Dragon Magazine Vs. Unearthed Arcana

[GhengisConrad]

Alright, so, which is more silly?

I only recently upgraded to 3.5. I took a break from May 2004 - December 2013, so my table never really adjusted.

As we took on 3.5 material, we took it on slowly. One class, one book at a time.

Now, we always allowed Dragon Magazine Material, because, frankly, 3.0 was a bit sparse for classes and such.

As we took on 3.5, we noticed how awesome Unearthed Arcana was, and rejected it outright as 'oh, that silly 3.5 stuff. No matter what happens we'll never allow that'.

But I guess, that's a terrible attitude to have?

A discussion would be most helpful.

Also, please see related thread on my arena playstyle I'm developing in my sig.

[Kaje]

I honestly don't know at all what's silly about Unearthed Arcana.

[Grinner]

Unearthed Arcana is basically a compendium of house rules. Comb through it for things pertinent to your campaign, and toss the rest.

Dragon Magazine...I've heard things about it, and few of them are good.

[GhengisConrad]

Well, it's painted all over "THIS IS OPTIONAL! THESE ARE VARIANTS! DON"T USE THESE!"

We obeyed.

[Kaje]

Everything's optional. Variants are good.

[Vhaidara]

I can see the "THIS IS OPTIONAL!"

I can see the "THESE ARE VARIANTS!"

Not really getting the "DON'T USE THESE!"

[Kelb_Panthera]

Most of unearthed arcana won't apply to the majority of campaigns. It's too different from the standard rules. The class and race variants, however, work reasonably well in most games and mesh with the normal rules quite nicely. Except perhaps domain wizard, they're all reasonably balanced or overall losses in power for the classes that choose them and really bear consideration. Flaws are kind of dodgy by some folks' estimation so you might or might not want to allow them in your games.

Dragon magazine, on the other hand, is WotC licensed but produced by a different company with a much weaker grasp on game balance. The material available is kinda all over the place. If you use it at all, tread with caution. Most of it's crap but there's some that swings too far in the other direction into absurdly powerful.

[Zanos]

A lot of material from Dragon Magazine was given very little, if any, actual playtesting, and in some cases doesn't even appear as though it was read more than once(half-minotaur, faerie mysteries intiate).

UA has a lot of rules that are interesting, optional, and most of them won't break your game. I'd say the density of either useless or broken crunch is much higher in the average issue of Dragon than it is in UA.

Most of the good Dragon Magazine material was published in Dragon Compendium, anyway.

[Piggy Knowles]

Unearthed Arcana is mostly just a collection of variants and house rules. It's not really the kind of thing you can include as a whole, because even within UA, there are subsystems that weren't meant to be combined.

Flipping through my copy of Unearthed Arcana, I've got this to say about it...

CHAPTER 1: RACES

Most of the stuff here is fairly easy to import into a campaign, and adds some neat variety. Reducing level adjustments (commonly referred to as LA buyoff) in particular is worth looking into if your players enjoy playing races with level adjustment. That said, read through that section at least twice before allowing it, because I'm always shocked at how many people get it wrong.

Bloodlines... are difficult. Bloodlines are a really cool idea, and were written really poorly. There are some aspects of them I like a lot, but in general, they open up enough potential abuse than its worth. In particular, they can allow for early qualification into some prestige classes, and they can make some things stack in a way that was never intended, leading to skewed numbers. I rarely let my PCs have them, but I've used them on important NPCs in the past.

Racial paragons are fine and can be included in just about any campaign.

CHAPTER 2: CLASSES

The variant character classes section, like the variant races section, mostly just makes the base classes a little more interesting by offering some variety. I'd recommend including them, as choice is good, and nothing here is really all that off the wall. Same goes for class feature variants.

Prestigious character classes were really meant to be replacements for the base bard, ranger and paladin classes and not to be used in the same campaign as them. I almost never allow them just out of principal, but they're not broken by any means, unless you think that taking a level of prestige paladin and the Battle Blessing feat means you can cast all your spells as a swift action. That's just silly, though.

Gestalt is interesting, and can be a lot of fun, but it is a different set of rules entirely and is NOT meant to be played in the same campaign as non-gestalt characters. (That said, I've seen campaigns do tiered gestalts... so, you can play a standard tier 1 or tier 2 class, or you can play a gestalt of any two tier 3 or below classes.)

