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

[bwgwl]

i've been saving up my pocket change for the 3.5e books for the past several months (i've got enough for the PHB and DMG now, hopefully i'll have enough for the MM by July, too!). i mostly want it for the incorporated errata, but i've liked the changes i've seen so far. (anything that makes the game more like d20 Modern is good in my book.)

i'm not interested in AU at all. i've already got one generic fantasy RPG; i don't really need another one.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I voted AU. 3.5e is same stuff re-edited so its better, which is a good thing, but I can get all the re-edits off the SRC so I don't need to pay for those. But I will eventually just to have them on my shelf.

As for AU being a generic fantasy, I don't think so. Everything I have read about AU is far from generic, which is why Greyhawk lovers won't be going for AU, because its different and divergent. The two don't mix (concept wise), and the two will get their own following groups of people.

AU is for me because it is different, not a rehash of the same thing I have seen for the last twenty five years, and to me that is a benefit. Plus, no fire and forget magic system. Automatically two thumbs up for that alone.

And its OGL, another two thumbs up. Who cares if its OFFICIAL d20 or not, as long as its cool and makes sense then its all right in my opinion.

 

[Tsyr]

Arcana Unearthed is not D20.

I have no interest in it at all.

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?

 

[bwgwl]

As for AU being a generic fantasy, I don't think so. Everything I have read about AU is far from generic, which is why Greyhawk lovers won't be going for AU, because its different and divergent.

if AU isn't generic, but specifically tied to its setting, then i'm even less interested in it.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I was referring to the fact that its different. I don't know if the setting information is going to be in the main PHB boook for it or not. *shrugs shoulders on that one*

 

[Bendris Noulg]

if AU isn't generic, but specifically tied to its setting, then i'm even less interested in it.

From MC's Design Diary #1:

Let me digress for a minute about "implied settings." People talk a lot about how D&D is a generic fantasy game, and I know what they mean. The thing is, though, D&D pretends to be a generic fantasy game, but in truth it isn't. It implies a pretty specific setting. Its setting is where warriors wear heavy armor to fend off the attacks of monsters that rampage across the countryside. In this setting the gods are demonstrably real and channel power to their faithful. Wizards prepare spells ahead of time. Heroes with friends who have money or power do not die -- at least not permanently. And so on. Try to run a "low-magic" setting using D&D, or one in which anyone can use magic, or the gods are distant and unreachable (all viable fantasy choices), and suddenly you're practically playing a different game.

Thus, Arcana Unearthed also has an implied setting. It's generally similar to that of D&D, in that you still have warriors fighting with swords and various people casting magic spells, but the specifics are different. Where these specifics differ the greatest, and thus where the implied setting comes through strongest, is in the races. Races have history. They interact with each other. They reflect the world they live in.

As such, AU is no more tied to its setting than 3E/3.5 is tied to its setting (although it will have the added bonus of a fully supported setting, from multiple companies no less, where as 3E/3.5 setting is barely supported even by WotC).

 

[Quinn]

Strange, but somehow over the course of the past month or two, it seems like nobody can mention 3.5 without mentioning AU, and vice versa. You'd almost think WotC and Malhavoc Press were at war with each other.

 

[bwgwl]

it can be "different" and still be "generic."

basically, both baseline D&D and AU are sets of generic rules for designing fantasy campaigns. each has its own flavor, but each accomplishes the same task.

i'm not interested in AU because i already have a ruleset for fantasy campaigns, namely D&D. i'm not interested in picking up a second one.

 

[Liminal Syzygy]

I voted AU. I'm looking forward to trying out the new balance with 3.5 and all, but am raring to start a new AU campaign as soon as I get the chance.

I first started playing D&D in 1980. Yes, it's great and I'll keep playing, but the opportunity to play with a completely new set of races and classes internally balanced and tied into a setting really gets me excited.

 

[Ulrick]

Can you put an "I don't care for either one" option?

Because I really don't care for 3.5 or AU.

In fact, I don't like the names of either. One sounds stupid because it refers to version of a computer program, and the other is a lame switch-around of two words.