Arcana Unearthed: Does it Work?

[Empedocles]

Some of you might be familiar with the Arcana Unearthed system. It's essentially interchangeable with the 3.5 system (nothing wrong with adapting the two) but it A) Encourages more creativity in character design and B) Has more unique options (you can be a loresong fairy...but not an elf :smallbiggrin:). I'm also wondering if it's any more balanced then 3.5 D&D. Does it at least somewhat close the gap between the Tiers? Can I find a tier listing of these classes anywhere? What about the gap between fighters and spellcasters? Does the Arcana Evolved supplement that includes Ritual Warriors (IMO the predecessor to 3.5 initiators) close the gap farther? Or does Arcana Unearthed share all of the same problems as 3.5?

For those of you unfamiliar with it, Arcana Unearthed is generally described as an "alternative Player's Handbook," and is published by Malhavoc Press.

[eggs]

I've only read Arcana Unearthed, but I've used Arcana Evolved a few times. I think they're similar enough that I can generalize (please correct me if I overextend).

AE's a bit better balanced than player's handbook 3.5 (its casters are much weaker, a couple noncasters are slightly more versatile, 2/3 casting is much more common), but it's really dry - they all have lots of dead levels, and there is very little distinguishing the various classes' spellcasting, other than 1-2 spells known/level and whichever spell template feats the classes' members happen to take.

As far as I know, the Ritual Warrior didn't show up before AE. It is kind of like ToB, but it develops way more slowly. I played one alongside a Swordsage once; the Swordsage was generally better at everything at every point, but we were at least playing the same game (not like the group's noncasting Ranger? archer).

The Totem Warrior is about on the same power level as its PHB equivalents (minus ACFs), but the other noncasters are really weak. Like core-3.5-melee-minus-abilities weak.

The biggest balancing factor is the super-restricted spell list. The Planar Binding line was basically removed from the low-mid levels (and I think it was nerfed when it does come in), summons generally lack SLAs, shapeshifting got nerfed, and spells were just generally powered down. Blasting was given a bit of a boost through spell templates, but the really scary effects were dampened.

The weakened spells were somewhat counteracted by easier access to metamagic effects, but in terms of sheer power, AE's generally a bit less broken in the high-end. In terms of the number of options available at any time, the game continues to work like 3e (if not even worse, between all the spell templates and Heightening/Diminishing spell effects).

Overall, AE does put a larger number of classes on a more interesting playing field than 3e, but noncasters' problems don't improve (they often get even worse). Most of the improvements come from a dropped power ceiling and several more Bard-class casters to step into the middle.

If using it, I recommend also shipping in options to give noncasters something fun to play around with - ToB maneuvers for all the noncasters would be a start; binding (minus the summons) and psionics (minus the breakable bits) would also fit well. And they'd spice things up, which is really the big draw.

[Alienist]

I had a look at it a while back. You say that it encourages more creativity during character creation, but that certainly didn't leap out at me at the time.

What elements of the system would you say encourage creativity?

[eggs]

The melee classes have big chunks of class abilities that are basically "make up an oath, here are some examples" "make up a holy cause, here are some examples" "make up some totem animal powers, here are some examples." So I could see it.

[Empedocles]

I had a look at it a while back. You say that it encourages more creativity during character creation, but that certainly didn't leap out at me at the time.

What elements of the system would you say encourage creativity?

Saying that may have been too broad a generalization, but here's my logic.

Few aspects of AU and AE lend itself to too traditional a fantasy archetype, and it's a little easier to be creative and fluff things out. This calls for an example, so: You have a new player for an AU campaign. He's set on a classic big smasher guy, so he looks through the handbook and decides to play a Giant warmain. You point out to him that giants are focused on being wise and such, so he ends up selecting that ritual - chi-julud - that lets him give up wisdom temporarily to become a better warrior. Now he's a sort of gentle giant who becomes violent...and that whole concept opens up many, many more fluff opportunities.

Other ways to go about making a "me-smash" character is to have the strength evolved class (from the Transcendence handbook) which adds in the whole dragon/tenebrian seeds factor (basically, lots of fluff) and you might then become a bear totem warrior...instead of a "fighter."

Eggs also made an excellent point.

My opinion has a pretty shaky basis - I recognize that - but basically AU made a really good first impression on me. That might really just be it.

[Starbuck_II]

Well, for races:
they have playable giants (you need to take Giant class level for extra stuff), tiny flying fey (need to be level 3 to morph into it, done by 2 small fey races), Dragonmen (with a breathweapon of take Dragonmen class), etc no LA.


Classes:
Akashic: Bardish (bardic knowledge), but instead of spells/buff music, he gets minor abillities like feats, buff self (battle memory), sneak attack, skill buffs, etc.
Champion: shield summoning, buff self, summon weapon (7th lv so not early), buff shout.
Each cause has benefits by level: spell-like, skill boost, themic ability, etc
Life cause makes you get Lay on hands (not called that) at 1st level (con mod x lv).
Greenbond: druidish
Mageblade: like swordmage from 4E? Cha based, prepared, gets a Anthame (ignore somatic while wielding weapon chosen).
Oathsworn: monks (without weapons), but 5th lv they are immune to effects of fatigue. lv 17, immune to negative levels.