The same is true for generic classes. They are meant to be replacements for all the base classes, giving you a simpler option where you build your class from scratch by granting the class features of various classes as feats. I wrote a generic class handbook back in... um, I don't actually recall now, but it was a long time ago, when the wizards boards were still on 339. Maybe 2005? If you like to keep things simple, generic classes are a fine alternative. That said, it's a personal pet peeve of mine when people mix generic classes and regular classes.

CHAPTER 3: BUILDING CHARACTERS

Alternate skill systems don't really work as well as the base skill system, in my opinion. Maximum ranks, limited choices does make things simpler, I guess, but they take a lot of the fun out of allocating skills, in my opinion. They also mean you need to re-work a lot of prestige class requirements, since now any time a PrC requires, say, 2 ranks in Profession (goatherder), you now have to take that as one of your limited but max skills. Also, the Skill Knowledge feat is a feat for this system - it's not just a general feat for adding a class skill to your list in the standard system. Complex skill checks are the other alternate system, and I find that they just bog the game down. I'd avoid them, unless you like your games to be fiddly.

Character traits are interesting, I guess, but I've never been the hugest fan. Still, they're pretty common in a lot of games, and overall they tend to be pretty balanced. Flaws... OK, I really don't like flaws. I mean, if they're ever offered, I almost always take one, because it's a feat with a minimum drawback! But, like, if you don't think characters get enough feats, why not just give them more feats? Most people don't actually roleplay out their flaws, or they take the flaw that gives them the least mechanical disadvantage and then ham it up for a session or two before they forget about it. I usually encourage players in my games to have both strong points and flaws, but if I think they don't get enough feats, I give them the Pathfinder feat progression and call it a day rather than offering flaws. Still, it seems like a lot of people play with them, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Spelltouched feats seem to be rarely used, but I kind of like them. They've got an old school feel that can be pretty fun.

Weapon group feats... I've never actually played with weapon groups, but the rules seem pretty irrelevant to me. Honestly, I've always mostly skimmed this part of the chapter.

Craft points are not my favorite - the magic item creation system in standard D&D is flawed, but the XP contribution is now what makes it so. I do like the way non-crafters can contribute craft points by acting as assistants, though. I might houserule something like that for magic item creation in my games one day.

Character background... I've never needed help generating a character, nor do most of the people I play with. If you like tables and percentile dice, have at it.

CHAPTER 4: ADVENTURING

Basically none of this chapter is worth including in an actual game, except maybe the rules for hex grids if that's what you're into. But if it is, you probably didn't need Unearthed Arcana to tell you that.

CHAPTER 5: MAGIC

Magic rating is dumb and doesn't really add anything to the game.

Summon monster variants can be fun. I don't let me players customize their summon lists on their own, though. Instead, I might work with them to develop a themed list if they want to work in that direction.

I'd advise against basically the entire rest of the chapter, EXCEPT item familiars. I know, I know, item familiars can be as broken as anything else in this book, possibly more so. I know. Don't care, either. I happen to think they're neat. But really, you can ignore this whole chapter and you'll be fine.

CHAPTER 6: CAMPAIGNS

Contacts and reputation is interesting, but other books have really done a lot more with this concept. The Eberron books, Cityscape and DMG2 in particular are fun for this. I'd advise you read them instead.

Honor... man, I forgot the Honor section of this book even existed. I honestly can't even recall how the system worked. That probably means it wasn't very interesting? Who knows.

Taint is problematic, and I recommend avoiding it. That said, it's flavorful as heck - but Heroes of Horror goes into greater detail, and so if it's something you really want to include, go with that one instead. Sanity is less gamebreaking, but I've always thought the sanity rules were kind of dumb.

Test-based prerequisites can lead to odd qualifications on prestige classes. Most PrCs require ranks in a skill rather than a specific skill bonus because that mandates when the class can be entered. Test-based prereqs throws that idea out the window. I'd eschew them.

Level-independent XP awards are not my fav, and did you really need rules for that anyhow?

THE AFTERWORD

Hey, the afterword is actually pretty cool. It's been a while since I've read it.

[WhamBamSam]

Most of unearthed arcana won't apply to the majority of campaigns. It's too different from the standard rules. The class and race variants, however, work reasonably well in most games and mesh with the normal rules quite nicely. Except perhaps domain wizard, they're all reasonably balanced or overall losses in power for the classes that choose them and really bear consideration. Flaws are kind of dodgy by some folks' estimation so you might or might not want to allow them in your games.+1. The variant races and classes are pretty well balanced. They're going to be better for the concept they're used for than the vanilla class or race would be, but that's always going to be the consequence of introducing more options.

