Unearthed Arcana = D&D Viagra!

[Ranger REG]

I agree with all of your points there, Ranger.

I'm sure some of the variants got playtested (just because I'm sure some are house rules), but others... urk.

Can I quote you on that? You see. That's why I won't give the book an elementary school grade of E (for Excellent). I'm not sure I can give it an S (for Satisfactory).

I do still think UA is a special case, and that it's been marketed as a special case.

The case being a message to all strictly D&D gamers: "Open your eyes, fools! We have d20 all around you!"

That's okay. I remembered a time when I was a strictly monogamous role-player ... until I experimented other games. Wink. Wink.

 

[MerricB]

With regard to playing other games:

I'm just waiting for Paranoia XP to be released.

Interestingly enough, a huge amount of my distrust of rules-light games come from my experiences with the Amber DRPG (which I played for 3 years, and is still one of my favourites). Anytime when a crucial situation in a RPG isn't covered by the rules, I go "uh oh"... I rate myself as a good DM, but I know I have off days (weeks, years, etc.)

With regard to rules balance and playtesting:

I'm sure that WotC R&D has a goodly regard for the role of playtesting. The CCG side learnt their lesson from Urza's Saga (much fallout there), and the philosophy of having a design team and a development team is well entrenched there, and seems to have also spread to the RPG team. Also, you have Mike Donais (a former Magic designer) now working as a D&D designer and developer.

They certainly have issues when it comes to editing (there have been a couple of interesting posts by Ed Stark related to that topic), but the balance issue is so much more thorny.

Cheers!

 

[Ranger REG]

What does Ed Stark have to say about editing?

 

[Psion]

Psion, I've no problem with you saying that, however that isn't how what you posted reads to me. It reads as "I don't want to discuss it, but you're wrong."

That wasn't my intention; just expressing the alternate opinion.

At least point to a few balance issues in the CW (or posts in another thread).

I thought you were there, thus I didn't think rehashing it would be too productive. I know I am not in the mood to rehash it.

 

[MerricB]

That's ok, Psion.

I may have been - unfortunately between then and now I've been scooping Archfiends, posting on Dragonsfoot, 3EBB, Necromancer and the Wizards boards as well as working, and my memory is what it has always been.

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

What does Ed Stark have to say about editing?

do you really want to know?

i know i don't have to remind you or Merric. but for the others here...visit the WotC site...(T)Ed has some interesting comments.

also Mortality.net had a cool interview on their Radio program.

 

[Particle_Man]

I like UA. I want to combine the Injury Rules with the Generic classes (witha slight house rule to give the Expert a few more skill points/level). Now I just have to convince players...

But there is one place where UA fell down on the job. Where are the names for our poor generic iconics? In honor of the awesome comic book Knights of the Dinner Table, I dub them, from left to right, Bob (the expert with the crossbow), Sara (the divine spellcaster) and Dave (the warrior -- what else would Dave be?). Not shown is Brian (the arcane spellcaster).

 

[Ranger REG]

do you really want to know?

i know i don't have to remind you or Merric. but for the others here...visit the WotC site...(T)Ed has some interesting comments.

How about kindly directing us to the specific page(s) containing T'ed's quotes by providing a link?

 

[Pants]

Still, if such a product bears the D&D logos and trademarks, one is going to expect that those variant rules can fit into the D&D core game like a glove.

I sincerely doubt that, considering that many of these variant rules are designed to replace or augment existing rules in the DnD framework. Also, consider that this is a book where you pick and choose what you want. Playtesting each and every rule and how it interacts with all of the Core Rules and the other variant rules is an impossible wish.

Thus, I really doubt that they'll fit like a glove.

That said, the balance on some of the alternate rules seems dubious at best.

 

[Azlan]

Unearthed Arcana = D&D Viagra!

Naw. UA = half-cocked.

I was looking forward to this book. But when I picked it up and leafed through it, I was disappointed by how little depth it ended up having. And the price tag! $35 for, what, 220 pages? That's $5 more and about 100 pages less than the 3.5 Player's Handbook! (Yes, you can get either book at 30% discount, on-line, but that's beside the point.)

UA needs about 50 pages more, with the book covering the same number of rules variants as it does now, but with greater depth. (The price tag should remain the same.) Because, while there are lots of rules variants in the UA, most of them are not as well though out or not covered as thoroughly as they need to be.

For example, using DR for armor is a big change to the D&D system, thus you need more than the mere couple of pages that UA provides to cover all the ramifications and balancing issues of such a change. But if you go with the bare-bones, half-baked rules variant that's given in the UA, you'll find that you've opened up a big can of worms in your campaign, which will serve only to muck things up, because not everything was taken into account in that rules variant.