Pathfinder vs. Arcana Evolved

[CowardlyPaladin]

A friend of mine wants to DM and she said she wants to run a "Modified 3.5" game. I recommended Pathfinder if she didn't want to do homebrew, but she instead opted for Arcana evolved by Monte Cook. Now i'm fine with that, but i'm curious, what do people think of the two systems? What issues do they each address, what issues do they not deal with, could we possibly combine the two systems to invent the greatest thing in human history? What do you think?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I have not had the fortune to play an AE game yet, much to my disappointment, but I do own the book and have read it through and quite like it.

AE is definitely better than PF, at least the core AE book. If there are splats involved, they could have broken things for all I know. AE, like PF, set out to nerf the really powerful spells. Unlike PF, they seemed to actually follow through with that goal to a greater degree.

AE also has what looks like a really fun, fluid magic system. Each caster operates like a sorcerer that chooses his "spells known" newly every day from his spell list(s). So you have the flexibility of spont. casting but aren't tied down to the same spells day to day. Further, most spells have diminished and enhanced effects. The former cast at 1 spell level lower and have a weaker effect, the latter cast at 1 spell level higher and have a heightened effect. Preparing a spell gives you access to the lower and higher versions of it (if any) as well. There is one universal spell list, or rather three of them ("simple, complex, and exotic," iirc), that all spellcasters use. Each spell has descriptors and that determines which spells a particular caster may have access to, generally tied to the class's theme.

I'm not sure if the whole Truename thing is good or bad balance-wise and mechanically, but it is definitely interesting. It seems completely impractical to be an Unbound character given the massive amount of "Ceremony" feats there are; including a lot of feats that any other d20 system would just consider general or fighter/combat feats. Unbound can get them via class bonus feats, but that doesn't seem like enough...

The main thing that stood out to me as problematic in AE was class imbalance -- Magister seems blatantly overpowered, and Oathsworn, Witch, Warmain, and some others seem kind of underpowered -- though no worse than in PF. My favorite class was Akashic, it's sort of like a slightly psionic rogue / lore-based class, and the ultimate skill monkey. Quite similar to (albeit weaker than) the 3E Factotum class which would come along years later. The races look overall fairly balanced with each other. I liked Verrik the best; looking like normal humans but just having an unnerving/creepy aura about them and able to do weird things like shut off any of their senses.

I'd say try out AE since you apparently already are familiar with PF. It looks pretty fun to me, you might like it, too.

[CowardlyPaladin]

Huh, I wonder if there is anyway to mix the two classes to get a true "D20 3.75". How do AE classes look alongside Pathfinder or 3.5 classes?

[Yora]

AE looks quite decent as a system, but seems to be quite a different beast than D&D and Pathfinder. Not sure how they mix and if they even would at all.

[obryn]

I ran Arcana Evolved for a few years. Love the setting, love some of the rules, but have grown to pretty much dread the idea of ever playing it again. It's the "alpha caster" problem all over again, but worse in a few ways despite its promises otherwise.


AE, like PF, set out to nerf the really powerful spells. Unlike PF, they seemed to actually follow through with that goal to a greater degree.
There's still plenty of save-or-suck stuff going on, though. And there's the vicious little fact that AE spells are generally (1) harder to save against because of some of the feats, and because the casters have better stats; and (2) those SoS spells are easily spammable with the flexible magic system, so if a spell doesn't work the first time you don't need to find a backup option. You just cast your SoS spell again.


AE also has what looks like a really fun, fluid magic system. Each caster operates like a sorcerer that chooses his "spells known" newly every day from his spell list(s). So you have the flexibility of spont. casting but aren't tied down to the same spells day to day. Further, most spells have diminished and enhanced effects. The former cast at 1 spell level lower and have a weaker effect, the latter cast at 1 spell level higher and have a heightened effect. Preparing a spell gives you access to the lower and higher versions of it (if any) as well. There is one universal spell list, or rather three of them ("simple, complex, and exotic," iirc), that all spellcasters use. Each spell has descriptors and that determines which spells a particular caster may have access to, generally tied to the class's theme.
It's neat, but what really get you are the Templates. Spell Templates are just insanely powerful; take the Acid one which stuns your target (no save, iirc) for every 20 points of damage you deal to them. I think Lightning forces a save against another stun. Or the unraveling one, which packs a dispel of their defenses into the package. Or Quicken, which has none of the downsides of a prepared-spell system and only counts for two same-level spells instead of L+(4?). Oh, and take Runic for another example. Runic makes it so your target's saving throw modifier is based on Intelligence rather than ... whatever else it would be. The cost is that your spell is now a Full-Round action instead of Standard.

Usually you get access to one or more templates for a feat, and it comes with a package deal of sorts so you learn several Complex and/or Exotic spells along with it.


I'm not sure if the whole Truename thing is good or bad balance-wise and mechanically, but it is definitely interesting. It seems completely impractical to be an Unbound character given the massive amount of "Ceremony" feats there are; including a lot of feats that any other d20 system would just consider general or fighter/combat feats. Unbound can get them via class bonus feats, but that doesn't seem like enough...
This is completely true. You'd have to be nuts to be Unbound in AE. Even Weapon Specialization is, IIRC, a ceremonial feat.


The main thing that stood out to me as problematic in AE was class imbalance -- Magister seems blatantly overpowered, and Oathsworn, Witch, Warmain, and some others seem kind of underpowered -- though no worse than in PF. My favorite class was Akashic, it's sort of like a slightly psionic rogue / lore-based class, and the ultimate skill monkey. Quite similar to (albeit weaker than) the 3E Factotum class which would come along years later. The races look overall fairly balanced with each other. I liked Verrik the best; looking like normal humans but just having an unnerving/creepy aura about them and able to do weird things like shut off any of their senses.

I'd say try out AE since you apparently already are familiar with PF. It looks pretty fun to me, you might like it, too.
Put "greenbond" into the "blatantly overpowered" category, as well. They have as deadly tricks as Magisters, just without the bonus feats. (It's incredibly easy to get access to lots of Complex and Exotic spells for a single feat, given how the Template feats work.)

I really love a lot of stuff about AE. The world is incredible. The races are simply awesome, and racial levels were a great idea. I like the theories behind magic, but the practice is still just nuts.

-O

[CowardlyPaladin]

In terms of overpowered, how does AE compare to Pathfinder/3.5 caster classes?

[Yora]

Well, it's written by Monte Cook, no? The guy who seems to get most of the blame of casters in D&D being overpowered.

[obryn]

In terms of overpowered, how does AE compare to Pathfinder/3.5 caster classes?
From what I saw? About even, or maybe a little better, with (no kidding) even more room for optimization.

Flexibility is power, and AE spellcasters have flexibility in spades. Sure, there are fewer game-breakers in their spells, but seriously, it's not like you need a wide variety of game-breaking spells to break the game. You just need a handful.

(And in AE, even the poor, neglected Fireball - Sorcerous Blast, here - is pretty deadly with the ability to freely change element types, forcing a double-save on the center, and applying scary templates like Acid.)

-O