I like LA buyoff as the variant rules go. LA is overkill in the vast majority of cases, and the buyoff system as written is a relatively modest correction. Honestly it should probably go further and count RHD as well as class levels when determining when you can reduce LA.

Flaws work for some games, but not others. I would disallow them more often than not, but they're a good variant for the right campaign.


Dragon magazine, on the other hand, is WotC licensed but produced by a different company with a much weaker grasp on game balance. The material available is kinda all over the place. If you use it at all, tread with caution. Most of it's crap but there's some that swings too far in the other direction into absurdly powerful.And that's saying something. :smalltongue:

But yeah. A lot of Dragon Magazine content is either worthless or too good for the majority of campaigns. Dragon Magazine content is nice on a case by case basis, but allowing all of it is going to come back to bite you unless you want a very high powered game.

To wit: Is Cloistered Cleric a good dip in a melee build? Yes. Is it as good as Martial Monk? No.

[Coidzor]

Well, Dragon Magazine covers a lot more types of different material than a bunch of variant rules and proto-ACFs. Dragon Magazine, by dint of having an actual evolution that you could track, time in which to unfold, interaction with readers, and a number of other contributing factors is of course going to have moments that are sillier than Unearthed Arcana.

Hell, they had April Fools' Day stuff in Dragon Magazine. They also had letters to the editor. Either one of those would yield far more potential for silliness than a sourcebook of variant rules. :smalltongue:


+1. The variant races and classes are pretty well balanced. They're going to be better for the concept they're used for than the vanilla class or race would be, but that's always going to be the consequence of introducing more options.

Sort of a "that's not a bug, that's a feature," kind of thing, no? :smallconfused:


Flaws work for some games, but not others. I would disallow them more often than not, but they're a good variant for the right campaign.

Though, really, if you wanna give extra feats at start... just increase the number of feats characters get at start. XD

[Irk]

I think from unearthed arcana I generally allow for fractional rules, flaws and traits, bloodlines, racial paragons, LA buyoff, prestigious character classes, spelltouched feats, and possibly variant summon monster lists.

From dragon magazine, again, literally everything. Including chicken infested. If one of my player's tries to make infinite chickens, either the material plane becomes the demi-elemental plane of chicken, as it crushes all other matter into antimatter, which causes a massive explosion that just goes on forever, or a large mass of chickens becomes a hive mind epic caster and becomes the new BBEG.

That's just me though. I'm a really non-stringent DM, and in my upcoming game, I'm only banning one thing: loops that create infinite physical objects, as I actually don't want to have an elemental demiplane of chickens in my campaign world. However, infinite wish loops, infinite damage loops, fine, whatever, I can deal with that. Oh, one more limitation, too. I put in place Tippy's 20% WBL on expendable magic items for free, and if you go over 110% WBL, then you just explode. Oh! also I really don't want the pazuzu thing, and no sarrukhs. This kind of set up also only really works if both parties know that the other won't be playing air, but are contemporaneously aware of their great IRL friendship. For example, one of my friends wil be playing something like this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7652.msg251589#msg251589).

Anyway, that's all way off topic. I would more or less allow everything in both sources.

[OldTrees1]

Unearthed Arcana is a DM book (it is a book full of variants, almost all of the variants are beneficial, several can be easily added)
Dragon Magainze is most for Players

Unearthed Arcana is balanced (relative to WoTC standards)
Dragon MAgazine is less balanced (relative to WoTC standards)

As a DM Personally:
I often allow flaws and traits but act as a stern judge to rebalance the variant.

I always will use Gestalt for E6 campaigns. However my experience is people
using gestalt to grab synergistic class features in the same specialization rather than using it to advance two characters in one body. (Barbarian//Crusader rather than Wizard//Barbarian).

I open up the races, classes and alternate class features to my players. However I do not allow one character to use contradicting options (neither Paladin / Prestige Paladin nor Fighter / Generic Warrior)

I am tempted to allow fractional BAB and Saves next campaign.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oops, forgot fractional BAB and saves came from UA.

Definitely include that, at least. It does -so- much for improving the viability of multiclassing in general.

[WhamBamSam]

Sort of a "that's not a bug, that's a feature," kind of thing, no? :smallconfused:Exactly. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that the first time.


