• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

What is Arcana Evolved/Unearthed Arcana like?


log in or register to remove this ad


Felon said:
But as Crothian mentioned, the character classes, races, and other content are specific to the setting, and that's where the PHB analogy stops.
I have to agree with others that this point is moot. You can use those races everywhere, and I actually use some of the race concepts in my (pretty generic) homebrew. We tend to forget how setting-specific PHB races are. If you want to have generic elves, than they would look similar to those in Tolkien's "Hobbit": relatively small, mischievous creatures that live below the earth.
 

woodelf said:
Says you. According to the author, and according to me, the races/classes/spells are no more Diamond Throne-specific than those in the D&D3E PH are Greyhawk-specific. His goal was to have no more assumed setting than the D&D3E PH, just different assumed setting. I think he succeeded.

But they are both specific to their settings. To use AU in Greyhawk or to use the PHB races/classes in Diamond throne will change the way that each setting looks and feels. That is to not say that one cannot use them else where, one can. And one can build a world for either from the ground up.

That is what I was talking about. Not that they could not be used for other world, but that Diamond Throne was crafted with these races and classes in mind. More so the Greyhawk, or the Forggotten Realms for example.
 


woodelf said:
The selection of spellsi is more interesting, and ditches a lot of legacy cruft (like a 1st-level no-save, no-attack-roll, force spell).

Oh, how exciting playing a first-level wizard would be without this obviously broken munchkin spell!

"I cast magic missile!"
"What's the DC? 14, right?"
"Yup, first level +3 for my 17 Int."
"He saves."
"Kewl. So the monster takes (1d4+1)/2 damage. *roll* Yay! I rolled 3! 2 damage! Take that monster! Oh, how mighty I feel today!"
"Well, it's not enough to down the single kobold that survived your fighter friend's cleave+TWF attack."
"OK. I cast my second, and last, first level spell. Expeditious retreat."

This post brought to you by the Free Rolleyes Foundation.
 

Don't worry Gez, there are plenty of good mighty first level spells in AU and I assume there are such in AE as well.

They mostly relly on touch attacks rather than saving throws, which is a nice feature, or have saving throws that only affect the secondary effect of the power.
 

I seem to recall that in early days people were stressing about the ability of an AU Magister to use a 1st level spell with various fire enhancements and do a 4d6 burst with it. Seems the worry about that died down after a while.

Sure beat magic missile though ;)
 

Yer darn tootin' fireburst is better than magic missile, at low levels with the Fire Mage feat. The requirement of having an already-existing fire kinda made it less good, but the fire-monkey trick gets around that quite well...
 

Gez said:
Oh, how exciting playing a first-level wizard would be without this obviously broken munchkin spell!

"I cast magic missile!"
"What's the DC? 14, right?"
"Yup, first level +3 for my 17 Int."
"He saves."
"Kewl. So the monster takes (1d4+1)/2 damage. *roll* Yay! I rolled 3! 2 damage! Take that monster! Oh, how mighty I feel today!"
"Well, it's not enough to down the single kobold that survived your fighter friend's cleave+TWF attack."
"OK. I cast my second, and last, first level spell. Expeditious retreat."

This post brought to you by the Free Rolleyes Foundation.

It's not that magic missile is too powerful--it's that it doesn't fit the established "rules" for how spells work, and what they can do at various levels. That's all. And two wrongs don't make a right--the fix for too few spells isn't "bad" spells, it's more spells.

And, i don't know about your rulebooks, but in my roommate's copy, magic missile doesn't have a save.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top