What Variant Unearthed Arcana rules will you be using?

[glass]

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.

Really? 'cause the preview on the WoTC web site was nothing like that. I don't have the book yet, so I can't be sure, but this doesn't seem to accord with what I have read about it.

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.

Rather than the dreaded M-word, how about 'for higher powered play', or better yet, 'for solo/small group play...'.


glass.

 

[francisca]

Pretty short list:

1) Alternate XP system. Still low level, so this is seemless and in my case, a no brainer.
2) Battle Sorceror, because I didn't have a class like this available already. I am toning down the spellcasting a little though.
3) Whirlwind attack, or frenzy, whatever it's called. The +4 for to strength and dodge ability instead of stnadard rage for barbarians.
4) Totem barbarians.
5) Probably offer some of the character options like swapping sneak attack for fighter feats for rogue, etc...

Other things will be evaluated and added if they do not require a lot of imagineering on the player's part, and we all like it.

 

[Desdichado]

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

Having it all in one place is good. Having it designed to be modular rather than as a rule that pertains to a specific setting is good.

As an example, let's look at the Sanity rules. These are almost the exact same as the d20 Call of Cthulhu rules, and I've had that book for a few years now. So why would I want them in UA? Because the slight tweaks they did to fit it into D&D play. The options to not make going insane par for the course, the way they integrated it into the D&D magic system, etc.

Sure, that's not a whole lot of bang for your buck, but to me it takes Sanity from being an interesting mechanic that I'm not quite sure how to use in D&D without some additional house rules to make it fit to being one that's worked to seamlessly fit as a modular rule base into D&D.

Granted, I think many of the same things; as a d20 buyer, alternate rules in a single book from WotC isn't as big a deal to me as a D&D official only type of buyer. But there's a lot of stuff in there, most of it well done, and all of it designed to be completely modular without the interdependencies that accompany rules designed for a specific setting.

 

[Drow Jones]

Here's my list.

Implemented into my game immediately:

- Turning Undead variant: Level Check (finally!!)
- Reducing Level Adjustments
- Massive Damage (con+3xHD)
- Spontaneous Metamagic: Extra Spell Slots Variant

Will most likely use in future:

- Specialist Wizard Variants
- Weapon Group Feats
- Item Familiars
- Incantations (perhaps combined with other ritual magic rules)
- Complex Skill Checks
- Racial Paragon Classes
- Totem Barbarian
- Cloistered Cleric --> Priest (possibly combined with spontaneous divine casting)
- Monk Fighting Styles

Other rule variants I like:

- The section on class variants is full of mostly good examples on how to design/modify a character class.
- Generic Classes
- Combat Facing
- Hex Grid
- Magic Ratings
- Summon Variants
- Reputation
- Taint
- Sanity
- Level-Independent Awards (A blast from the past! )

Other rule variants range from "mostly indifferent" to "a waste of space" (IMHO of course), but I won't get into details.

- DJ

 

[Desdichado]

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.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about and suspect you didn't read them very carefully. Perhaps you're confusing this with Flaws? I'm not as impressed with flaws as I am with traits.

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).

Conan costs $50 ($30 online from some places.) And the UA rules work fine for me. It sounds like Conan may be more complex as well.

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

These are essentially identical to d20 Modern Action Points, and I like them just fine. I also like the AU Hero Points (or whatever they call them in that game) but I think the UA/d20M version is my favorite. I don't recall M&M having an equivalent mechanic, but we've only played a session or two of that game, unfortunately.

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.

No, those are taken into account and specifically addressed. Maybe not as you would expect them to, but that's not the same as completely ignored, as you imply.

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

For most of the specific variants you mentioned, I find the UA to be both superior and better balanced. YMM(obviously)V.

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.

Granted. Gestalt classes immediately turned me off for that reason. However, other than that, everything I've read so far as made a quite good effort to preserve balance and be different without being more (or less) powerful.

 

[KenM]

I'm picking it up today, but after looking at it in store yesterday I can see they took alot of ideas from GURPS. Facing, traits, flaws. I think the reason not many people are going to be using facing is that it adds to the clomplexity of combat.

 

[Thaniel]

I'm trying hard to get my DM to allow my Conjurer to use the third Conjurer variant (spontaneous substitution of Summon Monster spells) because my caster's thing has always been Summon spells.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm trying hard to get my DM to allow my Conjurer to use the third Conjurer variant (spontaneous substitution of Summon Monster spells) because my caster's thing has always been Summon spells.

"I choose you Celestial Badger!"

I've had a character like that too...

 

[TracerBullet42]

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?

My group will be using them tomorrow for the first time. I'm sure there will be some advantages and some drawbacks, but I'm holding my judgement until we try it for a few games. I even started a thread about it a few days ago, but it quickly turned into a lot of people condemning the facing system...I'll give a post regarding how it worked out when the new and improved EnWorld returns on monday.

Personally, I'm looking forward to it, but I have a rogue character. Although I believe we'll be dealing with undead, so I won't get the full sneak attack goodness...but I'll try to keep track of how it "could have been".

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm trying hard to get my DM to allow my Conjurer to use the third Conjurer variant (spontaneous substitution of Summon Monster spells) because my caster's thing has always been Summon spells.

I'm about to start playing a conjurer myself, but that's the one option I didn't want; I went with the other two.

It's cool to be able to swap out spells for summoning, but the fact that the summon spell has to be one leverl lower than the spell you give up sort of turned me off of it for this particular character. I don't think it's a bad rule; makes you choose power vs. versatility. For this particular character, power made more sense.