AU not really compatible with DnD 3.0 or 3.5

[Dinkeldog]

I got AU with the intention of using separately from the base classes and races. I'm changing my mind. I think the AU stuff would integrate fairly seemlessly with the straight DnD stuff.

Of course, I'll wait until I see it in actual use before I make a final conclusion, but the interim hypothesis is that things balance fairly well across the board.

 

[Petrosian]

I bought Au and i like most of what i see.

I understood from the copious amount of info from the DD and such that this was not intended to be built as a DND add-on but as a separate and variant.

In general, the only two complaints i have are disliking the font choice (older eyes and smaller fonts do not get along) and the level of PLAY TIME complexity the magic system has. I understand this was designed for more experienced gamers, and i like that, but the density there is a little high for my tastes as i like bringing in new players with each campaign.

I prefer midnight as an alternative because of two reasons. First, Midnight is noticeably not a high magic fantasy game... while different Au still bears much of the feel of DND. Second, Midnight seems more cohesively built while Au seems like a neat collection of a bunch of cool things which while cool and different just do not seem to be tied in together and promote a sense of "neat cool" but not a sense of "and that makes sense".

 

[garyh]

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.

Staffan, that's pure genius. As a Half-Orc fan, I constantly loathe the idea someone at WotC said, "Hmmmm.... a page and a half of Dwarf abilities... Half-Orcs get a -2 overall to stats, darkvision, vulnerabilty to orcbane weapons, and can't even use a silly double axe. THAT'S balanced."

Ummm..... sorry 'bout that. Sometimes I just get worked up.

On topic, from what I understand on the boards and the Design Diaries (gonna pick up AU tomorrow), I don't see a problem with mixing AU and D&D. In fact, I'm planning on running a PbP campaign at some point in the indetermenite future mixing 3.5, WarCraft, and AU. And I shall call it...

WarcanaCraft Unearthed 3.5!!!

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

In my experience playing it and reading the books, AU classes tend to be underpowered compared to DnD classes.

The amount of class abilities makes this counterintuitive, but there is nothing in there to compare with the fighter's vast array of feats, the rogues heavy sneak attack bonuses and high skills, and the power of the wizard, sorceror, and cleric spell lists.

Mind you there are comparative advantages.

AU classes are tougher, have greater flexibility, better skill lists, and the way feats are very nice.

DnD classes have much much better offensive power. Magic missile and sleep are fantastic. Clerical healing is still superior, particularly from behind a shield and running off of scrolls. Rogues can cap people from the shadows with incredible effectiveness. That human archer is still churning out the death.

Now that being said, I see nothing that is worth fixing. In the end the difference between the two is simply one of rhythm.

AU combats last longer, as do the early level characters, and are more brutal. Spell slinging is more selective and carefully helpful than straight up deadly.

DnD is faster and characters are more capable of acting on their own within combat, less capable of acting on their own in any other situation. Challenges are either laughably easy or ridiculously hard.

AU certainly seems to be better designed for more experienced players. My own very experienced crew is having fun dealing with the new set of troubles they are experiencing.

So far I have hesitated to put the two systems into conflict.

Mostly because of the rules straddling issues, that and it seems like a terrible hassle to learn two new systems at once.

For now I'm sticking to AU, in a month we will see where I want to put DnD.

Personally I am looking forward to seeing how things do throw down when the Giants 'invade' Waterdeep.

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

Toughness would be a bad example of that, pretty much everyone said it was a weak feat in 3.0 and I was amazed it wasn't changed for 3.5. Neverwinter Nights they upped Toughness to give you 1 hp per level. In AU it gives you twice your Con modifier, but a minimum of 4 hit points. Not exactly unbalancing.

The other classes arn't as overpowered as people think. So the Giant gets bonuses to Str as he levels in the class, but what does strength really give you other than a better chance to hit and damage. If the Giant had gone up in a combat class the same number of levels he would have got a better increase in BAB and feats that could have improved his damage more than the Strength increase from the race levels.

The change to the spell casting and reduction of spells actually makes the casters on the whole weaker than the D&D versions, at least at the higher levels. They might be a tad stronger at lower levels, due the the versitility of what spells they chose to cast.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Whatever...

But, regardless, you have twisted my point. I don't see anything in 3.5 that re-invents the wheel in the way that, for example, the warmain re-invents the fighter. IMO, the fighter is a better wheel than the warmain. That is not a claim that the warmain is bad. Just that in D&D you have a fighter class designed to be a fighter class. In AU you have a fighter class designed to be a fighter class, but restricted to being not the D&D fighter. So it is different for the sake of difference.

 

[drnuncheon]

But, regardless, you have twisted my point. I don't see anything in 3.5 that re-invents the wheel in the way that, for example, the warmain re-invents the fighter. IMO, the fighter is a better wheel than the warmain. That is not a claim that the warmain is bad. Just that in D&D you have a fighter class designed to be a fighter class. In AU you have a fighter class designed to be a fighter class, but restricted to being not the D&D fighter. So it is different for the sake of difference.

...except that it's not.

In D&D, you have a fighter class designed to be a catch-all for all the warrior archetypes. In AU, you have two "fighter" classes, warmain and unfettered, designed to split the archetype down a very logical line (big & strong vs. agile & swift). The lack of that split in D&D causes problems for people who want to do the 'secondary' archetype (which is to say agile and swift), practically forcing them into multiclassing or a prestige class.

So, yeah, you could have made the warmain just like the fighter (but without the 'finesse' style feats), but why stop there? Since you've narrowed the archetype (to big & strong heavily armored warrior) why not actually give class abilities that support that? That's such a crazy idea that it just might work...

So IMO it's not "different to be different", it's "different to better support the classes' archetype".

J

 

[Psion]

Whatever...

But, regardless, you have twisted my point.

No I didn't. I made my point.

 

[BryonD]

...except that it's not.

In D&D, you have a fighter class designed to be a catch-all for all the warrior archetypes. In AU, you have two "fighter" classes, warmain and unfettered, designed to split the archetype down a very logical line (big & strong vs. agile & swift). The lack of that split in D&D causes problems for people who want to do the 'secondary' archetype (which is to say agile and swift), practically forcing them into multiclassing or a prestige class.

So, yeah, you could have made the warmain just like the fighter (but without the 'finesse' style feats), but why stop there? Since you've narrowed the archetype (to big & strong heavily armored warrior) why not actually give class abilities that support that? That's such a crazy idea that it just might work...

So IMO it's not "different to be different", it's "different to better support the classes' archetype".

J

Semantics (nope, no edit here :whistles: )

IMO, Warmain + Unfettered + Akashic <<<< Fighter + Rogue + Bard

Or whatever peremation you want to throw out there.

I understand everything you said. I understood it before.

AU is a separate collection of classes built around the D&D collection. I think that effort to avoid the ideas already used in D&D shows as a weakness.

 

[BryonD]

nevermind