AU vs PHB3.5

[BryonD]

Both sides have merit.

AU will be completely compatible with either PH. So it is valid to state that a game can (and will) be played with both AU and the PH sitting on the table. Obviously, if you buy the 3.5 PH, your use for the old PH will be virtually eliminated. So, from that perspective, AU clearly does NOT compete with the PH in the same way that 3.5 competes with 3E.

However, if you follow Monte's boards you will see comment after comment regarding how some of the real benefits of AU are the removal of D&D sacred cows and default conventions. For example, there have been statements that a D&S wizard would be balanced in an AU campaign. But the caveat is quickly added that using some of the PH spells may not be consistent with the design goals of AU.

AU can be played without the PH (I am guessing that gear prices and the like will be in AU, if not then a few trivial side issues may still exist).

It is clear to me that while AU is compatible, there is a semi-official understanding that not only is AU capable of replacing the PH, but to really get the full benefit of AU, it SHOULD replace the PH.

You will still use the DMG and, for the most part, the MM. So it still is not a replacement as 3.5 is. (And with the number of people talking about their planned 3.25 games, this may be true of 3.5 as well). But there WILL be some small fractions of groups that start playing AU without using either PH.

So both sides have some merit to their claims.

 

[Henry]

What I don't understand is Why would people buy 3.5e FIRST if they were interested in both? After all, one will be available for free; the other will not.

More to my point, if I buy AU at the S&SS booth at Gencon, I get a (I believe he said free?) Miniature of Malhavoc!!!! It will not be available by retail sale, according to Monte! So that really seals the deal for me.

Now, I would say for myself "I'm picking up both at the con" but (1) They sell on the floor at full price, and I don't want that, (2) I don't plan to use them at the 'con, especially not for DM'ing, so I can pick up the necessities as I need them from people who have the books that I game with.

I might (MIGHT!) Pick up the PHB, and get as many ENWorlders to sign it as I can. What's a class reunion without a signed yearbook?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm interested in both, but while I run a core 3E campaign switching to 3.5, I doubt I'll run an AU campaign. So obviously I've prioritized the 3.5 books ahead of AU.

Four hardcovers is more than I'm willing to buy in a month anyway, so AU's going to sit on the back burner for a bit.

 

[Thrommel]

Here's the key distinction from my point of view: 3.5 is a revision of a product. AU is a product of innovation.

Much as the flames have fired over what's good, bad, or indifferent about 3.5, the bottom line at the end of the day is that 80% of your game is going to be the same. From what I've seen, a 3.5 Fighter is still pretty much a 3.0 Fighter.

In AU, there is no Fighter. There are fighter types (and some great ones at that) but the tropes which pervade traditional D&D have been tossed out and reinvented.

Sounds pretty drastic, right? Here's the brilliant part -- all the fundamentals are still there -- skills, feats, actions, saving throws, classes. All the basic mechanics are the same. (Thus it integrates just fine with the MM and DMG.)

So the learning curve is low because you already know how to play the game. That leaves you all kinds of room to discover what the game can be like with a non-Vancian magic system, large & tiny characters, no alignment, etc. In my experience, AU changes the nature of your game, not the fundamental execution of it.

To the original point, the only way these products compete is that they're both $30 hardcover products that are rules-heavy and are coming out within a week of each other.

So it's just competition for attention and dollars. Substantively, AU delivers a LOT more than 3.5.

And if your budget is really tight, Monte will be publishing the bulk of the book as a series of three PDF's on August 7th.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

-Thrommel

 

[Voadam]

I think AU will have xp in it and advancement rules so you won't need the DMG.

Diamond Throne will have the campaign setting and monster manual in one for AU.

That said I think 3 $30 hardcovers that a large segment of the target maket will get coming out around the same time as AU comes out could impact AU sales.

I know I try to limit myself when it comes to big price rpg books. I'm getting 3.5 on srd, but I'm not even sure I will get AU, it will probably just languish on my wishlist along with 150 other "it would be nice to have" books.

 

[Thrommel]

Just to clarify, you're definitely still going to need your Monster Manual and DMG to run AU.

