AU vs v3.5 - pros and cons

[Snoweel]

Ok, sorry if this has come up TOO MANY TIMES before, but I'm sorta new here and often have trouble discerning the contents of a thread from its title.

So.

What, in your opinion, are the pros and cons of AU and v3.5 (relative to each other)?

And have you had any trouble mixing and matching rules elements (something I am somewhat loathe to do).

Has anybody tried to take bits and pieces from one to the other and decided it wasn't worth the effort?

Thanks in advance.

Love,
Snoweel

 

[Snoweel]

Would it help if I rephrased one or more of the questions?

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Did you mean Monte Cooks Arcana Unearthed or the new WoTC Unearthed Arcana?

Not that it's an at all confusing naming of products by different companies?

If you meant AU, I like bits of it and found it fun to use.

If it was UA, then I havn't got a copy yet.

 

[Snoweel]

I meant Arcana Unearthed.

Or maybe I meant Urban Arcana...

 

[Aethelstan]

The different magic systems of AU and 3.5 present the biggest obstacle to integrating the two versions. AU spells tend to be weaker but this is compensated for by spell template feats and the fact that AU casters combine some of the best features of both wizards and sorcerers. Using 3.5 spells with AU casters can create problems. For instance, an AU magister with the energy mage feat could add +1d6 damage to Magic Missile. 1d4+1+1d6 per missile = unbalanced power-spell. Burning Hands cast with energy mage (fire) feat causes similar problems (at 1st lvl: 1d4 + 2d6 [feat] damage).
That being said, most of the non-caster classes can be ported between the two versions. A toten warrior would make an interesting "alt" ranger in a standard 3.5 campaign. AU and 3.5 races are equally tranferable.

 

[Kweezil]

I'm mixing and matching the two for my homebrew campaign. A lot of the AU classes and mechanics fit it perfectly (wizards with staves, a non-eastern explaination for martial artists with funky powers, warmains and unfettered ), though others have been dropped (greenbond doesn't fit my cosmology, akhashic will need one helluva kludge to work, most of the races are out). All mixed with varient Barbarians (tribal warriors with bonuses against magic and 'supernatural' creatures), Rangers (non-spellcasting, no weapon styles, but especially attuned to the land), and Bards (based on Monte Cook's alt.Bard from Book of Eldritch Might 2), and some of the feats, skills and spells from PHB. For the most part, the rules and material is fairly easy to blend.

Pros of AU:
It's different (classes, races, mechanics, campaign setting etc)
Variable spell levels, makes spellcasters so much more flexible.
Ceremonial Feats, allow for much more dramatic abilities for PCs without relying on magical equipment.

Cons of AU
Different does not necessarily mean good, some of the differences are not to everyone's taste.
Smaller spell list, that does not include a lot of D&D staples (very few buff spells, dispel magic is only available to 2 of the 'caster classes)
Less healing. While every spellcaster can heal, healing spells are much less powerful, makes combats more dangerous and throws CRs out of line as the PCs lack healing/curing effects.

 

[Piratecat]

I really like some of the classes; the akashik caught my imagination immediately, for instance. Nevertheless I think AU is better basing an entire campaign around instead of merging into a game, as I would most new books, because of the different magic system.

 

[Desdichado]

Ok, sorry if this has come up TOO MANY TIMES before, but I'm sorta new here and often have trouble discerning the contents of a thread from its title.

Since when are you new around here?

What, in your opinion, are the pros and cons of AU and v3.5 (relative to each other)?

AU is more original. It's more flexible. 3.5 is just 3.0 tweaked. I didn't even upgrade, I just use the SRD for a few classes and spells. 3.5 offers nothing that's substantially new or improved, just incrementally improved and not new. AU does both.

And have you had any trouble mixing and matching rules elements (something I am somewhat loathe to do).

Why would you be loathe to do that? We've mixed 3.0, 3.5 and AU with some regularity and not had any problem at all.

Has anybody tried to take bits and pieces from one to the other and decided it wasn't worth the effort?

Nope. I've taken bits and pieces and been glad that I did.

 

[EricNoah]

I've been running an AU game since fall, and I guess I can come up with a few insights...

1) Unified spell list: Right now we have 3 spellcasters (a runethane, a wood witch, and a magister) in the party. Despite various feats and so forth, their spell selections are almost always identical or very similar to each other. So in some ways it doesn't feel like a cleric vs. a wizard vs. a druid -- it's more like three sorcerers with some minor differences in spells. I think this will change as the characters advance in level (they're level 2 spellcasters right now).

2) We're basically playing straight AU rules unless the 3.5 rules provide clearer instructions (things like grappling, etc.). I have not totally decided if I'm using AU's or 3.5's damage reduction scheme. Otherwise, 3.5 vs. AU has mostly been a non-issue. Likewise, I don't get a good sense of how the characters stack up vs. D&D characters in terms of power, partially because I've added some new rules about healing/damage/subdual damage/injuries that really has changed the flavor and pacing of the game.

So in short ... nothing really helpful to say!

 

[Crothian]

I've been minxing the two since early fall and we've had no problems. Teo players are using classes from Arcana Unearthed, the Akashic and Mage Blade. The players love the classes and they are the only two not taking prestige classes.