Arcana Unearthed, worth it?

[User3]

Nobody said anything about not using standard spells makes you a powergamer. I initially questioned why the people here think they're better designers than the 3.5 designers (despite pretty much having zero credibility in the gaming world) and why someone who thinks Fireball is cool and takes it, or who enjoys playing Fighters is somehow a "lesser being" than those who supposedly "know better", and I was promptly flamed for my comment with the typical Gaming Den rant about how people who think said things are idiots.

[Cielingcat]

Are you just trolling then?

Also read this, since you seem to have missed it.

1173656957[/unixtime]]

1173656356[/unixtime]]
I mean... if the majority of folks don't care about having all these "awesome powers" at every level, and the average gamer wants to take Fireball and Lightning Bolt because they think they're cool spells.. what exactly is the problem??

What if you don't want to suck? What if you want to be a warrior archetype, except not suck?

Do you honestly think you should deny people the right to not have a set of class abilities that's the rough equivalent of a bag of soggy dicks?

Personally, I don't think you should kick someone in the nuts because they want to be something that doesn't have 9 levels of caster, Mr. anonymous flamer.

[shau]

As an addendum: The persons I play with play the game for fun and to have interesting, flavorful characters (without a care about their relative power. Power levels mean fvck all to us), not to show off their "l33t p0wers".

If that were true, then you would not have mentioned someone rolling up a character that was too powerful for you (an evoker) and ruining your game.

I have played with guys who do not care about their power level, and they are great. But they don't ever complain about the guy wrecks the game with his powerful character. I do that, but then again I am concerned with my character's power level.

[User3]

1173670942[/unixtime]]Nobody said anything about not using standard spells makes you a powergamer. I initially questioned why the people here think they're better designers than the 3.5 designers (despite pretty much having zero credibility in the gaming world) and why someone who thinks Fireball is cool and takes it, or who enjoys playing Fighters is somehow a "lesser being" than those who supposedly "know better", and I was promptly flamed for my comment with the typical Gaming Den rant about how people who think said things are idiots.

Because the people here are better at game design then the people at WotC, in general. Certainly Frank and K are, because:

(1) Their rules do not (as best as I can determine - and I've got players using them right now) have unexpected and horribly broken loopholes.
(2) They* don't believe balance is based upon "playing how intended" (whatever that means), but upon what the game allows. They look at what the actual limits of the game are.
(3) They have an actual metric for what balance means. (Average success 1v1 against EL=character level challenges, assessed over ~10 encounters). The WotC designers, while implicitly defining that as balance, have yet to give a detailed explanation of what WotC considers balanced and how they assess it in published products. WotC published classes often fail to be balanced according to that metric, despite the fact that the CR/EL rules lead to the conclusion that it is what the game is supposed to be balanced around.
(4) They* actually reference the rules when making claims about what the rules say, rather than just making shit up on the spot.

*most of us here do 2 and 4. Frank and K have sold us on 3 for the most part too.

All I have to do is look at all the wrong rulings the Sage has returned with to know the WotC designers don't bother to look up the rules when answering questions. The editors intentionally remove good advice from splatbooks (see writers comments about Complete Mage chapter giving advice on good spells - i know it was on the WotC forums) in favor of including bad advice.

Balance is not a claim about how people play. Its a claim about how people *could* play. Good game design creates a balanced game that *cannot* be broken. The ease with which 3.5 breaks is proof of poor game design. End of story.

[User3]

1173661059[/unixtime]]

Only time I've seen the figther do poorly in this game is when someone plays a evoker and ruins the fun for everyone else.

Not to be rude, but your personal experience is indicative of nothing. While your games may have been just fine with a fighter, others' games may not have been. Regardless of who shares what experience, the problem is that there is inequity built directly into the game.

If the game is unbalanced becauses a few classes are overpowered the solution should be to remove or edit those classes that unbalance the system.

This is entirely a patter of perspective - just like looking at the proverbial glass. Is it half-full, or half-empty?

Does the imbalance come because the fighter's underpowered or because the casters are overpowered?

