Unearthed Arcana = D&D Viagra!

[Desdichado]

Isn't this what its supposed to do? We just sort of went through it and picked out what we could use, said other things would be great for when we run Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, or whatever. I rather liked the potpourri feel to the book.

I don't mind the potpourri feel of the book, and sure, you're not supposed to use everything in it at once (in fact, there's no way you could since some of it is self-contradictory, especially in regards to classes and such.)

What I'm saying is, that most of the ideas that I thought were good ideas are not new to d20, or even to WotC d20. Here's a few examples:

• I like the Class defense based bonus. In fact, the classes seem broken without it, as they require the "patch" of an expected magic armor bonus to work otherwise. But that's fixing a problem, not really introducing something new. Not only that, Star Wars d20, d20 Modern and d20 Wheel of Time, all WotC books, already used this mechanic, and did it better in my opinion. The UA version has the same progression for each class, the only thing differing being the starting point. The progressions are also much flatter than they are for Wheel of Time, say.
• I like Would/Vitality points as a nice option. Presented already in Star Wars d20, though -- or open content already via Spycraft.
• I like the damage save idea, but it's cribbed from Mutants & Masterminds.
• I like the Sanity mechanic, but it's cribbed from d20 Call of Cthulhu, which is already a WotC book as well.
• Some of the other ideas were potentially good, but needed a little bit more attention given to them; bell curve dice rolling, at half a page, doesn't really address situations that could come up very well, IMO. A lot of the damage and armor variants are half-hearted, have very little discussion around how to use them (especially in conjunction with each other) to the point that I have to still kitbash them together with house rules to make them work.

In short, UA sparked my imagination for some changes to the system, but when it came right down to it, the changes I'm looking at were already available in d20 format, and in many cases were better done the first time around. And, to boot, I have to still work it in and figure out how it all works together, and if anything, it seems the point of this book was that I didn't have to do that.

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree with Joshua. I've found lots of superb ideas and variants in it; even better, it reinvigorated my imagination. For me, it's a thumbs up.

Well, I'm not sure you're really disagreeing with me, as I'm not saying that it doesn't do any of those things. I'm not sure it lives up to the hype, though -- like I said, most of the really good ideas they had, they've already published under another gameline.

 

[ddougan]

Arcana Unearthed was Viagra for D&D. Unearthed Arcana is just Prozac for D&D.

heh, am I the only person that missed the point with Arcana Unearthed? I just dont see what is soooo good about it. Nothing jumps out from it like the options in UA.

I do love Unearthed Arcana though - as the original poster said, its really got me excited about things again (not that DnD 3e is plain, but I've recently been emphasising modern campaigns for a change of pace, now I'm really looking forward to some variant rules in the new DnD scenario I'm starting this weekend)

 

[Psion]

I like Would/Vitality points as a nice option. Presented already in Star Wars d20, though -- or open content already via Spycraft

Actually, it wasn't open content in Spycraft. It was a closed, used with permission sort of thing. Having it be open was one of the holy grails of this book.

 

[diaglo]

if UA is Viagra...does that mean i'm gonna get a jillion and one spam ads sent to me....telling me how i can get my "campaign" to last longer and stay rigid longer.

or am i gonna get old fogeys like Bob Dole saying "Whoa, down boy." on the next GE Commercial.

 

[Psion]

heh, am I the only person that missed the point with Arcana Unearthed? I just dont see what is soooo good about it. Nothing jumps out from it like the options in UA.

Well, that might be in part because it was assembled as a game, not as a book of options. But there were several things people saw and liked in AU much in the same vein as UA:

- new class variants, including a new way of approaching spellcasters
- variant spellcasting system
- racial "classes" (essentially, what made it to UA as paragon classes. Funny how you don't see the appeal of AU, but the UA authors which you praise obviously did. I was sort of surprised to not see AU in the OGL copyright credits.)

 

[Henry]

heh, am I the only person that missed the point with Arcana Unearthed? I just dont see what is soooo good about it. Nothing jumps out from it like the options in UA.

Here's what I see in it: Race levels (added to UA also); a variant magic system, more variant than anything in UA, that is flexible but DOESN'T use power points; equipment that sparks my imagination, particularly articulated armors; Psionics that mesh with the magic seamlessly; total rearrangement of the classes into non-traditional roles.

All of it six months before UA saw publication.

I took a look at UA in a bookstore this weekend, but realize I have a third of the book already in other d20 products. I am grateful for it, and the fact it is OGL content, which means more d20 publishers will be using these variants, but for me I found NO rules in there for use in D&D that I either want to use, or that I'm not already using.

I am glad it's brought some very solid fruits of the OGL to other gamers that don't look at d20 products much.

3.5 was not the shining example of the power of Open development; this book is.

 

[Henry]

I was sort of surprised to not see AU in the OGL copyright credits.)

That's because they were taken almost directly from a document that Rich Redman, Monte Cook, and one other designer (Bruce C? Sean K?) had done after they had all read Monte's take on Race levels. I'm guessing that Monte, Rich, and the third designer gave WotC separate permission to use that document. Because it wasn't the literal game rules from AU, they probably didn't feel free to credit it.

 

[ddougan]

Well, that might be in part because it was assembled as a game, not as a book of options. But there were several things people saw and liked in AU much in the same vein as UA:

- new class variants, including a new way of approaching spellcasters
- variant spellcasting system
- racial "classes" (essentially, what made it to UA as paragon classes. Funny how you don't see the appeal of AU, but the UA authors which you praise obviously did. I was sort of surprised to not see AU in the OGL copyright credits.)

None of which really grabbed me, made me want to interrupt my Spycraft campaign and get back to DnD.

(UA did that ... luckily it arrived just before the current Spycraft mission ended, so its DnD + some variant rules starting this week

I'm not saying AU is a bad book (lots of other people seem to love it), just that, having bought it and read it, there's nothing I want to take from it.

Really, nothing...

[Edit] It didn't even make me want to look into the Diamond Throne more as a Campaign Setting. I know it was sold as a dual-use book (Variant PHB + Diamond Throne PHB), but its failed on both those counts for me ... so I guess it *is* a bad book in my opinion - so no flames - if you are enjoying it, keep doing so !

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, it wasn't open content in Spycraft. It was a closed, used with permission sort of thing. Having it be open was one of the holy grails of this book.

Ah, didn't realize that. Then again, WP/VP was open content (under a slightly different name) under the old ENWorld magazine published two years or so ago.