Anybody ever use this? At 430 pages, it's probably 300 more pages than I'll ever read. And I'm generally not into "snowflake" races like Giants, Lionpeople, and Sprites. But I figure there may be some good ideas in there (?)

Quote from: Amazon blurbGet ready to evolve! This deluxe "Director's Cut" version of 3rd Edition codesigner Monte Cook's popular variant player's handbook offers you all the alternate rules, classes, races, and innovative subsystems of the original - and presents exciting new bonus material, including the dracha PC race, ritual warrior class, evolved versions of all races, new class abilities, 10th-level spells, combat rites, and high-level play with characters up to 25th level! Inside you'll also find a wealth of setting information from The Diamond Throne campaign sourcebook, updated to include the exciting return of the long-absent dragons to wrest the rule of their ancestral homeland from the noble giants. Use this variant player's handbook to supplement an existing game or as a complete rules system unto itself.

well, it wasn't really JUST a player's handbook, it was also a setting guide, and monster manual.  one of my groups used it for a bit, but those of us who really liked it were outnumbered by the ones who didn't like how different from a 'normal' D&D setting it was.  The idea that dragons or giants would shepherd over lesser races and were more than just pinatas full of treasure and XP didn't sit right with some of the group.  Nevermind some of the races and classes. 2 different races of dragon people?  Characters that could tap into the universal knowledge base to get a bonus to the task at hand?  Even if 3rd ed was different from prior settings, this was just too different!

I ran a couple of campaigns with it, one to conclusion and one that ended early due to burnout with D&D 3.* style mechanics.  It is designed such that you can use it to mix and match with regular 3E or 3.5, or you can run it by itself.  (It was jokingly referred to as D&D 3.25 by some, due to when it came out and which rules it picked.)  If you enjoy 3.* games, you'll stand a good chance of enjoying AE.  Otherwise, probably not.  I ran it as a stand-alone on the "far side of the planet" in my 3E world--that is, didn't mix it with any standard rules.

Within the limits of the 3.* mindset, some of the classes are very good.  The witch in particular stands out, but several were also flavorful.  AE still has the 3.* imbalance favoring casters, but it is toned down enough that it shows up a little later.  The races you can take or leave, but I will say Cook did a darn good job of not making the flying sprites or the giants imbalanced.  

I would guess that going the mix and match route, you'd need to be careful.  I'd pick either the akashic or the rogue, and likewise either the wizard or the magister.  I'd go with the magister, as I think it is more flexible but less powerful than the wizard, which in 3.* is a net gain for everyone.  Dropping clerics and druids in favor of witches would help later balance, too.  Probably the worst option is throwing all the options on the table at once, as you now have an even wider set of ways for players to either power game or screw themselves.

I'm probably never going to run 3.* games again, but just in case I've saved a few things.  The only rules I"m keeping are the core original 3E books and AE.

Arcana Evolved was one of my favorite books back in the day.  Upgradeable races, cool classes, improved non-magic classes at that, it has a lot that I love.  It falls apart as a setting somewhat, however, because it was very barebones and the promised setting sourcebooks never materialized.  There's enough to work with, there was a monster book and the original tiny setting book is integrated into the main Arcana Evolved book, but it could have really shone with more content and some TLC that Monte Cook just never gave it.  I'd also avoid the later book that had weird pseudo-classes and variant class levels that you could swap around; the ideas behind them were interesting but they felt clunky and half-baked, like they hadn't been playtested nearly enough.

So, summarizing:

I think Arcana Evolved is a better 3.5 variant than Pathfinder, rules-wise.
The Diamond Throne setting requires a lot of DM work to flesh out, but is pretty cool in concept.  If you do try to run a game in it, get the Legacy of the Dragons book with all the monster details.  You'll need those.

I started with Arcana Unearthed using D&D 3.5 as a basis (it had just come out, AU was partly between 3.0 and 3.5 - that's probably the 3.25 Steven refers to). Later I started a new campaign of Arcana Evolved with mostly new players set in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy. I also ended up starting an AE campaign in Ptolus with a mostly new group of players, that campaign fell apart as things got serious with the lady who is now my wife (she's not a gamer). Through this period I went splat book crazy. I have shed most of the splat books, keeping the primary AE books and the 3 core 3.5 books on my bookshelf. I have most of Monte Cook's 3.x material in digital form and would still pull some of it in if I ever run a 3.x game again (I appreciated that many of his splat books contained AU/AE conversion information).

As to the game, I really like the way magic is handled. It adds some nice flexibility without being too free wheeling. One thing I did find troublesome is the "pick an energy type at casting" spells which I feel make it too easy to bypass monster resistance/immunity. In the future, I might require each type of energy to be memorized separately or something. It was also clear that some classes needed to be taken straight without multi-classing or even taking prestige classes since their level dependent abilities would not advance with the general party level. I definitely would not mix PH and AE classes, and you need to pick and choose your prestige classes (though there are some out there that are quite complimentary to the AE classes).

Yea, the Diamond Throne setting wasn't very interesting. Boring (to me) map, not much development. Ptolus looked like an interesting alternative.

I mostly ran Dungeon Magazine or 3rd party 3.x adventures, but I also really chafed with the 3.x adventure/experience structure which is ultimately what made me leave the game behind. I did have an enjoyable several years with the game, but these days I'm more attracted to OD&D (or maybe AD&D) for my D&D fix (and RuneQuest and Burning Wheel for other fantasy fixes).