Pick the style of game you want to run, find your benchmark, and adjust the game accordingly. Personally, I despise the toilet-paperless model of D&D, and so imbalance comes from the fighter being underpowered. But some people like that kind of game, and so nerfing casters is the way the DM attempts to bring balance into the game.

Psychologically speaking, I've also had more luck trying to raise the standard than lower it; players tend to prefer knowing what they can do, rather than knowing what they can't.

Obviously, your experience has been very different from that of a large portion of people who post here.

Personal experience is the heart of class balance. The campaign determines class balance since the entire game after page 3 in the Players Handbook 3.5 is merely suggested houserules. If you follow them and your game is unbalance then its yours campaign thats at fault for following the RAW. People complain about the RAW but whats worse, the RAW being unbalance to begin with or following the RAW?

Plus people always look at the class side of the game. They fail to realize that balance is also determined by the campaign itself. So the RAW being balanced if a flaw notion since what the DM includes or doesn't include will be the final act in the balance of the game.

What the campaign includes WILL ALWAYS effect class balance. If the entire campaign was against undead guess which class from the PHB just got a bit boon without altering said class while another class just got weakened. If the campaign included mostly creatures with high DR guess which classes get affected without being altered themselves. If the campaign has alot of creatures with high SR or even good saves then take a guess at which school(s) of magic just got a boon above the rest.

Most DMs use encounters that cause the game to become MORE imbalance, setting it up so that spellcasters can excel above other other roles. But isntead of blaming themselves in addition to the RAW they place full blame on the RAW and its makers. Untill people realize that the DM and his campaign has an affect on game balance the idea of balance is a false constep that will never exist.

[Dragon_Child]

Most DMs use encounters that cause the game to become MORE imbalance, setting it up so that spellcasters can excel above other other roles. But isntead of blaming themselves in addition to the RAW they place full blame on the RAW and its makers. Untill people realize that the DM and his campaign has an affect on game balance the idea of balance is a false constep that will never exist.

So you're saying that a DM should keep in mind he can change balance? No shit, sherlock. Let's see, he can do this in two ways...

1) DMing in ways that are outright unfun and retarded (antimagic fields EVERYWHERE! like the people on the WOTC boards use), or change your DMing style drastically.

2) Houserule things to be balanced (see: the tomes).

People understand that. Most people here play in similiar styles (at least I would guess), and would rather take the GOOD option, #2. Why do you have an issue with that?

And yes, WOTC designers don't deserve respect in many cases. Ed Stark, a lead designer, thought that Savage Species making all monster races underpowered was a good idea, and giving Shapechange access to Supernatural abilities was a good idea, breaking it totally.

[Catharz]

So, what's so enjoyable about anonymous trolling?

[josephbt]

I guess the guy came from wizzo boards. Don't be too hard on him, this is the "There is no spoon" kind of truth. Not easy to take in.

[Leress]

1173670942[/unixtime]]Nobody said anything about not using standard spells makes you a powergamer. I initially questioned why the people here think they're better designers than the 3.5 designers (despite pretty much having zero credibility in the gaming world) and why someone who thinks Fireball is cool and takes it, or who enjoys playing Fighters is somehow a "lesser being" than those who supposedly "know better", and I was promptly flamed for my comment with the typical Gaming Den rant about how people who think said things are idiots.

Okay, when your first post is...

1173656356[/unixtime]]The bigger problem here is that you people think that A) You know better than the DESIGNERS OF THE FREAKING GAME and B) Anyone who doesn't see the game as you do is an idiot.

I mean... if the majority of folks don't care about having all these "awesome powers" at every level, and the average gamer wants to take Fireball and Lightning Bolt because they think they're cool spells.. what exactly is the problem?? It seems to me that it's only a problem when number-crunchers/optimizers like yourselves are in a game with "Joe Average" who doesn't care for any of that stuff.

How can you no expect a defensive response to that? The post makes two wild assumptions here the come off as derogatory descriptions of what we think.

By saying that since we are the only ones that make new rules and say that certain rules don't work, we are branded as arrogant pricks that better than the designers. (That can be said about any DM that has ever made a houserule)

No one here has said if you don't see the way we do you are an idiot unless you argue about something idiotic. Everyone one here has different opinions and ideas are exchanged. I've learned a lot from this site. It seems now this site has the "arrogant elitist" stamp on it just because there is a difference in opinion.

