AU not really compatible with DnD 3.0 or 3.5

[JacktheRabbit]

How does everyone feel about this?

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? From the bits I have read all of the base classes are a bit overpowered compared to standard DnD classes and the magic system is completely incompatible.


Does anyone feeel gyped by this or was that fact laid out by Monte and I just missed it? I remember hearing it was an "alternative" PHB but never that the two could not be used together.

 

[Voadam]

How does everyone feel about this?

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? From the bits I have read all of the base classes are a bit overpowered compared to standard DnD classes and the magic system is completely incompatible.


Does anyone feeel gyped by this or was that fact laid out by Monte and I just missed it? I remember hearing it was an "alternative" PHB but never that the two could not be used together.

I just got the value pack pdf and have not gotten the conversion guide and DM screen pdf.

Most of the feats could be applied to any core spellcaster easily, the exception being the ones that deal with diminishing or heightening spells.

The classes and magic system are meant to be an alternative system to the arcane/divine system of the core rules. you could have a runethane next to a wizard in a game but they would not be able to trade spells, just like a psion would not either.

I haven't gone through the classes and races yet so I will reserve judgment about their power balance compared to core classes and races.

I was disappointed to see the division of the magic class book from the magic system pdf, both referring to material from the other ones so neither would be fully useable on their own.

I'm also disappointed the whole book is not available in pdf unlike other malhavok products.

For example, it says the weapons referred to in the fighter book are not included in the pdf (havent' read through the fighter one yet though).

 

[Negative Zero]

there already is a thread discussing this over here, and if you've got the time, you should check out the first impressions thread. there's a good bit of info in both. also, the mods have decided that all AU threads go in the d20 System and OGL Games forum.

~NegZ

[EDIT]
oops, just realised that you had been posting in the first impressions thread. my apologies.

 

[Foundry of Decay]

Actually, a lot of AU is completely compatible with D20.

Some things need to be self contained though, and are very evident.

Things like Toughness would be tossed in favor of 'Stable' (Which is actually a little better than toughness even at its lowest form).

You could have wizards and Magister's right next to one another, however, as mentioned previously, they would not cast spells from one another's lists.

The fighter classes should get along alright. You could still keep a 'fighter' and use AU feats without any problem whatsoever from what I'm seeing.

If you wanted to keep the Thief, then simply make a rule where *they* are the only ones able to disable certain traps and devices. Other than that I see little conflict.

I plan on hybriding a lot of AU into my campaign, so I'll freely admit I haven't tried it in play yet, but so far it doesn't look like too much will go hokey.

And on the point of AU classes being a bit more powerful. Yes, they are at early levels. However they don't have the insanely wild spike in power at higher levels that the core classes do.

Thems are my thoughts at least..

 

[Zogg]

Mmmm. It's hard to say exactly. I think Monte may have fallen into the common trap of telling people what they wanted to hear. THEN AGAIN we as customers may have exhibited a bit of selective listening.

I'm in the process of reading the AU and think it's excellent. However, I plan on using AU on it's own. I honestly believe this is the best way to use the resource, though it's not the only way.

NOW - DMs that are experienced at creating their own homebrew worlds (or tweaking existant ones) could certainly integrate bits and pieces of AU, I would just find it to be a bit difficult. My established world of choice is the Forgotten Realms (but don't tell anyone) and I can't imagine bringing in the races, classes or magic system from the AU into the FR without creating some kind of odd hybrid that is bound to confuse the PCs, much less myself.

Nevertheless! I can imagine using certain portions of the AU - perhaps a new race is found in Maztica. Or Red Wizards have just learned how to unravel spells...or use spell tattoos. Why couldn't half-orcs learn how to use the "stomp" feat? Word has spread that the people of Silverymoon are conducting magical ceremonies to enhance a person's magic...etc. etc.

If you want to integrate portions of the AU, you will have to use some imagination. Monte definitely does NOT provide a "paint by numbers" way of doing this - and I don't think it's meant to be easy. Alternatively, you can use AU on it's own too and I do believe it's bound to provide lots of fun gaming.

So after writing all that, I don't think Monte ever lied or misled us....perhaps we just had selective listening.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Actually, a lot of AU is completely compatible with D20.

...

Things like Toughness would be tossed in favor of 'Stable' (Which is actually a little better than toughness even at its lowest form).

....

That to me is part of the problem everything from AU seems to be described as slightly more powerful or slightly better than the standard equivalent from DnD 3.0 or 3.5 and that doesnt sit well with me.

 

[Maraxle]

Keep in mind that DocMoriartty already admitted on the first impressions thread that he dislikes Monte Cook's work, and has no interest in AU. His loaded question appears to me to be an attempt at spreading some negativity. Anyway, in response to the question at hand, no, it doesn't bother me that AU isn't exactly like 3.0 or 3.5. It bothers me no more than it bothers me that Spycraft uses its own rules and classes, and thus isn't "compatible" by the doc's definition.

 

[dagger]

Well then.....

Keep in mind that DocMoriartty already admitted on the first impressions thread that he dislikes Monte Cook's work, and has no interest in AU. His loaded question appears to me to be an attempt at spreading some negativity. Anyway, in response to the question at hand, no, it doesn't bother me that AU isn't exactly like 3.0 or 3.5. It bothers me no more than it bothers me that Spycraft uses its own rules and classes, and thus isn't "compatible" by the doc's definition.

 

[ForceUser]

How does everyone feel about this?

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? From the bits I have read all of the base classes are a bit overpowered compared to standard DnD classes and the magic system is completely incompatible.


Does anyone feeel gyped by this or was that fact laid out by Monte and I just missed it? I remember hearing it was an "alternative" PHB but never that the two could not be used together.

I don't agree that the AU classes are overpowered. They're not. The Unfettered, for instance, is about as powerful and versatile as a Fighter/Rogue. The Warmain trades off some of a Fighter's bonus feats for a couple of class-specific powers. Healing in AU appears to be weaker overall than in D&D, unless you play a Greenbond, in which case you heal about as well as a Cleric. I agree the magic system is more complicated, but the individual spells I've read have not at all made me think ("Wow! That's too much!") Quite the contrary, I've always found Monte's stuff to be neat stylistically but on the shy side of impressive power-wise.

In short, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[thundershot]

While I only flipped through the book at the store, I can tell that it's 100 times more compatable to D&D than BESMd20 is...


Chris