Okay, I am thinking of getting it: Sell me On Monte's UA book, please.

I really like AU, but I'm not (yet) running a game

I totally gonna get my mileage out of it, though. I really like the having a new set of interesting rules to incorporate into d20 games.

Example: I'm currently using a slightly-altered version of the Verrik race and a pretty-much-straight-up version of the Akashic class in my Gamma World d20 game.

Memory mutants ahoy! :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

zero skill LPB said:
I totally gonna get my mileage out of it, though. I really like the having a new set of interesting rules to incorporate into d20 games.

Example: I'm currently using a slightly-altered version of the Verrik race and a pretty-much-straight-up version of the Akashic class in my Gamma World d20 game.

Memory mutants ahoy! :D
"Delve into Genetic Memory"?
 

I dig AU for many of the reasons that folks have already posted above, but I do have one knock against it.

The magic system is not quite up to snuff. There are some big drawbacks to it if you are going to play it sans house rules, which many DMs and players are doing right now to get a feel of the rules. There are some great ideas and the concept is fantastic, but the execution doesn't measure up.

First, most of the magic in the system is geared towards combat. One of the design ideas behind the system was that magic would not be able to solve every problem. This concept is used to balance the game in many respects. However, the remainder is primarily geared towards combat, and I think that's a problem. Gone are many of the spells that boost mobility, or provide the ability to disguise yourself, or polymorph your character. Some of the spells like Haste and Polymorph Self were/are problematic in D&D, but AU's solution is do away with these kind of spells altogether.

Second, the templates are designed to provide more flexibility, variety, and usefulness to spells. However, a number of them are incredibly weak. The Earth template, for example, is applicable to only a few spells, and it's benefits are not much of a bonus considering it costs a feat to use the template. The War template allows you to boost the number of creatures effected by certain spells, however when you take a long look at the list of applicable spells that can use the template, there's not many. Just like Feats in 3rd edition, AU has templates which will become must haves, and others which will become "what were you thinking in taking that?" selections.

A balancing factor amongst the spellcasting classes are the spell types (Simple, Complex, Exotic, and Unique). Most of the classes only have access to Simple spells to start, but can gain access to others through the use of feats. For the Complex category, this works well, as taking an Elemental Mage feat will grant you access to all spells of the appropriate type (For example, a Mageblade with the Elemental Mage - Fire feat can cast Complex spells as long as they have the Fire subtype). This works well, I think. Where the Feats = More Spells method breaks down is when you are seeking to gain access to an Exotic spell, or want to create a Unique spell. Here the system becomes a One for One trade. Each exotic spell requires a feat. IMO, this is far too steep a price. Spellcasters receive few feats as is. For some DMs and players, this may be a good thing, particularly in low magic games or games where powerful magic is rare. However, it limits players to a smaller subset of spells in the AU handbook and punishes players for seeking out certain spells. The decision to take an Exotic spell now makes those spellcasters weaker for their selection, considering all the various other more potent feats they could've taken.

Fortunately, most of these problems can be solved very easily. As more spells come from other sources, they can be classified as Simple or Complex, as opposed to Exotic. More spells that are useable with Templates will appear. Spells with a utility outside of combat can be added, while still holding to some of the design tenets of the system. But for now, if you are just using the AU handbook, the choice is sparse and not all that flexible as it first appears.
 

Magius del Cotto said:
Class concepts that fit different characters. While D&D does have fairly good classes, there are some concepts that it simply does not support. While the AU classes are slightly weaker, they also fit a good range of concepts.
Weird. I'd say, and it seems to be a common sentiment as well, that the AU classes are slightly higher powered than basic D&D rather than weaker.
 

TiQuinn said:
First, most of the magic in the system is geared towards combat. One of the design ideas behind the system was that magic would not be able to solve every problem. This concept is used to balance the game in many respects. However, the remainder is primarily geared towards combat, and I think that's a problem. Gone are many of the spells that boost mobility, or provide the ability to disguise yourself, or polymorph your character. Some of the spells like Haste and Polymorph Self were/are problematic in D&D, but AU's solution is do away with these kind of spells altogether.
At first glance, my impression was that AU was less geared towards combat than D&D. Then again, I rarely play spellcasters, so I could be wrong on that account. My buddy who always plays spellcasters, however (including a few sessions with a Magister) corroborates.

In addition, I think Monte purposefully didn't try to balance the spells/feats/etc. as stringently as D&D because a base assumption of AU is that it isn't really for beginning roleplayers who can almost play on auto-pilot "without the DM" almost, as the designers have said. AU is meant to be a little more fiddly, and requires a little more GM interaction and involvement in balance.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
Weird. I'd say, and it seems to be a common sentiment as well, that the AU classes are slightly higher powered than basic D&D rather than weaker.

So far I'm finding that they are a little stronger at lower levels than a D&D 3.5 counterpart. But only just so. I can see where at higher levels they will be less powerful than a D&D PC, particularly with respect to spellcasters. The advantage of the AU classes IMO is that they respond to many stereotypes that the core system currently does not fulfill unless you take a PrC. Warmain = armored knight, mageblade= fighter/magic user, akashic=skill master, etc.

TiQuinn, that's an interesting perspective on spellcasting. I find myself enjoying the fact that many other-than-combat spells are gone, but clearly you miss it. With Complete BOEM coming out I think that will fill many gaps since it will include AU heightened and diminished versions of spells.

