# AU - first impressions?



## Desdichado (Jul 28, 2003)

So, anyone have any yet?  I haven't had time to go look for the book, and I think my friendly neighborhood gaming store wasn't supposed to get it until early this week anyway.


----------



## Psion (Jul 28, 2003)

So far, so cool. I like the racial classes, and was surprised how similar his approach seemed to the one in the second world sourcebook.

Still have much reading to do...


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

I'll be going to pick up my copy from the FLGS at 11. When I get back I will start answering questions. 

Jesse Dean


----------



## DonAdam (Jul 28, 2003)

I was the first one to buy a copy at GenCon  

I love it. Everything is totally fresh again, and I'm only through the 1st level spells.


----------



## TroyXavier (Jul 28, 2003)

It looks interesting so far.  I'm still not thru all of it.
I do wonder why he decided to keep Intuit Direction as a skill though.  Overall though it looks good.


----------



## HiLiphNY (Jul 28, 2003)

. . .got one a the the Con too.  Wow!  The magic system is fantastic!  Say, "Hello AU," and "Goodbye 3.5."

I don't think I'm even going to pick up the 3.5 crap now I have this little gem.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 28, 2003)

Any details, guys?


----------



## thedangerranger (Jul 28, 2003)

A little unsure if I like the expanded armors. 
I very much like the new classes and some of the ways they are executed. The witch is just a cool concept that is well executed.
I also am very much in favor of all the "expand these classes" sidebars that provide good guidelines for expansion.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 28, 2003)

Hey, is A^2, MI mean Ann Arbor?  I'm always interested in meeting gamers in my area.  I'm not really from Detroit, by the way, I really live in Canton, which is pretty close to halfway between AA and Detroit.


----------



## thedangerranger (Jul 28, 2003)

"Hey, is A^2, MI mean Ann Arbor?"

A^2 does in fact represent Ann Arbor. I am always glad to hear of other gamers in the area. Do you ever go to the Underworld?
I actually know quite a few people who live in Canton. It's a nice place.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 28, 2003)

A little more detail on the spell system:  

The spellcasting classes have charts for Spells Prepared per Day and Spell Slots per Day.  They generally have access to all Simple spells and then depending on the class different subsets of the Complex and/or Exotic spells.  So they have a big pile of spells to choose from and they prepare a few of those, then during the day they can cast from their little pool of prepared spells in any combo using their spell slots.  

Spell slots can be merged together (three first level slots can be given up to cast a second level spell), or unravelled (a 2nd level slot can be split into two 1st level slots).  

Add to this the fact that most spells have a "diminished" and a "heightened" effect, the fact that you can learn to use different spell templates to make a spell an "air" spell or a "psionic" spell, and that you can use metamagic feats and you have a great deal of flexibility.

I am desperately hoping some clever person will whip up an AU spell spreadsheet that can handle all of this stuff.


----------



## thedangerranger (Jul 28, 2003)

I'll second Eric's call to arms for some experienced Excel user to produce an AU spreadsheet.
I think one of the best things about the magic system is different classes method of accessing it.
Example: The witch and the mageblade. The witch casts all spells V,S,M. However they can drop the M component for a 1 step increase in casting time. Then they can drop the V,S components for a doubling of the new longer casting time. This is one of the witch's magic quirks. The mageblade casts spells most effectively with a specific weapon in their hands.
I just like the variety of magic and ways of casting magic.

I wish I could add more, but I am at work without my book and my memory is shot.


----------



## Numion (Jul 28, 2003)

Just picked up my copy. Seems good this far.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 28, 2003)

Whats the deal with psionics? I know you have to take a feat to "cast psionics spells", but what does that do for you?

More importantly, how much could I use in Midnight?


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

I have a copy of AU and time to kill.

Any specific questions anybody?

Jesse Dean


----------



## gordonknox (Jul 28, 2003)

*Combat*



			
				Tuerny said:
			
		

> *I have a copy of AU and time to kill.
> 
> Any specific questions anybody?
> 
> Jesse Dean *




How would you characterize the AU combat system?

Is it much different from 3.5?

