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

[Arnwyn]

As another posted, my response for both of them is a big "meh".

However, I voted Revised, because I couldn't care less about AU. There's nothing in that book for me at all (it seems to have a style I find repugnant, and I steer very clear of the "trendy" new race and anthropomorphic stuff. Cat people? Blech).

 

[Apok]

I'm looking forward to both, but AU definitely has me more excited. While I really want to see the changes to 3.5e, I understand that it's basically just a revised core ruleset. Nothing in there is likely to be earthshattering. AU, on the other hand, just seems alot sexier. Monte's weekly Crack-Dole (aka, his Design Diaries) have fascinated me and make me want it in my hands more each day.

Firey James, I envy you! Any chance of you sneaking out a few tidbits about AU?

 

[Luddite]

Yet another Monte Lemming

I admit, I am a Monte-a-holic

The main reason why I am more interested in AU, is more due to my dis-enchantment with DnD as a worldbulder DM. I love the game as a player, but as I continue to work on my personal World Campaing, I am finding that I am making more tweaks and slowly moving a way from "Standard/Core" DnD.

If I were DM-ing a Greyhawk or FR campaing, I would have no problems with Core DnD. Alot of the changes I see in UA are things I would like to see in my campaing world.

So I am excited about both, just more excited about UA.

-The Luddite

 

[Shard O'Glase]

AU hands down.

3.5 has to me for the stuff relased so far has about a 50-50 good-bad ratio. And honeslty most the problems I had with 3e could of been handled in an errata, so I am not excited about getting it. I'll get it to see all the changes and to have the changes I like in one place and in paper.

AU virtually every design diary I've liked. I like the new races and classes, I don't need different for the sake of different but I already have elves, dwarves etc if your going to basically give me a new PH give me new races instead of a cut and paste of the old PH. I like the ceromony and true names. i like giving a purpose for the classics of fantasy like castles. I just like everything I've read about AU.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

As another posted, my response for both of them is a big "meh".

However, I voted Revised, because I couldn't care less about AU. There's nothing in that book for me at all (it seems to have a style I find repugnant, and I steer very clear of the "trendy" new race and anthropomorphic stuff. Cat people? Blech).

That's it!!!

Monte is creating AU as the Furry Players Handbook.

 

[Henry]

Geez, where the heck do you live? There are 4 mom and pops in my town to get DnD stuff. I know that if one doesnt have it another will.

I live in an area where my local Game Store - is a Books-a-Million. They do very well on WotC materials, and White wolf materials. However, they carry very little of other d20 vendors, though they MIGHT have this since it carries the S&S logo. But The next nearest game store with appreciable stock is about an hour and a half drive away in any direction.

 

[Quinn]

Books-a-Million and Borders are my local source for RPG books. Both of them carry pretty much all the WotC, White Wolf, and Sword and Sorcery material. They also have a smattering of other publishers (FFG, AEG, etc.) I was really happily surprised by their selection.

 

[EricNoah]

I voted AU.

3.5 is a necessary thing for WotC and for the future of D&D. For me, it's not a particularly exciting next step. Useful, possibly at some point (though I will probably stick with 3.0 for the immediate future), but exciting (to me) ... no.

AU, on the other hand, excites me for what it is attempting to do. Not that the particular races or classes in particular are "just the thing I was missing" or something.... it's the very idea of "playing D&D" minus the assumptions about what has to be there for it to still be D&D. I do think there's something of the "newness" factor -- it will be like starting over again, and to me that's pretty nifty. There will be lots of discoveries to make and unknowns to experience, yet still with the rules framework I'm used to, and I think that will be a pretty fun thing to be involved in.

Now, oddly enough, I don't think my players (with one exception) are going to be interested in doing AU. But I think between my three gaming groups we'll be able to find a few people who want to give it a try.

 

[Guillaume]

I would have to answer neither. Although AU presents some fresh and interesting ideas, it is not going in a direction that is useful for me at this time. I run my games in a fairly standard and usual way. It just not fit with anything in my games right now.

As for 3.5 (damn that computerised idea !), I'm really uninterested at this time. The way 3.0 works, works for me and I have no intention with my current gaming budget to spend 135$ CDN on books that basically say the same stuff both copies of the core books I currently own say. When I have a need to replace my books, then I'll switch. In the mean time, Yay for the SRD when I need it !

 

[Gothmog]

I voted 3.5. Mostly because the majority of changes and revisions I have seen I agree with, and my homebrew world would benefit more from 3.5 than from AU.

That said, I'll probably end up getting AU as well. I do like what I have seen about rituals and true names, but other parts (the new races- especially cat people) seem just ridiculous to me. While variety is nice, if things get too exotic, its very hard or players to have a point of reference in a game. This is the same problem Talislanta had. In theory, its a wonderful setting and game. In practice, every time I have played it, it falls on its face because there is no way to really understand or empathize with the 100's of PC races. Also, Monte tends to like much higher magic levels than I do, and I'm a little wary of his new spell system. I don't want magic to be even more prominent and necessary than it already is in D&D (which is too much now IMO).