Now on to Arcana Unearthed, like some else has said, it's 3.0, Arcana Evolved is 3.5. I done a glance through of it and I really like the races and the classes, of course I could tell how good any of it was from just glancing but on the flavor side it was solid.

[Maj]

Personal experience is the heart of class balance.

In order to balance something that's considered broken, you have to have some sort of ruler that allows you to determine that broken has happened. I don't know of a single player who does not acknowledge that casters own fighters. It's not a question of experience. It's a question of design. And whether you want to admit it or not, the design of this game is flawed. That's not up to personal experience.

How you choose to enact the balancing of the rules is a matter of personal preference and experience.

Most DMs use encounters that cause the game to become MORE imbalance, setting it up so that spellcasters can excel above other other roles.

I see what you're saying, but you have to understand that even a superficial glance at the rules will tell you that casters have more versatility than fighters. They have spells that are used both in and out of combat, and the spells make up for a lot of deficiencies that casters are alleged to have. There are spells that make you fight better. Spells that enhance your skill checks. Spells that make up for other classes' features. Spells that do damage. Spells that disable opponents. Spells that reveal DM plot secrets. Spells that add flavor.

And that's before anyone starts getting into numerical details.

What the campaign includes WILL ALWAYS effect class balance.

I see what you're saying, and I actually agree... To a limited extent. There have been quite a few times when someone on these boards lambasts an ability - written by WotC or another poster - granted by a class, only to create something that I, personally, find utterly just as useless because of the settings I play in.

However, that justification only goes so far. I may have been one of those players who knew nothing about the game when it first came out (D&D 3.0 was my first real experience with roleplaying), but it really didn't take me a long time to start comparing characters to each other, and notice which classes were consistent in falling behind - despite different campaigns.

Regardless, a good game is predicated upon good rules. If you don't like the rules, but you want to play the game, then you have to figure out how to fix them.

I play with average gamers who play the game for fun, not number-crunchers.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because we crunch numbers we don't play for fun or for flavor. Flavor discussions tend not to do as well because there's not really anything to discuss... Unlike rules, which are common to all (that's why they print massively distributed rulebooks), and entirely referenceable and debatable.

[RandomCasualty]

1173656356[/unixtime]]The bigger problem here is that you people think that A) You know better than the DESIGNERS OF THE FREAKING GAME and B) Anyone who doesn't see the game as you do is an idiot.

They do know better than the designers.

Look how long it took the designers to even admit that polymorph was broken. You're talking about from 3.0, past the release of 3.5 and up until just before the PHB2 was released. The entire polymorph chain was talked about as practically a staple part of every Char Op build, but yet the designers had no freaking clue it was overpowered.

Gate is still broken and unfixed. Planar binding still doesn't work. Ed Stark thinks the druid needs more power. Splatbook after splatbook is filled with unplayable garbage PrCs. I'm not talking about like marginal stuff, I'm talking about pure crap that nobody even wants to play. Oh, but they continue to produce stuff to make the cleric even better.

Seriously, how well do the designers know their game?

The game designers aren't gods by any means. In fact, most of them have no clue what they're doing. Just look at how many well known rules holes were left in 3.5 from 3.0.

Now that isn't to say I endorse all the fixes presented. In many cases, I think things could be done a lot simpler by just getting rid of problematic spells altogether. For instance, don't balance the fighter class based on wraith strike and persistent spells existing, it's a lot easier to just get rid of that stuff rather than try to rebalance the game around it. But that's the route that Frank, K and others here have chosen, and it's not really wrong, but it leads to much higher power games than most people are used to. But there's no way anyone is going to say the designers know the game better than Frank does.

Let me just say outright that the designers know shit.

[Essence]

Really, the notion that there even exists a coherent entity that is "the designers" is false.

"The designers" that brought us everything good about D&D 3.0 were all fired. The people that bring us new material nowadays (since before 3.5 hit the shelves) are more often than not freelancers who had nothing to do with the creation of, and know nothing of the core concepts behind, D&D 3.X.