Pros, Cons?

gk


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

Well I never got 3.5 (as I knew I was planning on converting to AU rather than it) so I can't really compare it to that. However, give me a little bit and I will see how it compares to 3.0


----------



## Navar (Jul 28, 2003)

Well I must say that it is far and away the best D20 Product I have ever seen.  The classes excel at Versitility and that is what makes the system great.  The totem warrior for example always gets the same base attack bonus, saves, and skills, but their class abilities, special bonuses, and even Hit Die are all dependant on what animal they choose.  

The witch is the same where he gets a differant spell list (kind of) depending on if he is a mind witch, storm witch, etc.

The Champian is awesome.  You pick a cause like life, death, light, darkness etc and become a champian of that cause.  Then at 10th level you can (if you want) narrow your focus to be the champian of a race, area, or person.  very cool.

The magister is an awesome spellcasting class, and he gets the clasic "mage" powers.  For example at one level you get to pick from like glowing eyes, glowing footprints, and a couple of other minor cosemetic changes to your character.  And again a few levels later you get to pick from another list which includes wallking 2 inches off the ground, and a couple of other minor powers that are always on.  Great flavor

The oathsworn are just awesome.  You have to swear an oath, but once sworn you have great powers that allow you to be 100% self sifficant.  You don't use any tools if you can avoid it, and from that you can loose the need to eat, sleep, drink water, etc. as you become more and more self seficant.  

The entire book is great, but a lot of the best stuff is the new classes.


----------



## Barcode (Jul 28, 2003)

Disappointed.

I understand the desire to present this as an "alternate PHB", meaning that you won't need a Players Handbook, but how realistic is that?  Just about everyone who buys this will own the PHB anyway.  Therefore, the estimated 40-60% of the book dedicated to reprinting SRD core mechanics are wasted repetition for anyone who already owns a PHB.

The good changes that were implemented in 3.5 are not present in AU (skill consolidation being one obvious example), so you'll likely want to apply those from the SRD at least, if not own the 3.5 PHB.

The races are pretty cool, and I like much of the magic system, but IMO these could have been presented in a much smaller, and therefore cheaper book.  The combat variants are minor, and could have been presented in a long ENWorld post.

I thought it was visually unappealing.

If this product wasn't hyped to death, I wouldn't have thought ill of it, but it fell far below my high expectations.  Not worth the price tag.  For someone who does not yet own a 3.0 PHB, this is *not* a better buy than picking up the 3.5 PHB.  It is not a bad alternative to buying 3.5, particularly with the availability of the SRD.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Jul 28, 2003)

I was among the first 10 to get AU at GenCon.  While I didn't have too much time to read it during the Con, I did get to read a lot.

I love both the classes and the races.  Both types of faen are quite cool, and I want to play a spryte as soon as I'm able.  The ability of the verrik to turn off various senses is excellent!  All the races aside from the faen and humans have racial levels (3-level classes) in order to "further explore the skills/powers of the individual race."  The mojh are particularly intriguing.

The akashic kind of remind me of dopplegangers in a way.  They can do anything and be anybody.  The witch I like a lot, as they have interesting spell options in addition to their witchery powers.  There are also different types of witch (iron, sea, wind, mind, etc.) so playing each one is like a different class.  Same thing with the totem warrior.  Each type of totem is so different that even the hit dice and skills change depending on the totem chosen.

The warmain is, as Monte described it, "the guy who can never get enough armor on his body."  He has some great abilities to do massive amounts of damage, and can weild some really honking huge weapons to boot.  The oathsworn basically gives up everything to focus on his/her oath, up to and including food, sleep, air...  Do no try to sway an oathsworn from her purpose, I think she'd end up just running right over you.  

I'm quite giddy to play.  My DM is running a little AU test session next week, and I'll be playing a loresong faen magister.  This is going to be a blast!


----------



## Numion (Jul 28, 2003)

Of the classes:

Magister is incredibly cool. And by cool I mean totally awesome!



Well maybe not that, but somehow the magister just reminds me of Gandalf in the movies - depending on the staff, the voice, intimidation .. and it's done with just minor twists. Great stuff. 

Akashics are another intresting concept (not saying the others weren't - I haven't the time yet to read them all!). Playing one might be too intimidating to most of my players though.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 28, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *A little more detail on the spell system:
> 
> The spellcasting classes have charts for Spells Prepared per Day and Spell Slots per Day.  They generally have access to all Simple spells and then depending on the class different subsets of the Complex and/or Exotic spells.  So they have a big pile of spells to choose from and they prepare a few of those, then during the day they can cast from their little pool of prepared spells in any combo using their spell slots.  *




This is a cool system, but unfortunately it makes it very hard to use in a standard D&D game...  I'm hoping to find some advice on how to convert the Mage Blade to a regular D&D magic system...  so far no luck.


