View Full Version : Warcraft d20

2008-02-20, 08:05 AM
I hear about this every now-and-again. I was wondering if anybody had any information on it and whether or not it was any good.

2008-02-20, 09:19 AM
I hear about this every now-and-again. I was wondering if anybody had any information on it and whether or not it was any good.

a. Warcraft
b. World of Warcraft

After releasing Warcraft they redid it for more closeness to World of Warcraft.

I found the Warcraft had better to understand Tinkering rules (I love my gnome Tinker, technology rules).

World of Warcraft has a very interesting arcane caster the Arcanist: similar to Spirit Shaman in 3.5 in casting mechanics. Except you still have a spellbook. Thus, you prepare spell known and cast spontanously these.

I thought both were good systems.

2008-02-20, 10:13 PM
a. Warcraft
b. World of Warcraft

Hmm... I didn't know there were two. I'll look into them both I guess. Thanks for the info.

2008-02-20, 10:20 PM
I looked over the rulebooks for one of the versions, donít recall which, I really wasnít impressed. It seemed somewhat rushed. Though there are a few nice things, like orcs and half-orcs arenít totally gimped like they are in normal dnd, and there was a few classes that stuck out as being decent. Other than that Itís basically what youíd expect from an adaptation of the games to an rpg.

2008-02-20, 11:20 PM
The world of warcraft one is quite good, i've been using some of the classes outside of that game

The Professor
2008-02-21, 06:14 AM
I've never used the World of Warcraft one, and I've DMed the Warcraft d20 one twice, but for short periods of time.

It was a nice enough experience. We had a Pandaren warrior-type (forget the class), a Goblin Tinker, a Human Healer and a Forest Troll Rogue. Edit: Tauren Hunter as well!

I prefer the old stuff anyhow, because I hate the Lore of the Burning Crusade and on.

On a side note: Keep a wary eye on those trolls. All of them have Fast Healing for relatively low LAs. It worked out fine with us, but I could see a Jungle Troll's Fast Healing 1 being pretty bad at LA +1.

2008-02-21, 12:36 PM
The way they handle spellcasters is interesting. I'm not sure how well it actually works, having not run or played the system, but it's a neat concept.

2008-02-23, 08:20 AM
Hmmm.. excellent. I guess I'll look into plain Warcraft d20 first, since I was more of a fan of the RTS's rather than WoW.

2008-02-23, 12:14 PM
The racial level idea is comes from this i think,

2008-02-23, 02:33 PM
You'll have problems using Warcraft D20, since as far as I know, it isn't produced anymore (try getting Shadow&Light!). And, to make us completely happy, they messed up their versions. Some books have been published new (like the basic rules, the Affiliation books and More Magic&Mayhem), but some old books haven't. For example, there is the book "Lands of Mystery", which describes Kalimdor and Nothrend. This book is made to fit the new style and the new rules. Than, there is the book "Lands of Conflict", which is about Azeroth (the continent), which hasn't been reprinted. And the stats for most of the cities rulers and other importnt personae is in the aforementioned book "Shadow&Light", which you have to use if you want to have access to those profiles, but which is incredibly rare, due to it being out of print.
Second mistake they made was to rely on other books. In "lands of Mystery", Fel'dan, a Warlock s described. Amongst his possesions, though, are items from "Mor Magic and Mayhem". I find this way of forcing you to buy more books just to enjoy the full content of your old ones just unnecessary.
But apart from thos mistakes, both versions of the RPGs are fun to play and filled with fun rules and exciting things to see, steal or kill. Even the newer books contain much more lore, and consider their lore much mor than I feared.
The WW RPGs timelin is set at the beginning of WoW, 5 years after the fall of Arthas and the resulting wars. Burning Crusade events haven't taken place yet, Draenai are still the wretched beings we know from The Frozen Throne, and Outland is still an endless plain of hellish, baked red dust.

If you are a fan of Warcraft in his many incarnations, as I am, you will find those books highly enjoyable and a nice addition to your roleplaying collection.

2008-02-25, 11:18 PM
Yeah the inconsistency bothers me

2008-02-25, 11:23 PM
saw a copy when I was looking for dungeon master for dummies, if I wanted to play warcraft, then I'll play warcaft

2008-02-26, 02:10 PM
If u liked the feeling of the strategy games Warcraft and you are fine with any of the problems 3.0 & 3.5 may have then try to find the Warcraft D20 the RPG series

(which will be almost impossible if u like buying books... Otherwise it does not concern us!)

On the other hand if u are a WoW fan then go get WoW d20.

I 've played and DMed both editions. To be honest I liked more the first one, cuz of the versatility it offered. I mean c'mon you could also use any generic DnD book (published or not published by WotC).
The WoW edition on the other hand uses many variants that also appear on Unearthed Arcana, and has a more unique style (compared to other d20 settings.) Which I find restricting, cuz u can't use your other books... Just imagine a game where u have a Batman Wizard and an Arcanist...

All in all, WoW d20 doesn't have the classic caster-non-caster power curve we meet in 3.5. Casters blow things up, whereas non-casters chop them to pieces, and both of them do that without overshadowing each other.

The one book I use as a whole and not for some PrC or feat (the Spellbreaker feat chain especially= teH brokenz0r), is Magic and Mayhem. I really liked the fluff and the mechanics in there; from nether whispers to the costs of being an arcane caster.