Though, really, if you wanna give extra feats at start... just increase the number of feats characters get at start. XDYeah, I suppose. Either that or use a different set of flaws, like the ones from Dragon Magazine or Homebrew ones. I remember a player in a PbP game I DMed, which died before ever really getting off the ground, where a player had some Homebrew flaw which made him have to make a will save against Stereotypical Anime Drooling when presented with a specific fetish. It wasn't going to have an impact 98% of the time unless I decided to screw with him, but it would have been RPed hard when it did come up. Sort of like Piggy's example of a flaw getting played up for a session or two, then forgotten, but spread out into more palatable chunks.

Again, the game died before it ever really got going, so I don't know if that flaw was actually a good idea, but the few ideas I had for sprinkling triggers into the campaign seemed fun in my head.

[Vhaidara]

My group's rule for flaws is that your character has to acknowledge it as a weakness and consider it a flaw. So my warforged gladiator couldn't take City Slicker (penalty on survival, handle animal, and knowledge(nature)), but I did take Solitary Paragon (-4 to hit a flanked enemy). Forces me to maneuver out of where my own team wants me.

[eggynack]

Oops, forgot fractional BAB and saves came from UA.

Definitely include that, at least. It does -so- much for improving the viability of multiclassing in general.
It's pretty awesome. It's worth noting though, as it's often misread, that fractional saves don't stop dips from granting big save bonuses. It actually makes the entry bonus even larger, as it's increased from +2 to +2.5.

[OldTrees1]

It's pretty awesome. It's worth noting though, as it's often misread, that fractional saves don't stop dips from granting big save bonuses. It actually makes the entry bonus even larger, as it's increased from +2 to +2.5.

I am sure I read a variant somewhere that used Fractional BAB but new classes started at +1/2 for Good Saves.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's pretty awesome. It's worth noting though, as it's often misread, that fractional saves don't stop dips from granting big save bonuses. It actually makes the entry bonus even larger, as it's increased from +2 to +2.5.

We ignore that bit as an obvious error. It just doesn't make any sense and without it the numbers stay pretty normalized. You only get the +2 once for each type of save; fort, ref, will.

[eggynack]

We ignore that bit as an obvious error. It just doesn't make any sense and without it the numbers stay pretty normalized. You only get the +2 once for each type of save; fort, ref, will.
I actually think it makes sense, because heavily multiclassed characters tend to be worse on average, and they could use the help. Either way, I wouldn't say that it's an error. It's just a thing that folks sometimes dislike, for reasonably reasonable reasons, and they assume that this variant is a fix for that issue. And it isn't, which is a thing that's positively indicated in the text, rather than something that is only held true by a lack of explicit ruling.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I actually think it makes sense, because heavily multiclassed characters tend to be worse on average, and they could use the help. Either way, I wouldn't say that it's an error. It's just a thing that folks sometimes dislike, for reasonably reasonable reasons, and they assume that this variant is a fix for that issue. And it isn't, which is a thing that's positively indicated in the text, rather than something that is only held true by a lack of explicit ruling.

That's only true of what amounts to near random multiclassing.

For casters, they don't multiclass that much and the good PrC's keep their spellcasting right on track. They're almost always stronger for multiclassing.

For melees, the multiclass a lot but only to improve their ability to do what they do; better use their weapons, gain new and better options, gather up defenses and special attacks against the foes they focus on, etc. They not only get stronger for multiclassing but almost have to multiclass to keep up.

I'm not really sure where you got the idea that multiclassing makes characters worse.

[eggynack]

That's only true of what amounts to near random multiclassing.

For casters, they don't multiclass that much and the good PrC's keep their spellcasting right on track. They're almost always stronger for multiclassing.

For melees, the multiclass a lot but only to improve their ability to do what they do; better use their weapons, gain new and better options, gather up defenses and special attacks against the foes they focus on, etc. They not only get stronger for multiclassing but almost have to multiclass to keep up.

I'm not really sure where you got the idea that multiclassing makes characters worse.
I didn't say that multiclassing makes characters worse. I said that multiclassed characters tend to be worse. In other words, casters, who tend to not multiclass much, tend to be more powerful than melee fellows, who tend to multiclass a lot. Multiclassing casters also include theurge builds, which also tend to be worse than straight caster builds. While multiclassing generally makes you better at what you're trying to do, what you're trying to do will likely be of a lower power level than your straight class peers. Prestige classes work with casters, but those hold true across both casters and non-casters.