AU not really compatible with DnD 3.0 or 3.5

[BryonD]

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?

You may have the wrong idea.

I can only speak for myself, but I was CLEARLY lead to believe that AU would NOT be like EQ or BESMd20.

I suggested that AU would be a new game and Monte replied directly to me stating that I was wrong.

So when I say that I expect this game to be 100% compatible, that is completely different than saying that all must be.

So please, don't go extrapolating fair comments into unreasonable ones and then criticizing people over the unreasonable statements they never made.

 

[tetsujin28]

It's true that porting over classes from Swashbuckling Adventures can be dreadfully unbalancing, especially some of the prestige classes. Nothing I've seen of UA seems as unbalancing -- and I'm a big fan of SA and not a fan of Mr. Cook.

 

[Negative Zero]

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.

i think that there may be several people who would have thought that some of the DnD classes were in fact "broken." as is evidenced by the numerous people who think that quite a few of the AU classes out do their DnD class counterparts. (e.g. magister vs mage, warmain/unfettered vs fighter)

~NegZ

 

[volcivar]

how compatible is compatible

100% compatible

I don't think anyone ever stated anywhere that AU was 100% compatible.

In fact, there were several statements that there would need to be some level of work to port parts of AU to any particular home campaign.

The whole compatability question is extremely subjective. What does compatible mean to YOU. To me it means it has most (if not all) the same pieces. It might be presented a bit differently, but that's about it.

In my opinion, this is what AU accomplishes. We have the d20 resolution mechanic. Weapons with differing damage dice. Class-based advancement (as opposed to skill-based). The list goes on.

New elements?

Truenames. This element is very modular. And can be largely ignored if it doesn't suit you. Does that mean the ceremonial feats can be ported directly without the truename mechanic? Not really. You MAY want to assign another control mechanic that better suits your campaign.

Magic system. This seems new, but if examined carefully, it contains all the familiar D20 elements you'd expect in a magic system. It DOES introduce new things. Heightened and diminished spell effects. Weaving spell slots. Spell templates. But again if one examines these elements and the spells themselves, one will see clearly that these represent a different presentation of familiar elements. The flexibility that this combination of elements provides can cause a character to seem more powerful. So the spells, in general, are less potent when regarded alone.

But again, the magic system doesn't need to be ported to a 3.x game. If it doesn't float you boat, you can use the slots per day tables in the classes like you would spells per day.

Overall, I really don't get the "AU is not compatible argument". It really doesn't show any particular DESIRE to actually WANT to do a miniscule amount of tinkering. If the perception is that AU is a "power creep", then that is merely a perception, it is not reality. I have seen numerous "proofs'. All fall short of truely showing any unbalancing (itself a nebulous concept) factors in AU.

I am not sure from what point of view the originator of this thread gets this "compatability" issue. It has been stated that he doesn't like Monte's work. That's his opinion. But I think that his bias is clouding any real analysis that he may be able to give.

 

[Pevishan]

I suggested that AU would be a new game and Monte replied directly to me stating that I was wrong.

So when I say that I expect this game to be 100% compatible, that is completely different than saying that all must be.

Would you say that D&D v3.0 & v3.5 are 100% compatable? I would not, yet they are not different games/ 3.5 is not a new game.

Just like when you play some of the campaign settings were the races are heavily retooled, etc. it does not make it a new game.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I think that in some ways, if you've masted both sets of rules, you could probably run them at the same speed. In some ways, I think that's what Everquest was smoking, I mean thinking, when it claimed compatibility with 3rd edition. It requires a lot of book keeping though and I wouldn't let a AU character not have to take Ambidextierty as a Talent at first level even though a 3.5 character doesn't even need it.

 

[Fedifensor]

i think that there may be several people who would have thought that some of the DnD classes were in fact "broken." as is evidenced by the numerous people who think that quite a few of the AU classes out do their DnD class counterparts. (e.g. magister vs mage, warmain/unfettered vs fighter)

Oddly, there are rather strong arguments on both sides of the warmain versus fighter and unfettered versus fighter arguments. It seems to come down to feats. D&D places great value on the fighter's bonus feats - the barbarian gets more HP, more skills, and a plethora of special abilities, but all that is balanced with getting 1 extra feat per 2 levels.

If you buy the D&D mindset, then warmains are definately weaker than fighters, and unfettered are somewhat weaker. If you don't, then warmains and unfettered are definately more powerful. It's as simple as that.

As for magisters versus wizards/sorcerers...with two completely different magic systems, it's hard to say. Magisters don't have access to the high-powered blaster and "save or die" spells* that are available to D&D casters. However, magisters are MUCH more flexible than even a sorcerer, and can be extremely deadly with the proper feat selection (Energy Mage, Spell Affinity, etc). Ladening spells blows D&D metamagic out of the water, as well. I'd give the edge to magisters at low to mid levels, with the wizard and sorcerer gaining ground when higher level spells (6th+) become available.

* With 9th level spells, "save or die" often becomes just "die"

 

[Felon]

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.

Hit the nail on the head there. I need an AU bestiary--stat!

Mainly because creatures that have lots spell-like abilities are going to be a pain to deal with. I don't want to convert them to AU versions of similar spells, and I certainly don't want them to retain their D&D spells. Then there are smaller issues, like how valueless energy resistances are as a form of strong defense for creatures like devils, dragons, and elementals because mages with spells like Sorcerous Blast can change the elemental damage type around on the fly (which definitely means I won't be using creatures that are actually vulnerable to an element).

Besides, the whole reason to play AU is to play a game that's a change of pace from the familiar. I can't see fighting the same old monsters for the same old loot in the same old settings as amounting to anything more than "new boss same as the old boss".

 

[ForceUser]

I want to port AU to one of my campaigns, but I'm concerned about using the magic system alongside the standard D&D magic system. I think the AU system is very cool, but will the standard 3.5E casters be at a disadvantage compared to the AU, or vice versa? I need to know before investing a ton of effort into merging AU with my D&D world.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I remember something from Monte's Design Diaries where he talked about Rapid Shot and the AU feat Rapid Reload. He said something along the lines of "don't use both; pick one."

That's not an exact quote, but that idea seems to apply to more than feats, especially when using a 3.5/AU hybrid. Don't use both magic systems; pick one of them, stick with it. Redudant/similar feats in both? Pick one and use that, not both. Maybe even certain classes should be eliminated. If you feel the magister is far more powerful than a wizard (arguable, but that's for another thread ), then just use one, but don't use both.

Having only gotten into AU about a month ago, I can't say whether Monte was misleading about the compatability of the two systems. I do know that they are compatable, if you're willing to do some work. Just dropping new races, classes, and concepts into a closed campaign world should never be as easy as "plug and play."