Unearthed Arcana Light, Dark, Underdark - November's Unearthed Arcana

Interesting stuff.

 

[Serpine]

So has anybody had a chance to try these options at the table yet? This weekend I'm planning on opening up this UA (and the stuff from SCAG) to my group and letting them retcon (within reason) their existing 4th level characters to use it if they want. It would be nice to know what to expect based on some actual play experiences.

Of course its possible nobody will use the options, but if they do, would be handy data.

 

[Sacrosanct]

They aren't different arguments, it's an end the argument has come to from the same exact argument, that PC death is usually due to a failure of some sort on the part of the DM and that it's consequences are not a thing people enjoy.

Your stated solution to the issue of death causing story inconstancies (such as previously non existent people of the appropriate level contrivedly ending up in the right place at the exact right time) is that death shouldn't be permanent.

You are literally saying, 'well if you don't like it when high powered people show up contrivedly you should just not let the players die. You should have seeded some NPC or magic items into the story to essentially take death off the table.'

Even better this leads back to you insinuating that their lack of taking death off the table (by providing magic items or NPCs for the party to pay for a rezz) is the DM's failure. You've literally circled around to inadvertantly supporting the position you started off opposing.

You are incorrect. Not sure how more clear I can make this.

"Playing the game without the fear of a PC death is boring" and "By the time a PC reaches level 17 or so, they should have plenty of options to raise that PC" are not conflicting or hypocritical statements. Why? Because:

* 99.9% of gameplay is played well before level 17 by most gamers, so it's two completely different styles of play, each with it's own statement I made
* I don't even like to play at super high levels for several reasons, so I'm not conflicting my statements since the level range I do like, permanent death is still a risk
* my first statement is a subjective preference, and my second is objective fact that we can look at by looking at the books. They're two completely different types of statements, let alone being mutually exclusive or not.

So I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that playing without any real risk is boring, *and* by the time someone does happen to reach high levels, they have plenty of options to bring those PCs back to life. It's like saying "Racing a Ferrari sucks" and "If you're driving a Ferrari, it goes really fast." Those are not hypocritical or contradictory statements.

Also fun fact, I'm a quick study and I've read the source books for every version of D&D because they were available to me in my last house, and people kept trying to pull this 'you don't know what it was like back in the day' BS on me all through the play test. I can't visualize those older ones off the top of my head. I'll give you that, but I've read them and know a lot of the things you are saying, and seemingly GM does as well. Again the length of time you've been playing for is inconsequential.

Oh my. Where is the giant roll eyes when I need it. Did you seriously just say that people who were actually there can't tell you what it was like, because you read the books? If you can't see what's wrong with that statement, then I don't know what to tell you. I read a book about Australia, so Australians can't tell me what it's really like being there. Good lord...

First you make a horrible claim that it's a DM error if a PC does happen to die through means they didn't ask for, then you have no idea what the word "impartial" means, then you have no clue as to what a living world means, and now this?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that playing without any real risk is boring, *and* by the time someone does happen to reach high levels, they have plenty of options to bring those PCs back to life.

maybe in your mounty haul games... in mine the way people come back from the dead is pretty much just if PC are high enough to do so. (Not all the time but most) and that BOTH as a DM and as a player.

 

[Orlax]

You are incorrect. Not sure how more clear I can make this.

"Playing the game without the fear of a PC death is boring" and "By the time a PC reaches level 17 or so, they should have plenty of options to raise that PC" are not conflicting or hypocritical statements. Why? Because:

* 99.9% of gameplay is played well before level 17 by most gamers, so it's two completely different styles of play, each with it's own statement I made
* I don't even like to play at super high levels for several reasons, so I'm not conflicting my statements since the level range I do like, permanent death is still a risk
* my first statement is a subjective preference, and my second is objective fact that we can look at by looking at the books. They're two completely different types of statements, let alone being mutually exclusive or not.

So I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that playing without any real risk is boring, *and* by the time someone does happen to reach high levels, they have plenty of options to bring those PCs back to life. It's like saying "Racing a Ferrari sucks" and "If you're driving a Ferrari, it goes really fast." Those are not hypocritical or contradictory statements.



Oh my. Where is the giant roll eyes when I need it. Did you seriously just say that people who were actually there can't tell you what it was like, because you read the books? If you can't see what's wrong with that statement, then I don't know what to tell you. I read a book about Australia, so Australians can't tell me what it's really like being there. Good lord...

