AU - first impressions?

[woodelf]

Good to know. Thanks. Anyone want a gently used copy of AU?

Nah, I'll probably keep it on the shelf for ideas, though I suspect mixing in most elements into an otherwise straight 3.0/3.5 game would be difficult without some nerfing. As I said before, I liked the races, and I might use some elements of the magic rules in my houseruled magic system for my D20 Modern/Urban Arcana game. I also liked the hero points, and will probably use them as is. I can't say much about the classes, since I didn't read them carefully yet, but they did not seem at first glance to be generic enough to use outside the context of a Diamond Throne campaign without also using a couple of the 3.x classes.

While I am edified by Ray Silver's point by point denigration of my impressions, which I believe were expressly solicited, I must reiterate my feeling that the major problem with this book is that too much of it is old news. When presented in the same format and price as say, the Books of Eldritch Might, as I assume the PDF's will be, it will be a fine enough buy.

I find the publisher's argument that they are saving us from having to lug around our PHB's to be somewhat specious. I would suspect it is a rare table that will play without a PHB of one version or another, and they are in fact asking you and I to lug around a bigger book of AU variants, with a B&W printed copy of the 3.0 SRD mixed in to fluff up the page count.

My advice would be to buy the AU hardcover if you want to give Monte or your FLGS some extra money. I suspect the better value for most folks is down the PDF route. The new stuff is very deliberately different and reasonably interesting, but I can't say it lives up to the hype.

Well, if you change your mind, i might be interested in buying youl AU. Given my current budget, and the fact that i'm not all that likely to actually play it (but rather just mine it for ideas), i'll buy it used if i can. I'd rather buy the PDFs--like you, i consider this content a steal at PDF prices, but a bit steep at hardcover prices--but not all of the content of AU is contained in the PDFs, even if you get all of them. Grrrr...

As for hype: it depends on the hype you read. I expected it to be flavorful (something D&D isn't), more flexible, less rulesy and more GM-dependent, and better written (this last isn't something anyone said, just my opinion of the writing in the D&D3E PH.

And WRT duplicate content: this may be the book that finally gets me to play, or even run, a D20 game. I absolutely adore Spycraft, but i'm not interested in the action/espionage genre. I love B5, but i'm likely to just mine it for the setting and convert it to Fudge, CORPS, EABA, or Tri-Stat. AU is the second D20 game to get me interested in the rules side of the game (Spycraft was the first), and i love the elements of the setting. I'd likely take what's in AU and run with it, rather than using Diamond Throne--just as i've always taken the core elements of D&D and built my own setting around them. And if i were to do so, there's a good chance there wouldn't be a D&D PH at the table--i certainly don't own one, and don't intend to buy one.I don't care if it's compatible with D&D (3 or 3.5), because there's precious little that i don't dislike in the current version of D&D (dislike the way the races are structured, how the classes are built, how spellcasting works, how clerics work, how combat works, how psionics work, and how a good chunk of the feats work).

Actually, that's not quite the whole truth: i played in a D&D3E game for 2 years. I joined only under duress (long story). Once i let my guard down and actually started learning the system, the more familiar i got with the system, the more i disliked it. Every couple of weeks i'd discover another element that bugged me. But the only D20 product i've bought to date is Dynasties & Demagogues, and that's mostly to mine for ideas for non-D20 systems. AU has me genuinely excited about gaming. So it's done something right.

 

[LightPhoenix]

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

Mea culpa. I was confused.

 

[woodelf]

The sixth-level battle sorceror pulls out a lightning bolt: 6d6
That sixth-level magister, who has all the simple and complex spells in the book, can pull out an empowered firefire eldritch sorcerous bolt (a lightning bolt where you choose the element): (6d6 + 2d6) * 1.5 = 12d6 for two third level slots and 20gp.

Um, how is using two 3rd-level slots and 20gp and two feats to do 12d6 damage more powerful than using two 3rd-level slots to do 12d6 damage? Seems to me your example is in the sorcerer's favor. All the magister is doing is doing it in one round instead of two--certainly a reasonable tradeoff for 2 feats and some money?