You don't need them to play (any more than you need them to play regular D&D) but if you're going to DM you'll want poison rules and monster stats, etc.

The Diamond Throne is only slated for a 96 page release, it's not intended to cover everything the DMG and MM do. The book will give you advice on how particular monsters fit into the AU setting, or which magic items are inappropriate, but it will NOT replace your DMG and MM.

AU's future relies on the widespread acceptance, understanding, and success of D&D as much as any other Malhavoc Press product.

-Thrommel

 

[JoeGKushner]

Here's one thing I hope we dont' see in Monte's book.

No Feat that's a +2 skill bonus to two skills. Only because he made such a point to point this out in his own review.

No art that's already been previewed. After all, we're not paying for the previews and anything in the book should be brand new right?


Here's one thing I'm curious about.

AU's skill list. What skill list with this book use it if's supposed to be compatible with D&D? Is it the 3.5 or the 3.0 skills or something else?

 

[Breezly]

Sounds pretty drastic, right? Here's the brilliant part -- all the fundamentals are still there -- skills, feats, actions, saving throws, classes. All the basic mechanics are the same. (Thus it integrates just fine with the MM and DMG.)

Well, I am going to beg to differ here. I am going to cut and paste this from Monte's site.

What if there were a whole new player’s handbook, presented just like the original but with different races, classes, skills, feats, and spells?

You've Got It!

Features of this variant player’s handbook from 3rd Edition codesigner Monte Cook include:

10 PC races, including giants, runechildren, and the lionlike litorians
11 new classes, such as witches, mage blades, and the unfettered
Hundreds of new skills, feats, and spells
Variant rules for handling magic and combat
A rulebook to challenge your assumptions about your favorite RPG

This is not so easy to integrate, particularly if you have to use variant rules for handling magic and combat. To me, and this is just from what I heard, 3.5e is an innovation on a theme. AU is an innovation but in a new direction.

I think it is still unknown exactly what AU is going to deliver. So it is way to early to tell which is going to deliver more. AU is certainly going to be more different with all new classes, races, spells, skills, combat, magic. Not so easy to integrate, IMHO. But again, we haven't seen it yet.

It is all a matter of opinion and what you like. Me, I will probably buy both because well, that is what I do.

Breezly

 

[Khorod]

I'm getting Arcana Unearthed, and will wait awhile for 3.5. Why?

1) The changes will be in the SRD
2) My homebrews require more house rules with D&D than I expect with AU.
3) AU is more interesting to me.

Maybe I'll buy the DMG, I don't have most of the non-core stuff that was added to it, so it looks really appealing. But all the new ideas in AU are exactly the sorts of things I've tried to come up with or always wanted more of, so its a no-brainer which I'm getting.

As to the skills, AU is using its own list. Essentially, 3.5 and AU each have different takes on revising the 3.0 skills. AU does things like opposed tumble checks, combining Hide and Move Silently into Sneak, and so on. By merging 3.5 and AU skills, I think that's gunna be my default skill set.

 

[Thrommel]

Here's where we need to take a moment to define what 'integrate' means.

Can you grab a random monster out of the MM and pit it against your AU party? Absolutely. Can you use a disease from the DMG? No problem.

Where the systems start to collide is when you use PHB materials. (As a variant PHB, that's no real suprise, is it.) So you have to do some thinking if you want to bring certain 3E spells into your AU game. AU doesn't distinguish between divine and arcane magic, so you'll need to consider the implications if you want a cleric in the party. And so on.

To be honest, the most radical change in the game is the magic system. Everything else -- skills, feats, classes, races, combat -- largely use the same fundamental mechanics as 3E. Those can be bolted on to an existing 3E game without too much work.

The implementation of the magic system is conceptually very simple but the design allows for some really rich, flexible usage by the players. I personally find it a lot more 'magical' than the fire-and-forget system of traditional D&D. But if anything is "really different" I'd have to point at the magic system. In the same breath, I'd also have to say it's better.

In my opinion, the integration issues are not overly daunting. And Monte is doing a lot of thinking for you with the DM's Screen and Player's Guide which will be out in August. That will have notes for handling the trickier issues in porting AU to 3.0 or 3.5.

-Thrommel