AU - first impressions?

willpax said:
I realize that there are many variables outside the system as it is written on paper that affect the issue of high/low magic flavor, but I would be intersted in an assessment of the tendencies of the system beyond simple damage numbers.

If D&D 3e as written tends to high magic (an assumption for sake of discussion), then how does the AU system compare? How many changes would be needed to run this system in a low magic homebrew?

(I'm struggling to create my own system, and am always looking for someone else to have done the work for me).

Our experience as playtesters was, if you try to run AU like a regular D&D game, you get your :bleep: handed to you on a platter. Our spell casters were tossing out heightened and laden spells like mad, to get all those cool effects and big blasts, and at the end of the fight, there's no healing. Healing is harder to come by (Battle Healing is a 2nd level spell, and not as good as CLW) so you're down to one fight a day.

Every time we tried to stretch things out we got a TPK.

A lot of AU classes get magic (witches, mageblade, runethane, greenbond, magister) and a lot of classes have magic-like abilities (akashic, champion, oathsworn, some totem warriors). So if you want a real low magic game, there's a lot you have to pull out.

But if you want some magic in your game, you could make classes like witches and runethanes your magic classes, and that would work really well. I'm contemplating some ideas like this for a game of my own, but they aren't real developed yet.

PS
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think AU operates under the assumption that magic is more pervasive than in D&D -- everybody can do a little magic and the setting is charged with magic & fantasy.

One of the key concepts embedded in AU is that magic makes fantastic things possible -- you can do a ritual and become bonded with your sword, giving you +1 to attack. You can use someone's truename to dominate them. You can create your own unique spell. And so on.

That said, if you wanted to run a low-magic campaign, I think if you simply removed the greenbond and magister characters and used the 'secondary' spellcasters (runethane, mage blade, witch) you could run a low magic campaign that wouldn't be as radically impacted as if you were to take traditional D&D and just ditch sorcerors, wizards, clerics and druids.

In other words, you'd easily be able to run a game where magic is low-powered.

If you're looking for a world where magic is scarce, that has your typical challenges of healing, dealing with magical beasts, etc. -- just like D&D would.

-Thrommel
 

anonystu said:

Interesting note: Since the XP chart isn't SRD, Monte had to make his own, which is basically 1,100 * current level + 1 to level. I thought at first that this was just picking a different number to satisfy legal demons, but a playtester said that in addition to that, Monte considers the core classes slightly more powerful than 3e classes, but not noticably so, such that it seems like it's okay to either ignore it and use the PHB chart, or drop as the book does, a -10% penalty on AU classes.

Or, of course, if you don't use EL/CR, and don't mix 3.0/AU then it really doesn't matter.

Is that kind of strange for one of the authors of the 3e DMG to go back to the 1e/2e tradition of assigning different XP charts for different classes depending on how powerful they are?

Also, I assume this means that it's OGC and not d20, right?

I think the magister sounds cool, but there aren't enough bits to steal for me to make the price tag worthwhile.
 

Just to clarify, all the classes in AU use the same XP chart.

Since it's an OGL book, there is no direct reference to the D&D core classes.

If you want to mix & match, pick one chart and use that. It's more a technical legal issue than a compelling design choice, IMO.

-Thrommel
 

Barcode said:
Disappointed.

I understand the desire to present this as an "alternate PHB", meaning that you won't need a Players Handbook, but how realistic is that? Just about everyone who buys this will own the PHB anyway. Therefore, the estimated 40-60% of the book dedicated to reprinting SRD core mechanics are wasted repetition for anyone who already owns a PHB.

The good changes that were implemented in 3.5 are not present in AU (skill consolidation being one obvious example), so you'll likely want to apply those from the SRD at least, if not own the 3.5 PHB.

The races are pretty cool, and I like much of the magic system, but IMO these could have been presented in a much smaller, and therefore cheaper book. The combat variants are minor, and could have been presented in a long ENWorld post.

I thought it was visually unappealing.