 

[woodelf]

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.

You mean like how everyone can heal?

 

[woodelf]

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.

Not true (on the facts--can't speak to Monte's motives). The WotC OGL does nothing to prevent you from recreating the experience chart for D&D--it's a simple mathematical progression. The D20 license, OTOH, explicitly forbids describing how to level up. However, it does *not* forbid creating a new XP chart--you just can't tell the reader what to do with that XP chart. Anyway, i thought AU was just using the WotC OGL, not the D20STL--am i mistaken?

 

[Thrommel]

Why did I know that druid comment was going to get me in trouble?

I guess my point is that the D&D magic system tries to confine your character to certain roles, while the AU approach adapts itself to your concept.

D&D lays out a framework for each character and if you want to buck the typical role, you're going to have to bend that frame to make it work.

AU has a more modular approach, yielding more flexibility and variety.

Sure, a talented and veteran player can make almost any class work with a particular concept. But it's a question of effort.

Why work that hard?

-Thrommel

 

[BryonD]

Not true (on the facts--can't speak to Monte's motives). The WotC OGL does nothing to prevent you from recreating the experience chart for D&D--it's a simple mathematical progression. The D20 license, OTOH, explicitly forbids describing how to level up. However, it does *not* forbid creating a new XP chart--you just can't tell the reader what to do with that XP chart. Anyway, i thought AU was just using the WotC OGL, not the D20STL--am i mistaken?

It is the D20STL that forbids describing progression. And clearly that part is irrelevant because AU does not use the D20STL.

However, the point is not that the OGL does not forbid it, rather, that it does not provide an allowance for using the D&D system. So under the OGL only a progression may be allowed. BUT, the D&D progression does not exist in the SRD and is not Open. Your point that it could be re-produced because it is simply a mathematical progression is way beyond my non-lawyer assessment. But I think that would certainly be a possible point of contention.

So one the one hand, that would make a possible legal vulnerability that just isn't worht the trade-off (the 10% revised system is fine; I'd guess that the "more powerful" comment is a hand wave as much as anything; and a house rule to D&D standard is obvious and simple)

And on the other hand, and far more significant in my mind, the D20 community, so far, has shown a clear spirit of working together, above and beyond the legal requirements. Monte has been among the more out spoken advocates of this approach. So even if he could reproduce the D&D chart by using a simple loophole, I tend to doubt that Monte would.

Again, the above is entirely my personal non-lawyer speculation.

 

[BryonD]

I guess my point is that the D&D magic system tries to confine your character to certain roles, while the AU approach adapts itself to your concept.

D&D lays out a framework for each character and if you want to buck the typical role, you're going to have to bend that frame to make it work.
-Thrommel

Thrommel,

I appreciate that there is a group of people who are highly enthusiatic about AU. That is cool.

But I guess I just have to take your comments as coming from an advocate rather than from an independant reviewer.

 

[Thrommel]

And that's entirely appropriate. I'm obviously an enthusiastic fan who's way more involved in AU than your average gamer.

That being said, these are my honest opinions based on 20 years of playing D&D and spending the past 6 months playtesting AU. I'm just trying to explain what it is about AU that makes me such an enthusiastic fan.

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

 

[BryonD]

And that's entirely appropriate. I'm obviously an enthusiastic fan who's way more involved in AU than your average gamer.

That being said, these are my honest opinions based on 20 years of playing D&D and spending the past 6 months playtesting AU. I'm just trying to explain what it is about AU that makes me such an enthusiastic fan.

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

I certainly understand. And I did not mean any offence. I can relate to the enthusiasm for something new.

This exchange seems to be coming off as me questioning the merits of AU. I'm not.

The point to me is that there is a big difference between saying the AU is cool because AU <<fill in the blank>>, and saying D&D isn't as good as AU because D&D <<fill in the blank>>.

Even if your statement about D&D was true, I do not think that is a good sales approach. And in this specific case, I think your statement is in fact not correct.

That is all.

I'm not attacking AU, just defending D&D.