What Variant Unearthed Arcana rules will you be using?

[Plane Sailing]

How do domain wizards work, and why are they overpowered?

Go here http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=76681&page=9&pp=25 three quarters of the way down the page.

Cheers

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

* Racial paragons, though I'll be altering Half-Orc and Orc a little bit to fit my rules regarding the former and the PC status of the latter.

* Fractional BAB and Saves-- I've been doing this anyway, and I like the validation. As others have noted, though, I will be limiting the +2 save bonus to once per category.

* Cloistered Clerics and Thugs. I may use Spontaneous Cleric, as well.

* I'll probably allow the other class variant options, if the character concept uses them well.

* Bloodlines. Oh god yes, bloodlines. I'm going to fold that into my Sorcerer changes, as well...

* There are some campaigns where the Gestalt classes would be excellent-- particularly if they revolved around all of the characters having one-half of the Gestalt in common.

* Damage Threshold. Was doing this anyway.

Everything else, I haven't looked into the book too seriously. I'll have to sit down and give it a serious reading before I go into too much depth about what I'll be using.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Quite a lot of the stuff, in different campaigns:

First, there is a short campaign in Midnight (6 sessions or so), which I also use as testing atoll for some of the rules:

• Defense bonus to AC (though a little tweaked)
• Armor as DR (also a little tweaked)
• VP/WP

The magic system in Midnight is already changed dramatically, so the changes to magic and spellcaster classes won't fit. I might use craft points, though, if and when they can benefit from a nexus.

Then, there is our current Ravenloft-turned-FR-turned-planescape-turned-FR(again)-turned Epic-FR campaign, which is almost over (we jumped a couple of levels to Level 23 to test the epic levels a bit - only a handful of sessions, and then the campaign ends).
I use the spontaneous cleric Domains there.

The follow-up campaign of that, which will be an evil ravenloft campaign, will probably use more of UA (have to go it over with the DM). We will probably use the following:

• Gestalt Characters (whould be overkill for the FR, where you get a lot of magic stuff, but in Ravenloft, we will be quite short on magic items, and can use the extra power
• Spontaneous cleric domains (this time, fully enforced, with healing no longer spontaneous)
• Domain Wizard maybe
• Maybe sanity to replace/augment the horror checks in Ravenloft

Finally, we have a FR (Unapproachable East) campaign, which will use several of the rules changes:

• Most Variant classes (though few of them matter, for there are no characters that could use them), with the exception of Domain Wizard
• Character Traits (no takers so far)
• Character Flaws (no takers so far)
• Spelltouched feats
• Weapon Groups
• Craft Points
• Maybe some changes in Massive Damage and Death/Dying (though we also had different rules there)
• Metamagic Components (though only rarely, and not as a substitute. We may find the odd component from time to time, though)
• Incantations (though they won't figure largely, if actually used at all)
• And Massive Damage based on Size from the DMG

 

[JPL]

[Irony mode on]
Wow!! What a new and original idea!!!
[Irony mode off]

GOM

The stupidity is strong in this one.

 

[Azul]

My "steampunk" arabian campaign will be using:

Desert and Jungle Racial Variants
Bloodlines
Racial Paragon Classes
Specialist Wizard Variants
Favored Environment (Ranger Favored Enemy variant)
Character Traits and Flaws
Incantations (to represent ritual magic)
Taint (we already used taint instead of alignment - this just gives a mechanic for it)
Tainted Prestige Classes

Our house rules already had variant paladins, non-militant (i.e. cloistered) clerics, urban fighters (i.e. thugs), and complex skill checks.

 

[Wombat]

Whats yer point? None of the ideas in the book are original, as near as I can tell. Almost all of them have appeared in some other game. That's not really the point, though.

In some other game, on the net, created as house rules, etc.

So I have to wonder why UA is worth $35?

As said, almost none of these ideas are original, many of them already appeared in other D20 games (including games already put out by WotC). So, while there are ideas that appear in UA that I use in my game, none of them are from UA.

So what is the point of this book? Just being "official"? Is that a benefit? If so, how?

I am quite earnestly interested in real answers to these questions.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

Look at me!!!!

After reading through the book, I will be using:

-All the variant classes except for the non-wizard classes
-Either the Domain wizards, or the enhanced specialists (Haven't decided which one I will use, I don't think I can use both, if I use domain wizards, there will be no specialist or generalist wizards)
-Taint (Along with the tainted PrCs)
-Weapons groups
-Incantations
-WP/VP
-Generic classes to replace the NPC classes save Commoner
-Item familiars
-Customized summoning lists (Although I wish they were a bit more clear on what you could put, as the CRs seem to vary a bit on the lists given)
-Insanity, on occasion, and will melt it into the Alientist PrC I'm making for my game.
-Possibly Craft points, will examine it in greater detail before I put it in
-ECL reduction, save modified a bit, once I'm positive how it works.
-Bloodlines, I like them a bit.

 

[JPL]

In some other game, on the net, created as house rules, etc.

So I have to wonder why UA is worth $35?

As said, almost none of these ideas are original, many of them already appeared in other D20 games (including games already put out by WotC). So, while there are ideas that appear in UA that I use in my game, none of them are from UA.

So what is the point of this book? Just being "official"? Is that a benefit? If so, how?

I am quite earnestly interested in real answers to these questions.

Well...the ideas of bloodlines or variant classes or generic classes might not be new, but UA has some new takes on these old ideas.

Maybe some people don't own all of these other games where some of these rules might have appeared. It's also my understanding that UA goes into more detail examining the consequences of different rule changes.

Being "official" means in this case that the ideas will be available to other game companies as OGC, and that many, many players will be familiar with them and will try them out. If everyone else on enworld tries gestalt classes and like them, I will feel confident in using them myself.

There's something to be said for having all of these choices in one place, too.

 

[Kichwas]

• Character Traits -- these things are really cool!
• Defense Bonus
• Armor as Damage Reduction
• Action Points

I looked at the book recently.

Character Traits are like the anti feats from Kenzer's Villain Design Handbook - except you only need one of them to get a free feat and not two. So they're easier to abuse in UA.

Defense Bonus and Armor - Conan does this better, having armor simply reduce damage, and then backing it with armor piercing and finesse systems (finesse in Conan is the ability to seek the holes in the armor with weapons like a stilleto).

Action Points - The only system of these that I've liked so far was the one in Mutants and Masterminds, because it refreshes.

Damage Save - Fails to take several factors of the old system into account, such as varying hit dice. As much as I like the save in Mutants and Masterminds it seems problematic here.

I'm unlikely to use any of these options as they're described in UA, as there are superior or more balanced sources elsewhere.

I don't plan on using any option that seems to begin with 'for munchkin play', so Gestault and spell points are out - as they make all or some of the normal classes less viable. The domain wizards as I've seen described online seem problematic as well.

As for the rest of the book, we'll see when I have a chance to see it in more detail.

 

[Gnarlo]

I've been very surprised not to see a single mention of facing rules in this thread, particularly from the "square bases are ruining D&D" faction. Is anyone using them, do they feel the rules just don't measure up, or have people simply decided square bases and no facing wasn't such a crucial issue after all?