul
Bastard (also means the same thing as bastard in english)

So it is really not a bad word , just a curse and the name of the devil himself.

No not that bad at all, I use it quite frequently actually (but then again, I'm always swearing). Keeping in the Scandinavian style, the Danish words are :

Fanden
Satan
Djævel

Bastard is the same but has no relation to the devil in any shape in the Danish language.

-Zarrock

 

[La Bete]

Re: Fence Rider

I'm officially on the fence.

I was on the fence until I came up with the radical notion of waiting till it came out, reading a few reviews on it (although it would be best to get a broad sweep of reviews to avoid fanboyism), and then maybe buy it.

Im sure it will be competent work - but less than certain that it will be suitable for my group, and absolutely certain it is unsuitable for my current game.