AU not really compatible with DnD 3.0 or 3.5

[Desdichado]

Somantics

So, by that do you mean semantics or somatics?

Sorry, that wasn't really very helpful...

I can see your point ByronD. Except that, the D&D classes don't necessarily fit the archetypes very well, and the concept of building all new classes on those same archetypes, yet in a different way, doesn't strike me as a weakness but a perfectly valid excercise. I guess it depends on how attached you are to the specific D&D classes.

 

[Henry]

I'm not trying to chastize, but let's not have the 3.5 debate here in the AU thread. I understand the relevance, but I also know how it runs its course by now.

 

[Henry]

With relation to AU and 3.5, I definitely understand the disheartening at claims of compatibility, but I also know that ANY d20 product is going to have a measure of imcompatibility.

In this case, some of the buyers looking to drop material into a D&D were not aware of the level of work involved in doing so. Incidentally, Varianor on Monte's Diamond Throne site is going to soon be doing an article about converting a Forgotten Realms game to Arcana Unearthed. Now, THAT should be an article worth watching for.

 

[BryonD]

So, by that do you mean semantics or somatics?

Sorry, that wasn't really very helpful...

I can see your point ByronD. Except that, the D&D classes don't necessarily fit the archetypes very well, and the concept of building all new classes on those same archetypes, yet in a different way, doesn't strike me as a weakness but a perfectly valid excercise. I guess it depends on how attached you are to the specific D&D classes.

Oops.

I can agree with your point there as a general idea.

But my assessment of the specific example in AU remains.

Starting over to build a new set of classes to could be quite cool. So it is not that I am committed to the D&D set.

But as I said, I do not think the AU classes are simply an example of re-building the class set. They seem to have an intentional and completely unnecessary burden of avoiding all things D&D. To me, the effects of this burden show through.

 

[Mallus]

Compatible?...

...no, not especially {though they're far from incompatible}. My gut recation is that a DM is going to have to use one as the base "stock" and the other as "seasoning". I don't think its advisable to use equal parts of both.

Idividual mechanics aside, AU and 3.5e are built off of different design philosophies. Monte's said as much and its becoming clearer and clearer to me the more I read the books.

Personally, I like AU better {we'll see if that holds up to actually playing it...}. It model's the traditional fantasy archetypes better than any previous version of D&D {the D&D franchise is wonderful at recreating its own archetypes, but I always had problems with them...}.

 

[Thrommel]

[the] Diamond Throne site is going to soon be doing an article about converting a Forgotten Realms game to Arcana Unearthed. Now, THAT should be an article worth watching for.

In fact, that article is right here!

-Thrommel

 

[Wombat]

I've seen a couple of other D20 variant books (Swashbuckling Adventures comes immediately to mind) that would make for some serious changes if ported over directly into [fill in name of campaign setting here]. I don't find AU any more bothersome than these others.

When I picked up AU it was with the thought that I would be using it as a new primary book for a brand new campaign, bringing in elements from other volumes as seemed appropriate. This has proven to be the case. I am busily designing the new world and setting and looking through the 3.0 PHB and 3.5 SRD to see if there is anything from there that I want to port over, along with a number of splat books that I have picked up over time. This will end up including a fair number of feats, a few spells, and maybe a couple of prestige classes, but in the main, I would be using AU as my core book.

OTOH, placing the Oathsworn, Akashik, Unfettered, Warmain, and Champion into an on-going campaign would be very easy -- it's only when you are faced with magic that matters become trickier.

But then again, I have no strong tie to or interest in FR, Grayhawk, or any other "standard" setting, so in many ways my job is easier.

Personal opinions only, of course.

 

[Desdichado]

But as I said, I do not think the AU classes are simply an example of re-building the class set. They seem to have an intentional and completely unnecessary burden of avoiding all things D&D. To me, the effects of this burden show through.

Not having actually read the classes through in detail, I can't comment on whether or not I agree that's the case. I can understand this conceptually, though. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, etc.

 

[EarthsShadow]

My only beef in this is with the people who really think that any new fantasy d20 product has to be fully compatible with D&D. I thought we were gamers, who used our imaginations to play the game and were capable of creating stories and adventures with our capabilities as thinking human beings.

I see AU as a different game than D&D than EQ than BESMd20. To me, these are four different d20 games that each have their own unique rules (most are the same of course, but enough to be different than each other) and I am seeing so many people complain because they want to compact their games with all of these games that it becomes a hassle just to make sure they are compatible and stuff like that.

Play the games and have fun. Why does every fantasy d20 book HAVE to be 100% compatible with D&D? They shouldn't have to, and there is no need for them to.

Be a gamer and enjoy the fruits of other people's labors...support the gaming industry and just have FUN. That is, after all, the MOST important thing, isn't it?

 

[Henry]

As Thrommel noted, the article is up. My apologies to BlackMoria for trying to steal his thunder and throwing it Varianor's way.

Excellent article, by the way!