----------



## Numion (Jul 28, 2003)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is a cool system, but unfortunately it makes it very hard to use in a standard D&D game...  I'm hoping to find some advice on how to convert the Mage Blade to a regular D&D magic system...  so far no luck. *




I haven't thought this thru completely, but what if you let the Mage Blade use the AU magic system, while others used 3e/3.5e system? DCs and spell levels are still there, so what would make it impossible? 

A bit like you might incorporate Psionics into an ongoing campaign - different but still similar. 

Just my 2 euros


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Jul 28, 2003)

Barcode said:
			
		

> *Disappointed.
> 
> I understand the desire to present this as an "alternate PHB", meaning that you won't need a Players Handbook, but how realistic is that?  Just about everyone who buys this will own the PHB anyway.  Therefore, the estimated 40-60% of the book dedicated to reprinting SRD core mechanics are wasted repetition for anyone who already owns a PHB.*



  *Shrug*  In the Design Diary Live seminar I went to at GenCon, Monte said he wanted to make it complete enough so that you didn't have to lug both AU and the PHB and everything else to a game session.  Right now I could run a game with only the AU book if I wanted to.  



> *The races are pretty cool, and I like much of the magic system, but IMO these could have been presented in a much smaller, and therefore cheaper book.  The combat variants are minor, and could have been presented in a long ENWorld post.*



  Personally I love completeness in a book like this.  For instance, Races of Faerun.  While I having a lot of cool information, you have to have the PHB and the FRCS open to make full use of all the races.  They only list the changes to the races rather than the full write-up.  So I have to have three books open at once if I want to play certain races (half-drow for instance, though this was true with many races).  I don't want to have to do excessive cross-referencing during a gaming session.  Having AU in its current format elminates a lot of that.  



> *I thought it was visually unappealing.*



  I personally like the cover and most of the art (particularly by Sam Wood), but there was some I didn't like.  (The pictures of the oathsworn and the magisters I wasn't fond of.)  However, that seems par for the course.  I think some of the art in Faiths and Pantheons is bad, but there's still some spectacular pieces in there and all the writing is top notch.  It remains one of my favorite books.  Like with AU.  



> *If this product wasn't hyped to death, I wouldn't have thought ill of it, but it fell far below my high expectations.  Not worth the price tag.  For someone who does not yet own a 3.0 PHB, this is *not* a better buy than picking up the 3.5 PHB.  It is not a bad alternative to buying 3.5, particularly with the availability of the SRD. *



  This book never claimed to be 3.5.  It is an alternate handbook.  Monte never said he was adopting the 3.5 changes.  If you want 3.5, buy 3.5, if you want something different, buy AU.  This book is meant for people that already know how to play the game, and want some changes.  It is not meant for people who are new to the game.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 28, 2003)

Is there a lot of Sam Wood art?  I'm a huge SW fan.


----------



## Numion (Jul 28, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *Is there a lot of Sam Wood art?  I'm a huge SW fan. *




Yes. I looked at the first 60 pages and there were like 10 pieces from him.

Another note: Ride the Lightning is a nice spell. Lightning Bolt + Teleportation 

edit: seplling


----------



## anonystu (Jul 28, 2003)

Barcode, 

I think Monte has anticipated your complaint, that you are paying for a lot of core mechanics, and so a large percentage of the original material in the AU book will be released as 3 pdf's over the next few weeks. I think one is about the fighter types, the second one about magic, and I forget the third one (reliability of what the PDF's have: low, but the info's out there). So, if you just want to get your hands on the spell system and related stuff, you can just buy that PDF.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 28, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *Whats the deal with psionics? I know you have to take a feat to "cast psionics spells", but what does that do for you?
> 
> More importantly, how much could I use in Midnight?  *




I assume no one saw this the first time I posted it?


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 28, 2003)

I'm not right with my book right now but I think the psionic spell template basically allows you to cast spells without any v s or m components.  The cost is that it takes 2 spell slots to cast one spell in this manner.