Remember, back in the "good old days", where the Dev team explictly had goals like "playtest everything" and "respond to feedback"? These days, the best places to find good game material is "unacknowledged" people like Frank and K, and it's because they care more about having fun than about making money.

[User3]

I do understand that some people play DnD with beer and pretzels with characters no more complex than "lets throw another Fighter level on the barbie."

Sure, as a 9th level character you can gain XP off of Bugbears. The number is 160, actually, for a party of four 9th level characters, and I'm not even talking about Bugbears with class levels or anything, but the CR 2 Bugbear in the MM.

Fireballs auto-kill those guys and even the Fighter with feats chosen by lottery can cut through them at a pretty fair clip. Its a different kind of storytelling and in many ways its more epic, but lets not pretend that its anything more than a day of fighting for appropriately built characters, or even six or seven Fireballs for a Wizard (which he has at 9th level, with room for out-of combat spells).

Some people play DnD that way, and thats fine. Like training wheels on a bike, this style of play keeps the inexperienced from getting hurt while letting them ride like a big boy. By focusing on story and characters, the players may not even know that they are playing DnD in this style.

One of the reasons I wanted to redesign certain things was so that the "pick-up game" could happen. I honestly would like to live in a world where I can go to someone's house that I don't know and play through an adventure with a minimum of discussion of what people consider their DM's play style.

If four level 9 guys can'r kill a CR 9 monster, then we have problem, Houston. The game is not fun if people can't do the things they think they should. It gets even worse if one guy builds a vaguely optimized character and the rest don't, as then the DM can't adjust the power level of enemies....anything powerful enough to challenge the optimized guy will kill the other party members outright.

Up or down, you pick a balance point. We went up because fighting Liches sooner rather then later is awesome.

[Endovior]

To: Anonymous Troll (Note that I shall continue to refer to you as such until you register): So in your perfect world, the game is balanced around DM Wrath/Pity? Quite frankly, that's a really dumb way of doing things. Sure, you CAN invoke Rule 0 up, down, left, and right, viciously nerfing anything you feel is overpowered... but that undermines the rule system, leaving the players uncertain. Isn't it better to have a coherent, internally consistent set of rules that works in all circumstances? That way, you have a system that is fair and balanced, and doesn't rely on the DM having godlike knowledge of the system and carefully planning everything beforehand. A well-made, carefully crafted rule system should work great out-of-the-box, without the need for houseruling everything or threatening players with the nerf bat. Unfortunately, that system is clearly not what we have... and as such, it is necessary to work towards improving it. Such is the point of this board.

[Draco_Argentum]

Anon: If you want to know how 3.5 supplements are made look for Zherog, Medesha and Giant in the Playground.

http://azure.bbboy.net/niftymessageboar ... r][br]Note that none of these guys wrote 3.0 or 3.5 core rules. No offense to them, but they are just fans who decided to write for WotC as freelancers. This is how WotC makes supplements.

Now go look at http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/products/pr ... hp?i=26004 specifically the table of contents/credits preview. (Its a 598kB PDF file that takes a while to download, hence the indirect link.) Zero credibility in the gaming world is hardly accurate.

And before I get accused of being a fanboy go look for any post where Frank talks to or about Kkat. Now consider that she is a close friend of mine. Most of the best examples are at http://azure.bbboy.net/niftymessageboard

[Draco_Argentum]

Now about AU. I haven't seen the 3.5 version but I do have the 3.5 one. Its pretty cool and I like the flavour. The rules are probably more balenced than 3.0. I only have the core book though. It does weave a fair bit of setting flavour into the rules, in particular the armour section and the magic classes.

The runethane can become pretty powerful. IIRC the best rune you can make can cause 150 damage when touched and you're allowed to put it on your weapon. Not exactly earth shattering but still enough to out melee a core fighter.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1173679072[/unixtime]]In order to balance something that's considered broken, you have to have some sort of ruler that allows you to determine that broken has happened.

Um... If nobody can tell that the game is broken, it's really hard to say that it is.

1173683885[/unixtime]]
Some people play DnD that way, and thats fine. Like training wheels on a bike, this style of play keeps the inexperienced from getting hurt while letting them ride like a big boy. By focusing on story and characters, the players may not even know that they are playing DnD in this style.

