Unearthed Arcana for 3.5 from WOTC!

[JRRNeiklot]

Unless I'm blind, it's not there. Maybe your browser loaded an old copy and it hadn't refreshed? Or maybe I AM blind. Regardless it's not there for me.

 

[Aitch Eye]

You're right about it being an old copy, though I had refreshed my browser to try and eliminate that possibility before I posted. Switching to IE and refreshing made it disappear. Sorry.

The paragraph originally ended with the phrase:

"I even had some design work for Unearthed Arcana , a book of D&D variants for Wizards of the Coast."

...which was clearly separate from Urban Arcana, mentioned earlier in the paragraph. My guess is it was taken down because they have a policy about not talking about projects until they appear in the catalog, IIRC.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well, at least I'm not blind!

 

[thundershot]

Apparently Andy put the toilet seat down....


Chris

 

[Wolv0rine]

It's already working. One person has already stated that they would rather purchase a UA book from WotC instead of AU from Monte, so their plan is working.

Oh, I don't know if that's true per say. I'm interested in what will be in this new UA from WotC, but I wouldn't glance once at Monte's AU, because I'm not interested in the direction he's going. Entirely personal flavor preferences there, has nothing to do with evil big corporations or PR or anything. I thought the 1E UA was one of the best books to be published for 1E OR 2E (like there was any 2E books that were even half as good as the worthless 1E Wilderness Survival Guide), so I'm interested to see what WotC puts in the new one.

Then again, I thought Comliness was nothing less than pure brilliance, and will never understand why it didn't become a sacred cow stat.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Then again, I thought Comliness was nothing less than pure brilliance, and will never understand why it didn't become a sacred cow stat. [/B]

My guess would be, because people want to design the character they "see" in their minds. I don't mind rolling for stats, since you can usually approximate the character you want (or at least one you're willing to play). But I, and most players I know, want complete control over what their character looks like. Some things are just basic to concept, beyond even stats like Strength and Intelligence.

Now, I have no objection whatsoever to including Comeliness as an optional rule. But I think making it a core stat is just one step too much toward randomness, and away from being able to design a character you want to play.

 

[Wolv0rine]

My guess would be, because people want to design the character they "see" in their minds. I don't mind rolling for stats, since you can usually approximate the character you want (or at least one you're willing to play). But I, and most players I know, want complete control over what their character looks like. Some things are just basic to concept, beyond even stats like Strength and Intelligence.

Now, I have no objection whatsoever to including Comeliness as an optional rule. But I think making it a core stat is just one step too much toward randomness, and away from being able to design a character you want to play.

I can understand not wanting to *roll* Comliness (although the fact that it was modified by Cha was a good idea), but having the stat seems like a really good idea. We know that Cha isn't really about your looks, and yes you can just say "My character is wicked-good looking", but you could say that about any of the stats. I think pt. buy blows, personally. It's a sure-fire way to either have a horribly min-max'ed char, or an even more horribly hum-drum char, but that's not the fault of the IDEA of pt. buy, it's the fault of the numbers.. But people use it, and some of those people rave about it. The entire system is built around random character traits, I don't really see why looks being random (albeit modified) is any worse than my character's intelligence or charm (cha) being random. Personally, I'd like to assign ALL of my stats, and be able to create the character I'm wanting to play, but the game doesn't normally operate like that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I can understand not wanting to *roll* Comliness (although the fact that it was modified by Cha was a good idea), but having the stat seems like a really good idea. We know that Cha isn't really about your looks, and yes you can just say "My character is wicked-good looking", but you could say that about any of the stats. I think pt. buy blows, personally. It's a sure-fire way to either have a horribly min-max'ed char, or an even more horribly hum-drum char, but that's not the fault of the IDEA of pt. buy, it's the fault of the numbers.. But people use it, and some of those people rave about it. The entire system is built around random character traits, I don't really see why looks being random (albeit modified) is any worse than my character's intelligence or charm (cha) being random. Personally, I'd like to assign ALL of my stats, and be able to create the character I'm wanting to play, but the game doesn't normally operate like that.

Well (he said, hijacking the thread even further ), here's the question.

Do you believe a character's physical beauty (or lack thereof) should have a mechanical affect in the game?

If you do not, a Comeliness score is more or less useless. Far better just to describe your character's overall attractiveness as part of the physical description. If Comeliness has no mechanical impact, does it really matter if I've got a 15 or a 16?

If you think Comeliness should have a mechanical effect (such as, perhaps, granting bonuses or penalties to certain types of skill rolls), then that opens up an entirely new avenue of questioning. See, if Comeliness has a mechanical affect then, for purposes of fairness and balance, players shouldn't be able to just choose. They should have to roll it, like they roll any other score. But if they have to roll it, aren't you, in essence, taking away the player's ability to create his own character? Of all the details to decide when making a character, general "image" is one of the most personal. Sure, some people like complete randomness, but most players I've met have a pretty solid idea of what they want their character to look and act like. The difference between a 14 Strength and an 18 isn't going to change the whole image of a character. The difference between a 14 Comeliness and an 18 can.

"We know that Cha isn't really about your looks, and yes you can just say "My character is wicked-good looking", but you could say that about any of the stats. "

Not really. Like I said, everything else has a concrete impact on mechanics and gameplay. Comeliness only impacts roleplaying (or, at best, a few marginal checks).

Again, it boils down to image. I may not be able to assign my character's precise stats, but I'm going to hesitate about even playing in a game where I have no control over what he looks like.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

 

[Agamon]

Y'know, I do enjoy making fun of 2E at every available opportunity, but it had one thing going for it: Most of the 2E books had original names. This "use-an-old-name-for-the-sake-of-nostagia" thing is starting to get old...

Hey, I wonder if it'll have an option to use M&M's Damage Save rule...