Unearthed Arcana Variant Rules - Previews and Questions

d4 said:
yes.

even if i were to use a heaping helping of variant rules from UA so that i ended up with something that was, as you put it, closer to "GURPS with classes" than core D&D, it would still have elements of d20 that i like present and have elements of GURPS that i don't like absent.

the only Unearthed Arcana-like books for GURPS are the two Compendia, which however do not move GURPS in the direction of the game i desire in the way that UA moves d20.

so it would still, for me, be better to play a UA-modified version of d20 than a Compendia-modified version of GURPS.

(as far as i know, the other systems you quoted don't even have books of alternate rules, so they are even less useful to me.)

Well, the question i'm trying to get at is, if there *were* a game that was already what you wanted [had all the bits of D&D3E you like, none of those you didn't, and all those changes you'd incorporate if you got to run the show], would you still prefer to modify D20 System to match that vision (even assuming it was as easy as picking which options out of a published rulebook you'd use), rather than switch and play that other game? [there is, of course, no "right" or "wrong" answer here--i'm just curious.] IOW, it's not about modifying vs. not-modifying, it's about modifying the familiar vs. ready-made-but-unfamiliar.

the next obvious question would be why don't i just make up my own system or modify the rules myself? while i love working on settings and other worldbuilding details, i hate creating rules. i like worldbuilding, but i don't like game design. so i prefer to leave that in the hands of the professionals. :)

Well, i asked not to question the veracity/honesty/tenability of your claim, just to better understand your position. One of my homebrews, frex, grew out of AD&D houserules. I kept making one change, and then another, and so on. At one point, i had something that was about equal parts AD&D2 and Ars Magica, and as i was contemplating another change, i realized that the changes i was making wouldn't be satisfactory until it was no longer recognizably "D&D". The end result was basically Ars Magica with the magic based around the D&D spelllists, rather than a pseudo-Medieval paradigm. This is not to say that the same would be true for you. Just that, it seems to me that if the end result you want is, say, 90% like game A, and 10% like game B, starting with game A would make more sense than starting with game B. The relevance of this semi-obvious statement is that, with the options presented in Unearthed Arcana, i suspect i could alter D&D (game "B", in this case) until the above was true, for several different game "A"s out there, but i'm not sure i see the point--that is, if it really ended up like that, why not just pick up game "A" and play it?

And i'm not sure there's a definitive answer, in either direction.

Oh, and i fully support the "i don't wanna write a game, i wanna play a game position". That's prefectly sensible and understandable, IMHO. I wasn't even planning to go there. [In fact, i'd say it's a doubly-tenable argument in the case of D&D3E: if what you like are fairly complex, high-crunch games, the effort to create them is pretty significant, even if only in bulk of rules needed. It makes much more sense for someone who wants a Window-like RPG to just roll their own than someone who wants a D20-System-like one.]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bendris Noulg said:
The perils of posting while on Kid Duty...

As is, though, you indicated the rule as being in the DMG. The rule described above doesn't sound like anything I've seen in the DMG. I have seen (and use) the Opposed Rolls in the DMG. Is it in the 3.5 DMG and not 3.0?

Wouldn't know. Haven't read the 3.5 DMG. And it's been a while since i last read the 3.0 DMG. As i said in another post, i may have been conflating two different things that are obviously connected to me, but only one of which (defense rolls) is actually in the DMG. I thought the DMG extended that concept to giving all the rolls to players, but that may be just something that's come up online. And i don't have any D&D3[.5]E books to check for myself.
 

ArcOfCorinth said:
What's the spell progression for the generic Spellcaster class? Also, is there any way for the generic Expert to get sneak attacks?

What are the preresquites for the Ranger PrC?

The spells known is exactly like sorceror. The spells castable per day is close to sorceror, but weaker. 0 levels start at 4, then 5,5, and 6 at 4th. the 1st-7th levels start at 2 when the sorceror would start getting spells/day for that level, and go 2,3,4,5,5,6. 9th level is 2,3,4,5,6. 9th level is 2,3,5 (the only one not to get to 6). Levels 0-8 all cap out at 6 per day max. But hey, you get bonus feats, and not restricted to the wizard feat list.

All generics can take Sneak Attack for 2d6 as a feat if they have 4 ranks in Hide and Move Silently. There are two better versions(+3d6 doe 5d6 total, and +4d6 for 9d6 total), that require correspondinly higher skill ranks in the two skills.(11, then 18)

For what it is worth, the class abilities as feats include: evasion (and improved evasion), familiar, favored enemy, 3 levels of sneak attack, smite evil, turn undead, trap sense (which includes trapfinding within the same feat too), uncanny dodge (includes improved uncanny dodge within the same feat too), and wild empathy. For the rest, you have to make them up yourself.

Ranger Prc needs: Endurance, Track, and eithe rRapid Shot or TWF. Can cast calm animals as a divine spell. Bab+4, Knowledge nature 2 ranks, survival 4 ranks.
 



woodelf said:
Well, the question i'm trying to get at is, if there *were* a game that was already what you wanted [had all the bits of D&D3E you like, none of those you didn't, and all those changes you'd incorporate if you got to run the show], would you still prefer to modify D20 System to match that vision (even assuming it was as easy as picking which options out of a published rulebook you'd use), rather than switch and play that other game?
well, correct -- if there were a system like that, that's what i would want to play. currently, however, the system i want is d20 (or a modified version of d20).

Just that, it seems to me that if the end result you want is, say, 90% like game A, and 10% like game B, starting with game A would make more sense than starting with game B. The relevance of this semi-obvious statement is that, with the options presented in Unearthed Arcana, i suspect i could alter D&D (game "B", in this case) until the above was true, for several different game "A"s out there, but i'm not sure i see the point--that is, if it really ended up like that, why not just pick up game "A" and play it?
well, theoretically speaking, it could be because the 10% of game A you are missing by doing it this way is the 10% you dislike the most, and by starting from game A, it may also be the 10% that's hardest to get rid of.

i don't know -- this is all theoretical supposition.

another factor could be that old Ryan Dancey chestnut "network externalities." i'm sure i could use UA to make d20 into nearly a GURPS clone -- and still be able to get more people interested in playing it than in playing GURPS. that has nothing to do with the quality or content of the rules and all to do with people's attitudes and reactions to different name brands.

It makes much more sense for someone who wants a Window-like RPG to just roll their own than someone who wants a D20-System-like one.
that's a very good point.
 
Last edited:

The generic classes do sound pretty good. They allow more customization of PC's than ever. Do the generic classes get more feats like a fighter. It seems like they would have to if you were trying to build the core class PC's from generic classes. This may have been addressed earlier, but I don't feel like reading through pages of posts to find it.
 

Fingers Boggis said:
is it me or aree these generic classes starting to look better and better as we find out more

Indeed, I tried something like this back in 2e, but it came off as clumsy.

Five things I'm very keen on implementing are Generic Classes, Backgrounds, Character Traits, Weapon Groups and the three Prestige classes (Bard, Paladin, and Ranger). I might try to implement a Prestige Paladin of Freedom as well, using the Prestige Paladin as a framework example.


Regards,
Eric Anondson
 

Shazman said:
The generic classes do sound pretty good. They allow more customization of PC's than ever. Do the generic classes get more feats like a fighter. It seems like they would have to if you were trying to build the core class PC's from generic classes. This may have been addressed earlier, but I don't feel like reading through pages of posts to find it.

Warrior - gains feats as fighter, but not restricted to fighter list.
Spellcaster - gains feats as wizard, but not restricted to wizard list.
Expert - gains feats at 1,2,4,8,12,16,20.
 


Remove ads

Top