AU - first impressions?

[ScyldSceafing]

First impressions

Ok, I got the AU hardcover as a gift during the last session (see the thread "My group is amazing" for details). After we went out to eat, we retired to my house to sit around and discuss the campaign, brainstorm, what have you ...

... at least, we would have, if we didn't have the AU book to pore through.

Good lord, we're loving it. We wound up talking character concepts for a couple of hours. The book got passed around a lot - it would usually change hands when someone went "Oh wait! Look at this! Cool." and off it'd go.

We've got a player missing for next week's game, so we're doing an AU one-shot. So yeah, we're excited. I'm loving the whole package - yes, even the races. The concept of race levels is fresh and easy to implement. The classes are cool, cover all the bases, and are different enough to keep you thinking. Love the flexibility and trade-off decisions prompted by the new feats. And the magic system - now that's meaty.

I love it. Monte Cook, you da man.

 

[woodelf]

Page 164, column two, paragraph three:

"Casters learn the spells they have access to by reading books, studying scrolls, and from studying under others. This study is assumed to have happended to have occurred before the campaign, or during campaign down time."

What if I have no downtime? What if a character gains access to a spell level while slogging through a dungeon, having spent no real time studying, or anything resembling downtime except for sleeping and short resting? Does he have access to all those new spells for his level? The rules tells use they learn spells, not gain them automatically, like clerics. So what happens when you don't get a chance to learn them?

GM's call. I think that is the intended answer. Monte made a big deal, both when developing this, and in the forward, that this game is unlike D&D3E in that it assumes a competent GM, and thus lets the GM have more power and make more decisions. I'd say that this is a case where it'd be up to the GM (or the group) to decide what fits their game best. It won't necessarily be the same from group to group.

And that's ok. I, for one, find his attitude refreshing. The degree to which D&D is designed to play the same regardless of the skill/experience/fairness of the DM is very frustrating, since it does so by controlling every little detail.

 

[Merlion]

Well I've got the book, and it met my expectations nicely. I havent read it cover to cover, focused mainly on races, classes and magic.
Like many others, all of the races didnt exactly get me super excited, but I really like the Faen and the Verrik.
The classes are wonderful. Mageblade, Witch, Runethane and Magister are particularly nice...also the Champion...probably the best holy/unholy warrior I've seen so far. The Unfettered fits the agile warrior perfectly. the Witch's witchery powers are fantastic...finaly a class with actual supernatural powers apart from just spells. and they can really make use of those various blade manifestations to since they have medium BAB. And the Mageblade, at last a single class for the archtype of the magic wielding warrior. About time And I looove the Magister Aspects of Power. The glowing eyes, the booming voice, being able to know when your name is spoken or live without food or water by drawing sustence from magic. Great stuff. ANd not to sound repetative but..Runethane, finaly a good runic BASE CLASS. again about time.
The magic system itself is as wonderful as we all thought it would be, and the feats are amazing. In DnD spellcasters have very little choices for feats to actualy influence there magic...in essence, metamagic feats, spell focus, spell penetration. But the AU magic system itself includes many ways to alter spells, between heightning/diminishing, slot weaving, and the fact that there are many spells that can be cast in different ways. then add Modify Spell, and the various "mage" feats, and you've got some real flexibility.
Personaly, I was always a tad annoyed that DnD metamagic feats essentialy have level requirements to use them. Some of the feats in AU require an increase in spell level, but most require "ladening" (using an extra slot), which I prefer.
Now yes this book doesnt look quite as good as the WOTC stuff we are used to. Now this really doesnt matter much to me personaly...while I enjoy good artwork a great deal, the only thing that really enters into my decsion making process as far as RPG stuff is content. the quality of the materials is reasonbly good too...the book is layed out like most of the sword and sorcerery products, which does take a tad of getting used to.
Now the only thing I dont like about the magic(and till I have a chance to play it, I wont really know for sure) is that the overall power of spells does seem significantly reduced...in fact at first glance it seems like Monte might have gone just a tiny bit overboard. I mean virtualy every offensive spell is at least Complex. Of course many of thease things can be easily overcome with a feat or two. and I think the part about most of the attack spells being complex is mainly to give Magisters the role of best offensive caster.
It also just feels like a little bit is missing...there dont seem to be many enchantment or illusion spells, and I'm not totaly satisfied with the summoning.
However again thease things are based solely on reading through the book..wont really know till I get to play. and the taking of a few feats, and possibly the importing of a few DnD spells could easily patch the little holes I see.
Not really wild about the implied setting and racial interactions, but thats purely taste and easily done away with.
The fact that religion, aside from the Faen and there(in my opnion and to my taste) silly creating gods for everything and anything, isnt hardly touched on at all I'm not 100% happy with, but it is better in many ways than how polytheism based around a not always that great an alignment system is shoved down ones throat in DnD. I also miss alignment dependant spells and the like...if I was to run AU I would re institute alignment, but only with Good and Evil..and with things like Detect Evil not always totaly surefire.
The real trouble is going to be, once the day comes that I actualy get to play, deciding what to be. Mageblade, Magister and Witch are probably most likely...or Runethane.
The magic system isnt quite as cross compatible as we were given the impression it would be. I think that importanting an AU spellcaster into a DnD game and just having each type of caster use there native magic system would work...or if your willing to spend more time, conversion either way probably wouldnt be that hard. Plus there are some where it wouldnt really be needful..you dont need Magister and Wizard, or Warmain and Fighter(although Unfettered and fighter could work).
Me, I would like to eventualy see a campaign that merges the two in a deep way. Use whichever of the redundant classes is better, use the AU magic system but with a few DnD spells converted over.
Phew..ran a bit longer than I had planned, but those are my thoughts. Overall, I love it.

