AU - first impressions?

TiQuinn said:


IIRC, Doc doesn't care much for Monte Cook's work to begin with so I wouldn't expect him to like AU anyways. ;)

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Alejandro said:
Doc, why are you participating in this thread if you don't like the author and don't plan on picking up the books?


Because all fo the threads in this forum are open to posting as long as you follow the rules. Have a problem with negative comments?
 

In response to the "power creep": you're right that Psion is a more powerful feat than silent spell, still spell, and eschew materials put together, but I think that the balance can still be maintained. Feats for spellcasters in AU are inordinately more useful than magic feats in 3.0/3.5, there are a wide variety of templates, more than anybody could possibly take, and then we haven't even broached the exotic spell, unique spell, and complex spell feats.

This also fits in that spellcasters have a lot more flexibility in how they cast their spells (heightening, diminishing, adding spell templates, fusing spell slots up and down, and so on, added on top of the flexibility of a sorceror).

The balance is that spells seem individually less powerful: in its normal version, eldritch armor (+4 armor class: 1 hr/level, aka mage armor), is an exotic spell, meaning that you have to spend a feat to get it.

Sure, lesser battle healing is simple, which means all casters get it, but as a 2nd-level spell, it's 1d6 + level healing (max 10 I think).

So, to sum up, feat power for spellcasters has gone up, flexibility has gone up, but individual spell power has gone down. I like that feel, but your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:

Note, that the above analysis indicates that you should mark a huge warning sign over players bringing in AU spell feats for 3.0/3.5 spells: it's a definite mismatch at that point. It'll be interesting to see if the conversion guide that's coming with the screen addresses this.
 


One thing that hasn't been touched on yet is the addition of Hero Points to the game. I was in one of the AU demo games and some people did wild stuff with theirs. We were all given 1 Hero Point and one guy used his to *charm* an undead giant, another guy used his to have a spell that only affected 1 creature to affect all the enemy creatures in the room. I'm trying to remember what everyone else used......... This is another area in which the experience of the DM especially will come into play.

Just my $.02
 

Yeah, hero points are /big/! The default use of them is a whopping +d20 to one roll, and some of the other effects are to immediately take a turn out of order (and not lose your turn coming up in the initiative circle), or just simply to ignore a roll that would cause you to die (but take a horrible scar or injury instead).

It's something that will definitely require a GM to think carefully about what level of death and player control they want. It seems pretty balanced that there's a 1st-level feat (talent) that just gives you one hero point (with the caveat for the GM that they should offer more hero points to that player throughout the game).

1 hero point/level seems like a moderately heroic/cinematic game to me: PC's would have a very low chance of dying. Anything more than 1, and unless you're running a really tough game, players just shouldn't die.

I like them, but they're something to be wary of giving too many (or nearly any, if you want a gritty feel) out.
 

DocMoriartty said:
Because all fo the threads in this forum are open to posting as long as you follow the rules. Have a problem with negative comments?

Unlike Barcode's post about his impression of AU, your response to Joshua Dyal isn't based on ownership of the product.
 

Remove ads

Top