AU - first impressions?

[Hammerhead]

I love AU, especially the classes. However, does the Oathsworn seem to be even weaker than the 3.0 Monk? I mean, the ability to ignore food, water, fatigue, etc. in a game is nice, but how often do those abilities even come up in a typical game? Wouldn't you rather have Slow Fall or Still Mind?

Further, the ability to penetrate Damage Reduction is rather poor as well. Given the Oathsworn's lack of base attack, a Hands as Weapons will be needed to add enhancement bonuses to the Oathsworn's attack so that he can hit.

Also, without the Monk's ability to add Wis to AC, an Oathsworn's AC will likely be lower as well.

Did I forget a few abilities of the Oathsworn here, or is it really that weak?

 

[Breakstone]

I'll be picking this up tomorrow at my FLCBS (friendly local comic book shop... and the only one in Marin County to boot!), but I have a few questions right now:

1) Is there a list of monsters for Arcana Unearthed, or are you expected to use the Monster Manuals? If the latter, do the monsters in 3.0 stand up to the challenge of fighting AU characters, or do they need to be adjusted?

2) Are there any races that fit the niche of the "mining" or "mountain guys," like Gnomes and Dwarves do in D&D?

3) Is the game especially suited for Dungeon Crawling, as 3.5 seems to be (from my impressions), overland exploration, political games, or a mix of all three? Or something I haven't thought of yet?

Thanks for your time, folks- it looks as if Mr. Cook pulled of a very successful book.

 

[BryonD]

But as always, YMMV. My advice is: check out the book or pick up the PDF's next week, play a session or two, and we can compare notes then.

-Thrommel

OK I got the book and just spent the last 2 1/2 hours devouring it. Clearly, this is not enough to go making final judgements.

But my initial impression is as follows:

Well worth the money.
Lots of cool ideas and mechanics.

As a stand alone replacement for the D&D PH, I do not see me switching over. I would happily try some one shots and am certain it will be a cool short term alternative to our regular game.

But I think D&D is a better game overall.

Largely this appears to be because it shows how much AU was worked around D&D so as to be a different system. It seems that being different than D&D was sometimes more important than being as good.

Also, I find parts of it to be significantly less readily convertable than previously advertised. Things like collective knowledge and truenames and cultural relations seem pretty heavily built in. Plus, as often discussed, the magic system is not purely compatible (meaning it is not mix and match).

Finally, I really like 3.5 and seeing some of the old 3E stuff that I like less was unappealing. Obviously, this part is the easiest to house rule around.

I'll comment more over time as I get to now things better.

 

[Apok]

I love AU, especially the classes. However, does the Oathsworn seem to be even weaker than the 3.0 Monk? I mean, the ability to ignore food, water, fatigue, etc. in a game is nice, but how often do those abilities even come up in a typical game? Wouldn't you rather have Slow Fall or Still Mind?

Further, the ability to penetrate Damage Reduction is rather poor as well. Given the Oathsworn's lack of base attack, a Hands as Weapons will be needed to add enhancement bonuses to the Oathsworn's attack so that he can hit.

Also, without the Monk's ability to add Wis to AC, an Oathsworn's AC will likely be lower as well.

Did I forget a few abilities of the Oathsworn here, or is it really that weak?

Yeah, I don't care much for the Oathsworn as a "replacement monk." To my mind, the 3.5 Monk (heck, even 3.0) is far superior in the combative sense. I think this one would've done much better as a Prestige Class rather than a Core class.

 

[Apok]

1) Is there a list of monsters for Arcana Unearthed, or are you expected to use the Monster Manuals? If the latter, do the monsters in 3.0 stand up to the challenge of fighting AU characters, or do they need to be adjusted?

You are expected to use the Monster Manuals, since the summoning spells make direct reference to creatures from the MM. You could theoretically also use monsters from the Creature Collections, Tome of Horrors, Monsternomicon, etc. As to weather or not the monsters need to be adjusted, I don't know because I haven't "field-tested" any of the AU classes yet. For myself, I just plan on using monsters with the conversions recommended in the 3.5 Conversion Guide.

2) Are there any races that fit the niche of the "mining" or "mountain guys," like Gnomes and Dwarves do in D&D?

Not particularly, no, though you could make an argument for mountain-dwelling giants or Sibeccai miners. However, none of the races presented have any abilities directly geared towards mining or subterrainean endeavors.