If this product wasn't hyped to death, I wouldn't have thought ill of it, but it fell far below my high expectations. Not worth the price tag. For someone who does not yet own a 3.0 PHB, this is *not* a better buy than picking up the 3.5 PHB. It is not a bad alternative to buying 3.5, particularly with the availability of the SRD.

Contrasting view:
I don't own any D&D3E books. I likely never will. This is not my dislike of D20 so much as my disappointment in the WotC books. AU has me converted--i'm getting a copy as soon as i have the money. If it had required a PH, i probably wouldn't buy it.

With some of the optional rules in Diamond Throne (armor as DR, frex), i think this is in every way superior as a game to both D&D3E and D&D3.5E. If you like D&D3/3.5E will you like this more? Can't say for certain. But if you don't like D&D3/3.5E, i'd give this a look anyway. IMHO, this is a *way* better buy than the new D&D books.

On layout: i like it. It's clean, if a bit plain. Much easier on the eyes than the D&D books. From a cursory flip-through, much better organized and better written, too. It may not be visually appealing--it *is* fairly plain--but neither is it visually off-putting, like the D&D core books.

oh, as for reprinted material: i doubt there's anywhere near that much reprinted (without the book in front of me to reference). Many of the things that are reprinted are also significantly altered. Take spells: they've had many more descriptors added, diminished and enhanced versions added, and all been classified as Simple/Complex/Exotic. Couple that with rewritten spells,deleted spells, and new spells, and i suspect you'd be bitching at the difficulty of cross-referencing the info in AU and the PH had they not just reprinted all the spells that it uses.

So, where do you get 40-60% from? Do skills, combat (and i believe that's been slighly changed), reprinted feats, reprinted equipment, Abilities, and reprinted spell descriptions really make up that much of the book? Doubtful.


Finally, if you just want some of the bits, buy the PDF versions. Me, i'm disappointed that i have to buy the book, because not all of teh content is found in the PDFs.
 

Thrommel said:
Since it's an OGL book, there is no direct reference to the D&D core classes.

Um, that really has nothing to do with it. The core classes are in the SRD, so could have been used here had Monte wanted.
 

Thrommel said:
Just to clarify, all the classes in AU use the same XP chart.

Since it's an OGL book, there is no direct reference to the D&D core classes.

If you want to mix & match, pick one chart and use that. It's more a technical legal issue than a compelling design choice, IMO.

-Thrommel

Ah, I see. Good point.

-Kenji
 

Psion said:

Um, that really has nothing to do with it. The core classes are in the SRD, so could have been used here had Monte wanted.

I am just speculating.

I think that while AU is compatible with normal D&D, part of the goal was to be optional used as a compleetely stand alone replacement for the PH. To meet that goal there would need to be an XP progression. He can't use the PH progression because it isn't open. Therefore, he had to modify.

No big deal.
 

Thrommel said:


So keep in mind that the two approaches are very different. D&D assumes that magic is in the hands of a few (clerics/wizards/sorcerors - with a split between divine and arcane magic) and is rather rigid in spell effect and casting frequency. AU assumes that many people have access to some type of spell ability (five of the eleven classes wield magic using basically the same spell list) and puts a lot of choices at the caster's disposal.

I suggest playing through the AU magic system a bit -- it's not something I'd just eyeball and give a thumbs up or down to, because if anything in AU is not like 3E, this is it. It's different and, in my opinion, a vast improvement.

-Thrommel

I don't have AU yet but I'm wondering if we're playing the same D&D game.

Bard: Spellcaster
Barbarian: Non
Cleric: Spellcaster
Druid: Spellcaster
Fighter: Non
Monk: Non
Paladin: Spellcaster
Ranger: Spellcaster
Rogue: Non
Sorcerer: Spellcaster
Wizard: Spellcaster

So out of 12 classes, 7 cast spells and that's in tha hands of a few? And a 'split' betweeen arcane and divination? I agree that there are some differences but between domains and general purposes spells, there is a ton of overlap, especially with the classes that use spells on both lists.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top