Cute. "It's okay if people want to play games that are inferior to my own."

No, seriously, there's no disconnect there.

-Desdan

[Zherog]

1173683954[/unixtime]]To: Anonymous Troll (Note that I shall continue to refer to you as such until you register)...

In my opinion, this is both uncool and uncalled for.

[User3]

1173713349[/unixtime]]

1173683954[/unixtime]]To: Anonymous Troll (Note that I shall continue to refer to you as such until you register)...

In my opinion, this is both uncool and uncalled for.

Agreed, but if he is going to attack people he should at least sign his name. (Heck, I did register, but I couldn't figure out how to change my password into something I can actually remember).

[Zherog]

[off-topicness]
Up at the top of the page is a link for Lost Password. Click there so they can send you the password. Once you have it, log in. Then click on "User CP" (which will be up at the top, next to where it says "Welcome, <your name here>!"

Once you're in the User CP, find the button "Edit Settings." On that screen, the field to change your password is the last one.

I'd PM the info to you, but, well...
[/off-topicness]

[Maj]

Um... If nobody can tell that the game is broken, it's really hard to say that it is.

My point was that anyone can tell. Even our guest acknowledges that there is a point at which the games break. And the breaking point still puts casters ahead of fighters.

[Essence]

"It's okay if people want to play games that are inferior to my own."

Really? That's what you got out of K's post? I got something more like "If all of your players are willing to play a 'low-level' game even at mid- to high- levels, of course you won't have a problem, and that probably happens more often than we realize."


And Runethanes are sweet. Anyone who can turn the party Warmain into a machine that deals 4+ Save or Dies each round (by runing a crapload of throwing weapons ) and then turn his already decent defense into "if you touch me, you die" (by runing his shield) is a better Bard than any Bard, and the Runethane has better spell access (and a host of even nastier tricks) through Spell Sigils.

[Judging__Eagle]

1173718109[/unixtime]]

"It's okay if people want to play games that are inferior to my own."

Really? That's what you got out of K's post? I got something more like "If all of your players are willing to play a 'low-level' game even at mid- to high- levels, of course you won't have a problem, and that probably happens more often than we realize."

Actually, I make a pointed effort to tell people that they're playing a level 4 game at level 7 or higher.

Now, that's cool.

However, frankly, I'm really pissed at how I have to grind against stupid monsters in a computer game; I sure as fvck don't want to have to grind in a flexible, variable and powerful system like D&D.

I don't want to have to do the essentially the same as killing orcs all the way to level 60 in D&D.

Also, I don't want to have to play Final Fantasy in a paper and pencil game. I want to play Fallout.

Yeah, I favour giving the players the choice as to what their actions can lead to. Not having to reducing the players into puzzle solvers who watch movies or poorly written story that's been forced on them.

So, say, I was playing a D20 modern that was essentially Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Librety.

I want the scene were this guy has a girl that the main character knows as his hostage to have you know, more than one ending.

I want her to you know, live if I kill the hostage-taker; and for him to die if I can make the shot. If she dies, I want it to be b/c I suck at using a sniper rifle.

Not b/c the game designer thought she should die, regardless o what I do.

[Crissa]

Well, I would say that Frank and K are probably more qualified...

...Because they have actually studied towards degrees (Frank has attained them, I forget which K has had) and gotten a degree in Science.

Science. It's this implacable force. It made your Truck.

So...

This is why I have trouble with guests who don't even bother to fill in the name field.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1173719483[/unixtime]]
Also, I don't want to have to play Final Fantasy in a paper and pencil game. I want to play Fallout.

Yeah, I favour giving the players the choice as to what their actions can lead to. Not having to reducing the players into puzzle solvers who watch movies or poorly written story that's been forced on them.

This is more about adventure design and DMing style than game design.

In virtually any system, you can design an adventure where the PCs have lots of meaningful choices.

Also in any system, you can create a boring pass-or-fail scenario where the PCs got a bunch of monsters they've got to kill and some sword to recover. The dungeon could be entirely linear, maybe it's even just a tunnel with a big room at the end. And regardless of system, you can set that up.