AU - first impressions?

[Macbeth]

As was said in an earlier post, you really can't consider the half-and-half spellcasting/combat classes (Ranger, Paladin) Spellcasters, they only get a very few spells: you'll never replace you party cleric with a paladin. the ranger and paladin only dabble in magic, and therefore don't really count as spellcasters.

And by the way, magic is divided into Arcane and Divine , not divinaton.

I also noticed your list has the "priest" last time i checked there was no priest class. I thought that maybe you ment "cleric," but thats already on your list. Odd.

Also, the Bard is hardly a competent spellcaster. he gets a few spells from a very narrow list. At best the bard is half a spellcaster. So now the chart reads:

Bard: Half Spellcaster
Barbarian: Non
Cleric: Spellcaster
Druid: Spellcaster
Fighter: Non
Monk: Non
Paladin: Not enough to matter
Ranger: Not enough to matter
Rogue: Non
Sorcerer: Spellcaster
Wizard: Spellcaster

That gives us four and a half spellcasters (or five and a half if you generously count the Paladin and Ranger as half each) out of 11 classes. Less then half of the classes have any meaningful ability in magic.

Having said that, I think tha both AU and D&D are high magic. 'nuff said.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Hey Joe,

You are missing a Rogue. He appears to have found a calling in life.

Goes to edit post.

Why BryonD, what do you mean?

 

[Thrommel]

Maybe the larger point that I'm trying to make is better put a different way.

In D&D, magic is fairly specialized. If I'm a cleric, I can heal people, cast protective spells, bolster my allies, etc. If I'm a wizard, I can do some flash-bang magic, readily attack at range, charm people, and so on.

But those two roles don't cross very much. A cleric generally isn't going to lightning bolt a line of monsters and you're hard pressed to get your wizard to heal anyone -- including himself, and he probably needs it the worst of anyone.

In AU, the system provides a lot more flexibility to spellcasters. Need some ka-boom spells but want some healing capability to fall back on? Just ready the proper spells. You don't need to do any weird multi-classing or take some bizarre PrC. At worst, you have to take a feat or two. AU gives you a lot more options in spell selection, along with greater flexibility in how often you can cast.

So you can define the role of your character, rather than having your character define it for you. You don't have any more of this "Is this a wilderness or dungeon adventure, cause I was thinking about playing a druid."

-Thrommel

 

[BryonD]

So you can define the role of your character, rather than having your character define it for you. You don't have any more of this "Is this a wilderness or dungeon adventure, cause I was thinking about playing a druid."

-Thrommel

So, are you saying I can not create a "wilderness" character in AU?

Seriously, AU sounds fairly cool to me, but I think you are overstating the case here.

If I want to create a Druid and then find out that the DM (or is it AM?) is running an AU game, can't I still build that concept? And then wouldn't I be back to hoping that it isn't a dungeon centered campaign?

I can build a character to fit more or less any reasonable concept in D&D. I expect this is true for AU as well.

In D&D I can create specialized or generalized characters. If I create a specialized character then I face the chance that it may not be an idela match for the given campaign.

If this is not still true in AU, then the only thing that could mean is that my options for creating specialized characters has been curtailed. Which would be a bad thing. Somehow, I doubt this is the case.

 

[BryonD]

Goes to edit post.

Why BryonD, what do you mean?

Well Joe, You know they say the life of a priest can be challenging. I guess sometimes some people may slip back to their former lifestyle.

 

[darkbard]

i think thrommel's point re: spellcasters is that you can't easily be a successful all-around caster in 3e/3.5. if you are a cleric, you are basically a healer/party buffer/protector, whereas if you're an arcane caster, you've got no healing ability but the abilty to dish out tons of damage and a variety of multipurpose spells. in AU, there is no such class divide. potentially every spell in the book is open to every caster, be it by feat or class ability.

 

[BryonD]

i think thrommel's point re: spellcasters is that you can't easily be a successful all-around caster in 3e/3.5. if you are a cleric, you are basically a healer/party buffer/protector, whereas if you're an arcane caster, you've got no healing ability but the abilty to dish out tons of damage and a variety of multipurpose spells. in AU, there is no such class divide. potentially every spell in the book is open to every caster, be it by feat or class ability.

So how does the wilderness/dungeon part fit in?

My point was not disputing this. It was that his presentation of his point goes to far.

I am hoping my book will show up tomorrow, so I can discuss in more detail, rather than just based on second hand knowledge.

Obviously the wizard can not heal. But the bard does a fine job of catch all. The cleric has a lot more blasting potential than you are allowing. And the druid is nicely rounded as well.

But I am not trying to say that D&D is equivalent to AU. God, I would hope not. But I think the comparison we are getting seems a bit slanted.

 

[LightPhoenix]

So, are you saying I can not create a "wilderness" character in AU?

He meant in 3E/3.5E.

 

[BryonD]

He meant in 3E/3.5E.

Sorry, but you have completely mis-read my post.

 

[woodelf]

No I do not. Furthermore the continuing mantra of the book being different just to be different is beyond stupid in my opinion.

Reminds me of a rebellious teenager.

I never got that impression--has Monte said it outright at some point? To me, it comes across as changing things just to be better--and, in most cases, i think he's succeeded. If i had to choose just one set of base classes or races, i'd choose those in AU over the D&D3E PH. Ditto for feat lists and spell lists. And i *love* the way he's dealt with spell lists, spell descriptors, and caster level stacking.