3.5 vs. Arcana Unearthed: Which One are You More Excited About?

[paulewaug]

which One are you more excited about?

To answer the question I voted for AU

the things I have read about it sound like something worth being excited over. Lots of new things that can be used in what I expect will be a great setting, but also the modular aspect of it just makes it even better.
I really doubt I will do any "blending" of the two though.
Also, I agree with a lot of what Monte has said on his site about Why he is doing things differently.

This said however I am looking forward to "3.5"
("3rdEd-Revised")
I also agree with some of the tweaks WotC are doing, and having various aspects of the game claridifed can only be a good thing.

I Am concered, of course, with how well my existing purchases will compat with it, but the really good stuff inspres me to want to change it to match my needs anyhow. The whims of the DM are a good thing!

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I think the competition between them is a little silly. It seems to me that's like comparing a dictionary and a novel. They work on different levels.

But, to be specific, I am more excited about AU, but that isn't an indictment of 3.5.

I don't know that I should be excited about 3.5. Certainly, I'm very happy it's coming out, but it's something that should be expected of DnD. I'm glad they're adjusting to feedback. But the real excitement of d20 and OGL is that it feeds into all of these neat ideas for specificity amid the genericness.

AU is something I should be excited about just like I was excited about Spycraft. It's one more end product of the core rules. A deeper project than most, but that's to the good. The sort of meta-thinking that's going into AU is very good for systems. Plus I like a lot of the specific details of the way the game seems to be cooked. What with balance and flavor and all.

And I have to say that I am looking forward to the Diamond Throne setting. And while I would be looking forward to it regardless, I have to say that the way it ties into the AU rules should make it more fascinating than the vast majority of systems out there.

They're both just one more revolution of the great system that is OGL and d20.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I think the competition between them is a little silly.

Actually, I don't think there's any competition "between them". Granted, some of our fellow gamers might be inclined to start 3E/AU debates, but that's those individual gamers. I don't really see any competition between Malhavoc and WotC. And if there is, so what? After all, doesn't the OGL invite that sort of competition with open arms?

Let's take this thread as an example: It asks "which one are you more excited about?" I'd say that's a fair question, given what we do actually know about either (indeed, once released, I'd be surprised if we don't see a number of folks "change sides" once they see all that is to be seen). What's really going to be fun to watch is at the end of July when all the "which one do you think is better?" threads start to make an appearance.

If you think gaming books are expensive, imagine all the popcorn and Mountain Dew we're going to consume while watching those debates. And they'll likely be as interesting as the 3.0 vs 3.5 debates, which will be firing up at the same time.

Going to be an interesting summer.

 

[Gez]

I checked neither, and voted, and got this: "You did not select an option to vote for. Please press back to return to the poll and choose an option before voting."

My option is neither. I'm not excited about any. I'll probably end up with the revised edition of D&D. As for AU, well, I'm curious as I'm always is, but I have no use for it now, and my wallet being what it is... If I had to pick a choice, the revised edition, because it'll be on the net for free when they'll update of the SRD -- which they promised will do without wasting time.

 

[Carnifex]

Although I like the idea of AU, I simply have no need for it myself - I am however tempted to try and do my own PHB-AU-style write-up for Acrozatarim THing is, I probably wont pick up 3.5 for a bit either, I don't know - for d20 stuff I wriet I'll just be ref'ing from the updated SRD anyway...

 

[Ysgarran]

Originally posted by JeffB
Honestly, though I respect the man greatly, Monte's Malhavoc products just don't do anything for me..the only one i've come close to buying (but didn't) is Nexus

I pretty much agree with you on most of Malhavoc products but I've been reading the design diary and there are a lot of elements in there that look really good. In particular I really like some of things he had to say in the ceremony design entry:
http://www.montecook.com/diary11.html

I was running my group of players through the WotC modules and made the error of letting it into a "OK, Next dungeon" rut. The kinds of products that are highest on my list are those that will help me create a more immersive experience for the players. Those that will remind the players of their PCs 'off screen lives' and those that will provide lots of hooks.

Ysgarran.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

It uses the D20 engine... It's OGL...

And from all early reports, it's basicly compatible with normal 3E.
The only reason it's not, quote D20 unquote, is that it has stuff like experience charts in it.
What exactly is the problem? Is the logo that important?

Its not the logo its the changes that do not interest me.

1. I like the current spell system. Changes in it could very well deeply affect how I DM. Right now I plan my sessions around the spellcasters abilities to a degree. If I use a new magic system I have to go badck to day one trial and error to figure out a balance that works.

2. I have NEVER liked new races purely for the sake of new races. It reminds of those "coody edgy" kids back in highschool. You know the ones. They had to like stuff no one else liked. If others started to like it they had to change so that they were on the edge. That is what AU reminds me of. It has new races for no other reason than to be different. Big deal.

 

[Oni]

I've noticed a few people here are interested in AU, but are concerned about finding a group to play it with. This too is a concern of mine. Any interest amoung those of you worried about find a local group in trying to put together some kind of online game, perhaps via IRC or the like?

 

[Merlion]

Arcana Unearthed is not D20.

I have no interest in it at all.

Yes it IS D20....it uses the D20 mechanics it just cant have the logo because it has character gen rules. Mechanicaly D20/OGL are exactly the same thing. And if you'd looked at the matieral on it you'd see not only is it D20 its made to be extremely compatible with all other d20 stuff.
Anyway I voted Arcana Unearthed but it was tough I am very excited about both.

 

[Tsyr]

Its not the logo its the changes that do not interest me.

1. I like the current spell system. Changes in it could very well deeply affect how I DM. Right now I plan my sessions around the spellcasters abilities to a degree. If I use a new magic system I have to go badck to day one trial and error to figure out a balance that works.

2. I have NEVER liked new races purely for the sake of new races. It reminds of those "coody edgy" kids back in highschool. You know the ones. They had to like stuff no one else liked. If others started to like it they had to change so that they were on the edge. That is what AU reminds me of. It has new races for no other reason than to be different. Big deal.

You're free to think all those things. Myself, I think change can be good... or refreshing, at least. If all I ever had were the good old Elf/Dwarf/Gnome/Hobbit lineup to play... ever... I wouldn't have been gaming for as long as I have.

Why did you have to bring D20 into the arguement, then?