AU not really compatible with DnD 3.0 or 3.5

[Negative Zero]

on a slightly different note, 3.5 merges TWF and Ambi into one feat, but AU keeps them as two. should it be one? if you were starting a new AU campaign, which system would you use? i'm tempted to make it into one feat. what do you think?

~NegZ

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, Ambidexterity und Two Weapon Fighting in AU do not work like the 3.0 (or the 3.5) counterparts, the AU version is better, since if you have both feats, you suffer no penalties when using a light weapon as an offhand weapon.
If you only have Two Weapon Fighting, you are approximately as good as a 3.5 character having only the Two Weapon Fighting feat. (One Attack at no penalty, and one at -4 if the offhand weapon is light compared to -2 to all attacks and one extra attack)

Its probably a matter of personal preference what you choose.

One feat makes it easier to become a two weapon fighter, but you are never as good as with both feats. (Unless you decide to mix AU und 3.5 rules, so you only need one feat but gain the benefits of both AU Feats - which I would consider unbalanced).

I always liked the concept of having an Ambidexterity feat, and I like it even more with it being a talent. But I always thougt two-weapon fighting was inferior than one-haned weapon fighting with shield, especially since you need two feats to get the two weapon fighting route working at all. I would use the AU system, it adresses the problem and keeps the flavor.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Felon]

Again, remember: according to Monte's design diary, he thinks that even two feats and an attack penalty is not costly enough to warrant an extra attack every round--hence the rapid reload and rapid strike feats.

 

[doseyclwn]

I don't feel cheated at all. Having played several mixed sessions, I don't see any real incompatibilities that ruin the game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We are playing a 3.5 (well, actually our own 3.1 variant) game, and one of the players wanted to test some AU Classes. He already tested a Winter Witch (it looked good, but it didn`t survive my dominated fighter. Bad Vampires), and it was certainly not overpowered (it was a bit weak, maybe, since its AC wasn't that great), but flavorful.

He currently plays a Magister. While he was certainly effective in combat, he didn`t overshadow anything. I do not think a Wizard or a Sorceror would have had a different effect in the campaign. (But his Magister proved that we really needed a powerful spellcaster)

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[DMScott]

Yeah, I don't really understand the initial post. On a rules level, AU is as compatible with D&D as any other supplement that calls itself a "variant", and far more compatible than most. It's got background material that may well be hard to integrate, but that doesn't make it any different from the official splatbooks (or heck, the 3.5 DMG). The power level may also be too high or too low for any individual element you want to port over, but that's why Cthulhu gave us DMs.

That said, I'm unlikely to use much of AU in my D&D games - a few feats, some of the magic system tweaks, new equipment... not much else. AU shines as what it's designed to be, a variant in its own right, and that's how I'll use the great majority of it - in an AU game rather than D&D.

 

[woodelf]

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).

Aren't those the same guidelines that say you have to trade Str 1-for-2 with any other stat? I think those guidelines are somewhere between questionable and broken. (or, if they're correct, then the game is--no one stat should be 2x as important as any of the others, regardless of class, and yet cost the same.)

 

[Negative Zero]

... no one stat should be 2x as important as any of the others, ...

i agree. i always thought the STR thing was a bit silly. whay aren't races with an STR penalty given ability increases for two other stats of STR were in fact blanced against two other stats?

~NegZ

 

[Staffan]

Aren't those the same guidelines that say you have to trade Str 1-for-2 with any other stat? I think those guidelines are somewhere between questionable and broken. (or, if they're correct, then the game is--no one stat should be 2x as important as any of the others, regardless of class, and yet cost the same.)

Not precisely. there's a hierarchy of stats, though:
A bonus to Str or Dex can be balanced by a physical penalty or two mental penalties.
A bonus to Con can be balanced by a penalty to any stat other than Str.
A bonus to a mental stat can be balanced by a penalty to any other mental stat.

There's also a bit about it being OK to use a "nastier" penalty, but you shouldn't expect the race to be particularly attractive as PCs.

 

[woodelf]

Originally posted by Negative Zero
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.

There's quite a big difference between "out do" and "more powerful". I don't think the AU classes are more powerful than the D&D3[.5]E classes. [And if they did, i wouldn't care, since my experience is that the setting, playstyle, campaign, and group overshadow the mechanics by several degrees in determining balance. As long as you have sufficient niche protection (and "sufficient" depends on the niche, the campaign, and the group), the mechanics can be quite imbalanced without producing any balance problems in play.] I *do* think that the AU classes, for the most part, out do/overshadow those from D&D3[.5]E. But this is a matter of being cooler, or closer to the archetypes that inspired them all, rather than being more powerful. IOW, even if it could be empirically shown that i would be underpowered, and thus get to contribute less, given the particular group and campaign i'd be playing in, i'd pick a magister over a wizard, an unfettered over a fighter/rogue, a champion over a paladin, and a totem warrior over a ranger. And, since i like skill monkeys, and the closest thing D&D3E has is the rogue, which is a versatile/dirty fighter rather than a skill monkey, i'll definitely pick the akashic over the D&D3E classes.