I'm playing an AU magister where I'm actually planning to take Exotic Spell: Energy Bolt at level 6. What? Waste a feat on one spell? Sure. The cachet of being the only magister around who can cast Lightning Bolt appeals to me. I think the customization levels of AU are excellent. The power levels are what I'm hearing objections to. So there I think using AU as a sourcebook to flesh out a 3.# campaign is the way to go if you like those utility mobility spells. :D
 

Joshua Dyal said:
Weird. I'd say, and it seems to be a common sentiment as well, that the AU classes are slightly higher powered than basic D&D rather than weaker.

Tend to disagree. There's nothing in AU that matches a high level Wizard (or Sorcerer), or a mid to high level Cleric. That's primarily due to the magic system, of course - you just don't get to toss Wishes and such around. OTOH, pretty much all the AU classes are better than something like a Bard or a low level Wizard.

The AU classes are better balanced with one another, and mostly balanced a bit above the average D&D class power level - they just don't have the same range of power as the D&D classes. At low levels, of course, they often look more powerful just due to the extra feat.
 
Last edited:

Joshua Dyal said:
In addition, I think Monte purposefully didn't try to balance the spells/feats/etc. as stringently as D&D because a base assumption of AU is that it isn't really for beginning roleplayers who can almost play on auto-pilot "without the DM" almost, as the designers have said. AU is meant to be a little more fiddly, and requires a little more GM interaction and involvement in balance.

That may be the case. And honestly, all of these gripes that I have are easily fixed.

Varianor Abroad said:
TiQuinn, that's an interesting perspective on spellcasting. I find myself enjoying the fact that many other-than-combat spells are gone, but clearly you miss it. With Complete BOEM coming out I think that will fill many gaps since it will include AU heightened and diminished versions of spells.

I think the biggest thing working against AU, at least where the core rulebook is concerned, is the number of spells. The Complete Book of Eldritch Might will help considerably, and I've already played around with AU version of spells like Spider Climb and Tenser's Floating Disk. I think given the ability to cast spells on the fly would make some of these utility spells a lot more common and useful in games.

Varianor Abroad said:
I'm playing an AU magister where I'm actually planning to take Exotic Spell: Energy Bolt at level 6. What? Waste a feat on one spell? Sure. The cachet of being the only magister around who can cast Lightning Bolt appeals to me. I think the customization levels of AU are excellent. The power levels are what I'm hearing objections to. So there I think using AU as a sourcebook to flesh out a 3.# campaign is the way to go if you like those utility mobility spells. :D

Hmmm....Exotic Spell: Energy Bolt at Level 6? As a Magister, why not take Energy Mage? IIRC, that would give you access to Energy Bolt, as well as a bunch of other Lightning based spells.

This kind of illustrates my point. You have a great feat like Energy Mage, which gives you access to a number of Exotic spells of a certain subtype. Awesome! But if you want to get another Exotic spell that isn't part of any subtype, you have to spend a feat to get it! To me that doesn't make sense. And it's not like I'm delving deep trying to find the most optimal selection of feats or abilities. Some of them right off the bat strike me as being more potent than others.
 

TiQuinn said:
Hmmm....Exotic Spell: Energy Bolt at Level 6? As a Magister, why not take Energy Mage? IIRC, that would give you access to Energy Bolt, as well as a bunch of other Lightning based spells.

This kind of illustrates my point. You have a great feat like Energy Mage, which gives you access to a number of Exotic spells of a certain subtype. Awesome! But if you want to get another Exotic spell that isn't part of any subtype, you have to spend a feat to get it! To me that doesn't make sense. And it's not like I'm delving deep trying to find the most optimal selection of feats or abilities. Some of them right off the bat strike me as being more potent than others.

Well, if you've got AU versions of classic D&D spells, you can always send them in to diamondthrone.com if you're interested. We might just publish them.

As to Energy Mage, I forgot totally about that. Already have Energy Mage: Lightning, so I've just saved myself a feat slot. Thanks! It was very interesting of you to point this out though because now I find myself looking at it in a different light. Playing, as opposed to DMing, does focus your attention differently. I previously was not convinced that Exotic Spell was a less than optimal choice. (I thought about taking ES: True Strike when writing the character except that it's range was a bad choice for me.) This one I'll have to give a little thought to.

The one *good* aspect of Exotic Spell from my perspective is that many "plot-breaking" spells are removed to the exotic list. If you want to take them, you pay a feat. (That and just a few like Haste and Harm are gone.) Now some will like those vanished spells, and that is where the combo 3.#/AU game comes in.
 

Varianor Abroad said:
As to Energy Mage, I forgot totally about that. Already have Energy Mage: Lightning, so I've just saved myself a feat slot. Thanks! It was very interesting of you to point this out though because now I find myself looking at it in a different light. Playing, as opposed to DMing, does focus your attention differently. I previously was not convinced that Exotic Spell was a less than optimal choice. (I thought about taking ES: True Strike when writing the character except that it's range was a bad choice for me.) This one I'll have to give a little thought to.

Heh, glad I could help! I think my "solution" would probably be to expand the number of spells you received each time you selected Exotic Spell as a feat. Perhaps allow the player to select 3 exotic spells.
 

Remove ads

Top