Frank

Out of curiosity, are they still snowflake races if they completely replace the usual core selections as a setting feature?

Quote from: Manic Modron;1070421Out of curiosity, are they still snowflake races if they completely replace the usual core selections as a setting feature?

I'm not quite sure what is meant by snowflake races...

I didn't have a problem with the races, they all seemed reasonable, and though there wasn't much setting detail when we started, I was on the path to fitting things together with the two draconic races and giants (until a player wrote a many pages back story that totally contradicted my plans... grumble... that's what I hate about player written back story...).

I think one of the issues with playing with the AE races if you want to use other campaign settings and modules that the PC races won't be much represented by NPCs in the setting/modules unless you re-write, though you could use the standard races (there does exist a PDF with racial levels for them if you want to use the AE racial levels).

Frank

Quote from: Manic Modron;1070421Out of curiosity, are they still snowflake races if they completely replace the usual core selections as a setting feature?

Well, AU/AE has humans, so yes?  At least in the sense of playing winged sprites and giants and cat people and dragon people and so on.  It's practically the definition of snowflake races.  

However, in terms of those races and how they were presented, not so much.  If people took it in the spirit intended, it wasn't much of a snowflake thing at all.  And nothing in the mechanics behind the races contributed to snowflake behavior, either (even if you didn't take it in the spirit intended).  

 I suppose you can say it is about the least snowflake treatment of snowflake races one could imagine, short of having them do something like the Dark Sun cannibal halflings or similar extremes.

Edit:  The complete lack of any White Wolf sensibility anywhere in AE helps tremendously on this front.

As an aside, I've considered looking through AE and seeing how one might back port it to OD&D...

Clearly lots of stuff would drop out, but I think there's still some core ideas that would work with OD&D sensibilities.

I had it, liked the look of it, and never got to try it out on it's own.  At the time, in my local circle, everybody was about putting all the options on the table at once, and I agree with the posters above that it would be better to run it self-contained.

Actually that's a motto that applies to a lot of games.  My experience across campaigns and systems is that throwing everything on the table results in the game rules swamping the setting.  Happened in Wheel of Time when our GM opened up D&D classes to get more players, happened in what was supposed to be a steampunk Savage Worlds game (and SW should own steampunk, but not when you don't limit options and every combat is "wizard casts bolt").  You've just got to be willing to hold the line if you're going to run the game you pitched.

It's a shame, because I still like the race and class lists and the implied world of AE, but I'm really not likely to go back to anything built off 3rd edition now.  OSR is about my speed in D&D, Traveller in science fiction, I can still play or run Savage Worlds mostly from memory, and L5R 4e is as complex as I'm willing to go for a setting I really like... But class-and-level D&D that is also complex is a bridge too far.

Quote from: ffilz;1070419As to the game, I really like the way magic is handled. It adds some nice flexibility without being too free wheeling.

Interesting. Can you explain more about magic?

The book looks like the height of "3rd Era Baroque" which is not my thing (too many rules, too many options, setting too different) but I'm wondering if there are any good ideas than can be mined.

One of our local guys ran an excellent campaign of it for about 6 months. Lots of flavour and things to explore in the setting. I've got everything on pdf but the hardcover of the main book was always pretty expensive when I looked. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall it no longer being available on DriveThru - at the time I wondered if MCG was gearing up to reboot it as a setting for Cypher but it just seems to have...vanished.

From memory, although it was pretty straight 3.5 under the hood, spellcaster could cast diminished versions of their spells using a slot 1 level lower, or a powered up version using a higher slot; each spell writeup had the alternatives listed. Using higher level slots is in 5E I think - is this where the idea first appeared?

Quote from: Aglondir;1070439Interesting. Can you explain more about magic?

The book looks like the height of "3rd Era Baroque" which is not my thing (too many rules, too many options, setting too different) but I'm wondering if there are any good ideas than can be mined.

All casters have memorization slots and casting slots. Three casting slots of level N-1 can be combined and used as one slot at level N (and this can be repeated). In reverse, a caster can use one level N slot to cast two level N-1 spells (but they can not be further split). On top of that, as Derabar mentions, there are diminished and heightened options for spells that add to each spell's flexibility. Spells may also be Laden with an appropriate feat (Quicken or Modified - most of the other metamagic feats from the PH are covered by the Modify Spell Feat). Between the variety of combat spells and the diminished and heightened versions, and the separate memorization and casting slots, casters have a lot of flexibility.

Quote from: Derabar;1070467I may be wrong, but I seem to recall it no longer being available on DriveThru - at the time I wondered if MCG was gearing up to reboot it as a setting for Cypher but it just seems to have...vanished.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/1946/Monte-Cooks-Arcana-Evolved?src=hottest_filtered&it=1

Or, if you want the 3E version:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/761/Monte-Cooks-Arcana-Unearthed?it=1

Quote from: ffilz;1070483All casters have memorization slots and casting slots. Three casting slots of level N-1 can be combined and used as one slot at level N (and this can be repeated). In reverse, a caster can use one level N slot to cast two level N-1 spells (but they can not be further split). On top of that, as Derabar mentions, there are diminished and heightened options for spells that add to each spell's flexibility. Spells may also be Laden with an appropriate feat (Quicken or Modified - most of the other metamagic feats from the PH are covered by the Modify Spell Feat). Between the variety of combat spells and the diminished and heightened versions, and the separate memorization and casting slots, casters have a lot of flexibility.

Thanks for the info. It is way more complexity than I like.