First you make a horrible claim that it's a DM error if a PC does happen to die through means they didn't ask for, then you have no idea what the word "impartial" means, then you have no clue as to what a living world means, and now this?

This isn't experiencing a continent and it's local culture. It is playing a game, and yes if I know all the rules to the game because I read this game's rulebook, and have day at length discussing these older versions with the people that taught me to pay, then yes it is like being there because that's all the game freaking is. Unlike say reading about Australia, and saying you know more about the current local culture than someone who just got done living there, this is in fact a thing you can learn almost solely by reading the rules because how people act never changes.

Also thanks for the ad hominem, but I definitely understand what the word impartial means. I didn't express that I don't know what it means. I expressed a philosophical view point that no human can ever actually be impartial, and that at best they can ignore their partiality and carry on with a ruling they do not want to make.

I do know what a living world means. That level 24 I spoke of (that I spent two to three years playing) came up in a living world and still lives there as an npc (technically a god). You in fact, by insisting that the dragon is always on his exact spot until the players waltz in, have shown that you don't understand how to run a living world (in a true living world there would be some chance as to if the dragon is gone or not when the players waltz in because that high level dragon definitely has stuff to do even if it's just flying off to nab cows for fun).

99.9% of games nowadays make it to the late teens (see I can make up BS statistics too), because a lot of people run adventure paths and those paths run to the late teens. That coupled with 4 to 5 hour gaming sessions once a month or shorter games biweekly means yes most people crush out high level characters every year.

I too take a slower approach and artificially hold my characters at levels for far longer than they should be there, because I like taking my time and work off milestone leveling, and I like the challenges I get to present to sub level 10 characters.

However none of that changes the fact that the 17th level character was brought up as a hyperbolic example of disliking when appropriately leveled characters show up contrivedly after a character dies permanently. This dislike holds true at 5th or 9th level all the same as it does at 17th. That is why I say your example, that the player just shouldn't have been able to be permanently dead (because the DM should have left in some manner in which to make death non permanent) is a contradiction to your standpoint and agrees with mine. Because the same story continuity break happens whether the PC's are at 5th level or 17th and you are offering up blame for the DM that the problem occurred in the first place, and explicitly stating that the death should never have been permanent because the DM should have made available some way to turn back the death. Like you said though 5th level and 17th are different. Yes they are at 17th level I can be lazy let people die by poorly designing encounters and leave in some means to bring back the dead and that isn't seen as problematic because the PCs are so high level. At 5th level I have to properly design my encounters to make sure they very nearly, but don't actually kill my players.

 

[Orlax]

So has anybody had a chance to try these options at the table yet? This weekend I'm planning on opening up this UA (and the stuff from SCAG) to my group and letting them retcon (within reason) their existing 4th level characters to use it if they want. It would be nice to know what to expect based on some actual play experiences.

Of course its possible nobody will use the options, but if they do, would be handy data.

You know what thanks for trying to bring it back to the original topic here. I apologize to all for my part in the derail.

I haven't gotten a chance to see this in play yet other than just tinkering around with it on my own where it definitely performs well, but white rooms always do well. I would love to hear an update from you on how these options play in the wild! Hopefully some of your characters decide to go with it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

maybe in your mounty haul games... in mine the way people come back from the dead is pretty much just if PC are high enough to do so. (Not all the time but most) and that BOTH as a DM and as a player.

Finding a rod of resurrection, or acquiring enough money to pay for a raising, or making a relationship with a person/organization/government capable of casting a 5th level spell by the time you reach level 17 isn't Monty Haul. Level 17 PCs take a long time and a ton of adventuring to get to that point. Well, normally. Apparently you just zip your way right up there, going from one combat to the next to test out your various builds or something. It is literally unfathomable to me how you can routinely get PCs up to the high teens or even level 20 without having done a single thing in the game to have access to something like raising dead outside of the individual party member him or herself. There are three pillars to the game you know.

And Orlax, I'm sorry, but no. You are so wrong. Reading a book does not mean you know what it was like. That is one of the more eye roll worthy things I've read in a while. Hate to tell you this, but the culture in the 70s was a lit different than it is now, and had a major impact on how gaming was done. Something you wouldn't have a clue about from just reading a book. Seeing as how you just totally didn't factor that in just proves it. But even if culture was the same, it doesn't change the obvious fact that reading something doesn't mean you know how it was implemented. If I never saw a chess game, and read the rules, I still wouldn't have a clue about how the game is played by actual people.

