We're talking about a game that has a countless number of races and culural subsets, each with their own standards of beauty. How can a single score account for that? Or does a charater have one Comeliness score for humans, one for gnolls, one for devils, one for mind flayers, one for kobolds, one for dragons, one for....
Unearthed Arcana for 3.5 from WOTC!
- Thread starter Paladin
- Start date
Agamon
Adventurer
mouseferatu said:I should point out, for the record, that I dislike appearance playing a mechanical part in any system. I don't even like the fact that it's a stat in Vampire. I feel that the way a character looks should be one of those things that's:
A) entirely up to the player, and
B) should be conveyed and reacted to purely via roleplaying.
But that's just me.
Aboslutely! Physical attractiveness is not a stat. I don't even consider it a part of Charisma (well, okay, a very small, nearly insignificant part).
Wolv0rine
First Post
Well, for the record, I dislike having any random character attributes. I like to construct a character from the ground up, witht he outcome 100% under my control. Anything less, and it's simply not possible to "play the character you envision", unless you don't do any real envisioning until after you've rolled your stats. I can't sit down to make a D&D character and say "Okay, I want to play a beefy, towering character", I don't get that choice, the dice get that choice. I can say "He has a deep, booming voice" but no one cares, because it has no game effect.
Yeah, I think Com should have a concrete gamerules effect on the game. It has a concrete effect in reality, it affects the way people react to you. Anyone who says otherwise, I will not believe. It's hard-wired into the brain, you can't unlearn it. You can decide to not let it dominate your opinions, but it will affect things.
As far as determining who you're pretty to, and who you aren't, that's beyond the scope of D&D. Everything else is abstracted to a fair degree, so unless you want to start putting a magnifying glass to everything, I don't see a reason to start micro-managing 1 stat. Sure, dwarves *might* not see beauty the same as Elves of Gnolls, but I think that's something that each group should take into account for themselves. Or perhaps something included in the racial write-ups maybe. I don't know. It's no small undertaking, but neither (I'm sure) was the creation of 3E, or 3.5E, or even Monsters of Faerun. But they got written just the same.
It's a small quibble, but I not everyone can be wet-your-pants beautiful, just the same way not everyone can have that 20 STR.
Yeah, I think Com should have a concrete gamerules effect on the game. It has a concrete effect in reality, it affects the way people react to you. Anyone who says otherwise, I will not believe. It's hard-wired into the brain, you can't unlearn it. You can decide to not let it dominate your opinions, but it will affect things.
As far as determining who you're pretty to, and who you aren't, that's beyond the scope of D&D. Everything else is abstracted to a fair degree, so unless you want to start putting a magnifying glass to everything, I don't see a reason to start micro-managing 1 stat. Sure, dwarves *might* not see beauty the same as Elves of Gnolls, but I think that's something that each group should take into account for themselves. Or perhaps something included in the racial write-ups maybe. I don't know. It's no small undertaking, but neither (I'm sure) was the creation of 3E, or 3.5E, or even Monsters of Faerun. But they got written just the same.
It's a small quibble, but I not everyone can be wet-your-pants beautiful, just the same way not everyone can have that 20 STR.
Vocenoctum
First Post
Wolv0rine said:
Same here. I don't like the direction he took, nor some of the comments in his design diary. Diehard Monte fans praise the book without seeing it, but really, the name is Wizards, he's using a variant of it.
It's not like Wizards didn't already make a pattern of doing just this (old titles, new books).
Andrew D. Gable
First Post
BOZ said:which other 2E titles are coming up next?Drow of the Underdark? Tome of Magic?
I'm betting on Tome of Magic, as it seems like something WOTC would do. Book of Artifacts, too, but maybe that would be rolled in with ToM. Other than that...
Oh, and I'm wondering whether some of the content of UA will be updated and cleaned-up versions of the Players' Option books (2.5e). Like 'em or not, they did have some good ideas...some really bad ones, but some good ones too.
thundershot
Adventurer
Personally, I think the option of having sub-ability scores should return. That way people who want to use them, can, and those that don't, won't. Personally, I kinda like the idea of a character deciding whether he'd rather have a higher AC with his DEX bonus, or better aim. Etc etc etc...
Chris
Chris
EarthsShadow
First Post
I think WotC is scared and they always leave the toilet seat up.
Of all the 2nd ed books I have looked at, I did like Tome of Magic and the Player's Options books. Despite that the PO books were a munchkins paradise, I don't know how revamping them for 3rd edition could change much in munkinism since it happens anyways.
It's a bummer they aren't incorporating anything from the PO books into 3.5, otherwise that might get me to buy the books.
Of all the 2nd ed books I have looked at, I did like Tome of Magic and the Player's Options books. Despite that the PO books were a munchkins paradise, I don't know how revamping them for 3rd edition could change much in munkinism since it happens anyways.
It's a bummer they aren't incorporating anything from the PO books into 3.5, otherwise that might get me to buy the books.
jester47
First Post
EarthsShadow said:Whats a MIMIR?
A Mimir is a skull like thing that knows a lot of stuff about the planes. It floats and you ask it questions, it is somthing of a knowledgable oracle construct. It is from Planescape, but also from Norse Myth. Mimir is either a giant, or the head of a God that guards the well of wisdom.
As for WotC being evil and all that, whatever. AU is alright, and is far and away a different beast than what the UA is looking to be. IMO AU is not D&D. I have very little interest in it. It is related to D&D like CoCd20 is, but it is not D&D. UA will be D&D and entirely optional. Yeah, you can mine AU for ideas to put into D&D, and both ideas may be found in nearby veins, but I think that is where the similarity stops.
This is from the FAQ on Montes page:
"The product's name reminds me of an old D&D product. What's the deal with that?
When I was young and got my copy of the 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons book Unearthed Arcana, I thought it was really cool. It had new classes, spells, and rules for AD&D. But the one thing that I thought could have made it cooler was if all the new stuff had been meant to be a complete, stand-alone package. Thus, the idea for a variant player's handbook was born years ago. I've wanted to do this product ever since. Wizards of the Coast has graciously said it was okay for us to use this slightly different name for our book, and we're thankful for that."
So, you see it was monte being careful around WotC. He asked for a slightly different name. WotC never said that they were not going to do a UA.
Aaron.
Similar Threads
