AU not really compatible with DnD 3.0 or 3.5

[Varianor Abroad]

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.

You might just want to check out diamondthrone.com tomorrow for Black Moria's article covering...duhn, duhn, duhn...converting an FR campaign. Just in case you aren't destined to be as confused as you think you will be.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

But, Spycraft is different.
How about Everquest as a comparison.

EQ and AU are both set close enough to D&D that cross over should be expected. I don't have EQ, nor AU, so I can't judge exactly, but both seem to have enough differences that make them more Complete Settings, rather than D&D expansions.

This is not a matter of what the public may have been told, it is a matter of expectations.

So, from what I've heard, EQ doesn't get looted for ideas as much as initially planned.

For those that have AU and EQ, how do they compare in compatability?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

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.

And this doesn't apply to the insane amount of negativity thrown at WotC just for the Revised books? Not everybody likes everything, and its bad to dismiss people just because they don't agree with you.

As for the topic. It depends, really. I'm pretty neutral on AU. I love it as it is, definatly a great read...but I'm having so much fun running my own homebrew, running a Star Wars game, and starting up a BESM d20 game(not as bad as some believe, it just takes a bit of tweaking and restrictions from the GM ), I just don't have the WILL to run an AU game. And I the stuff just plain doesn't fit into my homebrew...great stuff, but I'm wondering why I bought it other than a good read.

 

[MacMathan]

Just got AU in the mail today. So far I like a lot of it. It is too bad that it is straddling a revision change, parts of it feel a bit odd after already having adapted my brain to the 3.5 changes.

Overall I am more than happy with the purchase and I can see eventually either adapting it to a homebrew or running it straight.

Of course now I just have to decide between 3.5, Midnight, Warcraft D20 and AU

 

[Henry]

This little fanboy has loved what he has seen so far, and did NOT buy it in the hope of cross-pollinating his D&D campaign, but instead to play a wholly separate D&D campaign with it (but using just the Unearthed Arcana rules).

Since I've been reading his design diary the past year, I knew most of what I was getting going in. His DD really did not deviate from what he delivered.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The feats (especially the talents) are overpowered, from slightly to not at all to extremely.

The magic, in general, is weaker.

Some of the races are overpowered (judging from the DMG's stat equivalencies...they'll get a bonus to, say, Con and a minus to Cha -- which is too powerful).

But eh. The balance isn't world-shattering, but it is slightly troubling.

And duh, a magister and a wizard can't draw spells from the same list. They cast different, just like a psion and a cleric and a sorcerer cast different.

 

[BryonD]

This little fanboy has loved what he has seen so far, and did NOT buy it in the hope of cross-pollinating his D&D campaign, but instead to play a wholly separate D&D campaign with it (but using just the Unearthed Arcana rules).

Heh, I keep hearing this OVER and OVER and OVER. And everytime, I go "That is what I said."

AU is compatible with D&D (mostly). But it is not like a BoEM. To really get the AU experience you should play AU INSTEAD of D&D. Thus you get AU games and D&D games when there used to just be D&D games. I do not think that is bad in any way. But when I claimed this before Monte took exception. Which is weird.

Since I've been reading his design diary the past year, I knew most of what I was getting going in. His DD really did not deviate from what he delivered.

True. But I don't think the DDs gave the full story either.

Over the last year my understanding of the compatibility of Magisters and Wizards has gone as follows:

-Magisters and Wizards are comparable classes that can be used side by side.

-Magisters and Wizards are comparable classes that can be used side by side, but because AU gets rid of some of the D&D conventions, you will need to be careful with what standard D&D stuff is used.

-Magisters and Wizards are comparable classes that can be used side by side, but you'll need to have the Wizard player use the PH and the Magister player use AU. (And don't forget that AU gets rid of some D&D conventions)

----- AU Comes Out ------

-Magisters and Wizards are not balanced if Magisters use AU and Wizards use the PH. It is only a fair comparison if they both use the same system.

?????

AU looks like a cool game, but ultimately, I prefer D&D. (Partly, to my eye, I see places where the game was blatantly worked around D&D, wheels were reinvented that did not really need to be re-invented, just so the D&D wheel would not be used.)

Plus, I have D20 modern, Spycraft and CoC, all of which I have not gotten to yet. So adding to my D&D game would have been cool, but nudging me toward a new campaign is not what I hoped for.

Lastly, there is now a division in the D20 fantasy design community. Some small portion of the market (a very taltened portion, I may add) will now focus some of their attentions to AU stuff. Thus, there will be less D&D stuff for me to pick from. I wish them the best. No hard feeling at all, may they become the most wealthy game designers in the history of spoken language. But to me, personally, this is a small bummer.

So, am I disappointed? Yeah, a little. I wish I had been wrong.

 

[Psion]

(Partly, to my eye, I see places where the game was blatantly worked around D&D, wheels were reinvented that did not really need to be re-invented, just so the D&D wheel would not be used.)

This trait is true of 3.5, and there is bothers me, because you should not be reinventing the base game.

The whole point of AU is a reinvented/reimagined D&D, so that being what I got, I was not surprised or disappointed.

 

[Desdichado]

I really have no intention of cross-polinating the two games. As far as I'm concerned, they are two different games, just like D&D and d20 Modern are different games. They may work fine next to each other, or they may not. I don't really care. I never really had any intention of using them that way.

There is a guy in our group who's really jonesin' to run a Diamond Throne game as soon as the CS comes out. I'll probably get to experience AU as a seperate unit, they way I always figgered it was best suited to be used anyway.

 

[Staffan]

The feats (especially the talents) are overpowered, from slightly to not at all to extremely.

As I see it, the talents are allowed to be a bit more powerful than regular feats because you can only ever take one, and that's at first level. You can take two if you really want to, but then you're Unbound, don't have a truename, can't get the Ceremony feats, and can't be raised from the dead.

Some of the races are overpowered (judging from the DMG's stat equivalencies...they'll get a bonus to, say, Con and a minus to Cha -- which is too powerful).

Yeah, WOTC would never put a race with a bonus to Con and a penalty to Charisma in the Player's Handbook. And they would definitely not give it save bonuses out the wazoo as well as nigh-free proficiency in two exotic weapons as well.