Not to mention your double down on not knowing what a living world is. Again, a living world is treating the world and its inhabitants in a way that they act on a day to day basis outside of whatever the PCs are doing unless the PCs caused it to change behavior. Making a dragon not be in it's lair just because the PCs are low level is the opposite of what a living world is. I never said the dragon had to always be there (strawman much). I said unless something else was reason for it not to be there, it would be and wouldn't be vacant just because the PCs are low level.

And I'm not making up BS statistics. Not only was it super rare to have a PC in the low teens let alone the high teens in AD&D, even the very recent survey put out by Mearls has confirmed that the vast majority of gamers play at levels below 15.

 

[Serpine]

Hopefully some of your characters decide to go with it.

My guess is Close Quarters Shooter is very likely to get grabbed by the ranger, and maybe Deep Stalker though she has previously stated a fondness for Beast Master (in spite of its issues). I could see the Shadow sorcerous origin being attractive to both the Necromancer *and* the Assassin as a multiclass option, but *probably* not something they would dabble in until a little later. Put I can't really predict what they will want to play when given the option so it will be an interesting point in the game session.

 

[Azurewraith]

My guess is Close Quarters Shooter is very likely to get grabbed by the ranger, and maybe Deep Stalker though she has previously stated a fondness for Beast Master (in spite of its issues). I could see the Shadow sorcerous origin being attractive to both the Necromancer *and* the Assassin as a multiclass option, but *probably* not something they would dabble in until a little later. Put I can't really predict what they will want to play when given the option so it will be an interesting point in the game session.

I would be interested to see how deepstalker plays could i be so bold to ask for an update if she decides to stalk the deeps

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Level 17 PCs take a long time and a ton of adventuring to get to that point.

17th is rare, but in general 14ish normally takes about 60 games for us... then again we normally (not withstanding 4e) start between 3rd and 5th so 9-12 levels in 60 games, each game about 4-6 hours (depending on how quick we start and if we have to pause to eat) so maybe 300ish hours of play... I don't think that's quick

Well, normally. Apparently you just zip your way right up there, going from one combat to the next to test out your various builds or something.

Ha ha ha ... that's funny, sometimes we go 2-3 levels at a time with out combat...your so funny when you make up things that have nothing to do with my games...

It is literally unfathomable to me how you can routinely get PCs up to the high teens or even level 20 without having done a single thing in the game to have access to something like raising dead outside of the individual party member him or herself. There are three pillars to the game you know.

yea, and it normally goes about 40% exploration, then 20-30% social, and 30-40% combat...

Hate to tell you this, but the culture in the 70s was a lit different than it is now, and had a major impact on how gaming was done. Something you wouldn't have a clue about from just reading a book. Seeing as how you just totally didn't factor that in just proves it. But even if culture was the same, it doesn't change the obvious fact that reading something doesn't mean you know how it was implemented. If I never saw a chess game, and read the rules, I still wouldn't have a clue about how the game is played by actual people.

I have the pleasure to have played with a few people from back then (One who up until he got cancer played in even my 4e games, who started in college with a photo copy of the orginal pamphlet in mid to late 70's)
and most of them think the game has gotten more role-playing and less roll-playing over the years

And I'm not making up BS statistics. Not only was it super rare to have a PC in the low teens let alone the high teens in AD&D, even the very recent survey put out by Mearls has confirmed that the vast majority of gamers play at levels below 15.

my first campaign petered out around 9thish (back then different charts meant different characters were different levels) but I did run a spell jammer game that made it to use the 'high level campaigns' book... 3.5 was when we got the most use out of high level stuff...

 

[Orlax]

My guess is Close Quarters Shooter is very likely to get grabbed by the ranger, and maybe Deep Stalker though she has previously stated a fondness for Beast Master (in spite of its issues). I could see the Shadow sorcerous origin being attractive to both the Necromancer *and* the Assassin as a multiclass option, but *probably* not something they would dabble in until a little later. Put I can't really predict what they will want to play when given the option so it will be an interesting point in the game session.

I actually really like beast master it has some fairly awesome capabilities when it has the right beast with it, and a major solution in my book is to give the beast death saving throws so that dropping it to zero didn't just take away a class feature, and to give the ranger a chance to get over and drop cure wounds on it. I find that really Alleviates the squishiness of the pet, and its a 100% RAW measure to be taken.