3) Is the game especially suited for Dungeon Crawling, as 3.5 seems to be (from my impressions), overland exploration, political games, or a mix of all three? Or something I haven't thought of yet?

From what I've seen, it could work well for all three.

 

[Apok]

But my initial impression is as follows:

Well worth the money.
Lots of cool ideas and mechanics.

As a stand alone replacement for the D&D PH, I do not see me switching over. I would happily try some one shots and am certain it will be a cool short term alternative to our regular game.

Yeah, I'm kinda with you on this one. I don't necessarily like everything presented in AU and wouldn't run it straight up, but with a few modifications and some things from 3.5e thrown in. I think the biggest draw for me is the magic system (which I like better than standard D&D) and the classes.

My current plan is to devise a way to integrate Bards, Rangers, and Monks into the system and run it in a Scarred Lands campaign.

 

[tburdett]

AU is probably one of the best d20 products that I will never buy. I love, and frequently buy, your other stuff Monte, but this one is just too out there for me.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

1) Is there a list of monsters for Arcana Unearthed, or are you expected to use the Monster Manuals? If the latter, do the monsters in 3.0 stand up to the challenge of fighting AU characters, or do they need to be adjusted?

There will be an expanded list (and additional setting-specific monsters) forthcoming in The Diamond Throne, due out toward the end of August. Monte has said that he's going to recommend monsters from Tome of Horrors and Creature Collection that are also appropriate.

So far (one adventure in), the 3.0 monsters that I've used were fine. I bump them up to deal with my 3.0 group to begin with, but unadjusted they were okay. Of course, this is a statistically nil sample size and you should try on your own.

2) Are there any races that fit the niche of the "mining" or "mountain guys," like Gnomes and Dwarves do in D&D?

Well, no PC race anyway.... FWIW, you could certainly import gnomes or dwarves if you want them in your game. A dwarf warmain might be a neat contrast to the giant warmain!

3) Is the game especially suited for Dungeon Crawling, as 3.5 seems to be (from my impressions), overland exploration, political games, or a mix of all three? Or something I haven't thought of yet?

Dang, good question! Let's go with "something I haven't though of yet" either. I would say its suitable for adventures where your PCs will go "Cool! I can do what?!"

Though it is an alternate player's handbook, so to some extent you're not dependant on the dungeon but the D&D design standard of 4 encounters per day to keep the PCs on their toes. Still I like plenty of RP challenges, and it's working fine so far.

 

[Mystic Eye]

Have any of you looked through Siege on Ebonring Keep yet? We went to great pains to introduce the feel and new options of AU/Diamond throne to the adventure in order to introduce people to all the differences.

 

[Michael Tree]

However, does the Oathsworn seem to be even weaker than the 3.0 Monk? I mean, the ability to ignore food, water, fatigue, etc. in a game is nice, but how often do those abilities even come up in a typical game? Wouldn't you rather have Slow Fall or Still Mind?

Further, the ability to penetrate Damage Reduction is rather poor as well. Given the Oathsworn's lack of base attack, a Hands as Weapons will be needed to add enhancement bonuses to the Oathsworn's attack so that he can hit.

Also, without the Monk's ability to add Wis to AC, an Oathsworn's AC will likely be lower as well.

Did I forget a few abilities of the Oathsworn here, or is it really that weak?

It's not weak at all. It's true that the Hands as Weapons feat is a 'must have' for oathsworn, but it's also a major part of what makes them worthwhile: it's essentially a magic item that cannot be broken or taken away, which applies to all the oathsworn's attacks. By a generous reading of the Thrown Objects and Objects as Weapons abilities, the magical bonuses also apply to these improvised weapons.

I do greatly prefer the 3.5 approach to multiple monk attacks to the 3.0/AU one. In 3.0 it was often nicknamed "flurry of misses" for a reason. If I make one house rule for AU, this will be it.

As for AC, Oathsworn may have a lower AC at low levels, but in the long run they balance out. A monk with an 18 Wis and a +6 item enhancement bonus to Wis will have a total of +11 to AC at 20th level, while an Oathsworn will have a +10.

The lack of Wis-based AC and abilities also means that an Oathsworn doesn't need to put a high attribute in Wis, so he could put it in Str, Dex, or Con instead, and be more physically potent than a monk.