 

[shady]

I don't have the book to hand, nor have I finished reading it. Nor for that matter have I started using it.

In terms of first impressions, I liked most of the races, the most uninspiring being the Verrik at this point ... but that could change. Actually I think good new player races are very difficult to do, so this is an achievement. I particularly liked the Mohj and the Faen. Other people have commented on the art - it's not brilliant and could actually put you off the Sibbecai, who look somewhat mangy.

For the classes, I liked the Totem Warrior in particular, but again was generally impressed. Didn't like the Oathbound - it looked like a variant monk class (and may as such work) but doesn't work in its own right - if the overwhelming motivation for these guys is their oath, then I just don't see why they shouldn't use armour etc. Unless this is a very specific cult, in which case why is it a class rather than a PrC.

Despite having obviously been written for a particular setting, I'm not sure all the elements actually hang together. For example, one cool part of the totem warrior is that over time they pick up more and more characteristics of their totem animal - much like Beorn in the Hobbit. Great. But what if you start off with a Littorian or a Sibbecai - you've now got a "lion man" who is gradually turning into a "shark lion man". Good luck.

On the other hand, the races and classes are I think movable to other campaigns, piecemeal. What I'd actually like is an updated version of the race selection table from Richard Bakers 2E World Builders Guide, to help build some new worlds for the better new races that have come out.

 

[Wombat]

My group, which is deep in a rather complex campaign, is now asking if I can incorporate parts of AU into the mix.

**sigh**

I LOVE this book, but given the campaign o' th' moment, it's not going to be an easy fit. The Oathsworn I can work in fairly quickly and easily (we do not use Monks), but given the tenor of the current campaign most of the other slots are already taken.

OTOH, if I don't watch out there is going to be a mutiny and the campaign will be replaced with an all-AU game...

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Shady, interesting question about the litorians taking totem warriors. I've got one in my group that's a Hawk Totem Warrior. Guess what, he's turning into a griffon.

 

[Ezrael]

Question: how useful is the book *as* a Variant Players Handbook?

What I mean by that is, much as many people buy the big three (PHB, DMG, MM) and create their own campaign worlds rather than using the default setting in the PHB, does anyone have an opinion as to how easy it would be to use AU without the Diamond Throne setting? I've been looking over the book since I got it, thinking about how best to make use of it, and I've decided what I'll do is create my own setting using it (especially timely since my current group is in serious flux right now, players coming and going) as the baseline, much the way so many settings have been created assuming the PHB as the baseline. Does anyone have any ideas on how to make this easier or harder, any suggestions for rules to import/ignore, any feedback as to how much easier or harder it would be to use AU for this purpose than it would be to use the PHB?

 

[RobNJ]

Didn't like the Oathbound - it looked like a variant monk class (and may as such work) but doesn't work in its own right - if the overwhelming motivation for these guys is their oath, then I just don't see why they shouldn't use armour etc. Unless this is a very specific cult, in which case why is it a class rather than a PrC.

It's not a variant monk class. They don't just not use armor, they don't use tools. They actually have reasons for all their limitations: They believe in maximizing the potential in themselves, as channeled through the power of their dedication to the oath, and regard tool use as a crutch. Perfect reason not to use armor. Monks have the whole ki thing, whereas everything about the oathsworn is about their oaths, and channelling power from them, not some inner magic.

Despite having obviously been written for a particular setting, I'm not sure all the elements actually hang together. For example, one cool part of the totem warrior is that over time they pick up more and more characteristics of their totem animal - much like Beorn in the Hobbit. Great. But what if you start off with a Littorian or a Sibbecai - you've now got a "lion man" who is gradually turning into a "shark lion man". Good luck.

Well, if you read it, it's pretty straightforward. Lion/sharks don't make much sense (since litorans rarely become shark types because they're not coastal dwellers), but it just means that their faces become more bullet-like, their skin or fur goes a duller color, their hide becomes thicker, etc. It's pretty easy to visualize. Much easier if you use one of the ones they're more likely to become (such as the hawk or wolf).

 

[WayneLigon]

I'll have to make final judgement once I've actually played a few sessions with the new classes and races. Soon, I'll be starting a new campaign (well, and old setting with new people) and I'm going to use a great deal of AU in it.

1. Not sure about the races. Verrik, yes. Faen.. maybe. Litorian and Sebbecai, as much as I like them, probably not. Giants.. maybe. Mohj, yes. Runechildren, definately. Probably going to use the standard PHB races, add in the Verrik, and see what happens. I think Monte's doing a set of racial levels for PHB races as a fun enhancement soon, so I may use that or make up my own; I like that concept a lot and it fits with the elves I'll be using.

2. Love the classes. Most of these are the types of things I really needed beforehand when I ran this, esp. the Greenbond, the Totem Warrior and the Witch.

 

[BVB]

Shady, interesting question about the litorians taking totem warriors. I've got one in my group that's a Hawk Totem Warrior. Guess what, he's turning into a griffon.

Litorian + shark totem = catfish?

Seriously, though, I don't see a problem conceptualizing a furry race taking on a totem of another animal. Is it really that much different than trying to imagine why humans don't stick with ape totems?