----------



## thundershot (Jul 28, 2003)

*sits in the camp of people who want to use the book without changing the current campaigns*

I'm having a hell of a time rigging BESMd20 to fit with D&D (and it's working out, but some attributes needed MAJORLY changed), and I don't want to have to go through that again with this book. So yes, I want AU to use with what I have established, but no, I don't want to run a campaign with it.



Chris


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 28, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *I'm not right with my book right now but I think the psionic spell template basically allows you to cast spells without any v s or m components.  The cost is that it takes 2 spell slots to cast one spell in this manner. *




So you spend a feat and have to pay twice the cost to cast the spell just to loose the componants of a spell?

Wow. Doesn't seem worth it at all.


----------



## BiggusGeekus@Work (Jul 28, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *So you spend a feat and have to pay twice the cost to cast the spell just to loose the componants of a spell?
> 
> Wow. Doesn't seem worth it at all. *




On the flip side you get to just look at something to watch it explode (fireball) and you'll never have to worry about being captured ever again (dimension door).

... assuming those spells are in the game, I won't be getting my book until Aug 1.


----------



## Kestrel (Jul 28, 2003)

As opposed to using three feats and higher level spell slots?

(Silent Spell) Only drops verbal
(Still Spell) Only drops somatic
(Eshew Components) Only drops minor material

In AU, two lower level slots equal one higher level slot, so in essence, its the same cost as ONE of those 3rd ed feats, but gets rid of all components.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 28, 2003)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So you spend a feat and have to pay twice the cost to cast the spell just to loose the componants of a spell?
> 
> Wow. Doesn't seem worth it at all. *




This doesn't sound psionic to me ... but the Mind Witch has some cool flavor bits I might poach for psionis in my campaign.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 28, 2003)

Some spells have the "psionic" descriptor and thus there is no cost.  And the mind witch gets the psionic feat for free.  It's kind of like Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials all in one.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 28, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *Some spells have the "psionic" descriptor and thus there is no cost.  And the mind witch gets the psionic feat for free.  It's kind of like Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials all in one. *




Ah! So there might be a spell called Read Minds with the psionic descriptor that doesn't cost extra? Thats cool.

Are there many of these "psionic" spells?


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 28, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The warmain is, as Monte described it, "the guy who can never get enough armor on his body."  He has some great abilities to do massive amounts of damage, and can weild some really honking huge weapons to boot.  *





Gee, Final Fantasy/Bad Anime meets DnD thanks alot Monte.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 28, 2003)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> *As opposed to using three feats and higher level spell slots?
> 
> (Silent Spell) Only drops verbal
> (Still Spell) Only drops somatic
> ...





And we see the power creep of Munchkin Monte on the prowl.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Jul 28, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Gee, Final Fantasy/Bad Anime meets DnD thanks alot Monte.   *



  It's not that bad Doc!  The don't get to weild the larger weapons until higher level, and even then it's only one size bigger than normal.  It's not the Anime-type where the hero is weilding a sword that looks bigger than three people put together.  Sorry if I made that sound too exaggerated.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 28, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> *  It's not that bad Doc!  The don't get to weild the larger weapons until higher level, and even then it's only one size bigger than normal.  It's not the Anime-type where the hero is weilding a sword that looks bigger than three people put together.  Sorry if I made that sound too exaggerated. *




IIRC, Doc doesn't care much for Monte Cook's work to begin with so I wouldn't expect him to like AU anyways.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 28, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> IIRC, Doc doesn't care much for Monte Cook's work to begin with so I wouldn't expect him to like AU anyways.  *




No I do not. Furthermore the continuing mantra of the book being different just to be different is beyond stupid in my opinion.

Reminds me of a rebellious teenager.


----------



## Alejandro (Jul 28, 2003)

Doc, why are you participating in this thread if you don't like the author and don't plan on picking up the books?


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Jul 28, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> *IIRC, Doc doesn't care much for Monte Cook's work to begin with so I wouldn't expect him to like AU anyways.  *



  To each his own.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 28, 2003)

Alejandro said:
			
		

> *Doc, why are you participating in this thread if you don't like the author and don't plan on picking up the books? *





Because all fo the threads in this forum are open to posting as long as you follow the rules. Have a problem with negative comments?


----------



## anonystu (Jul 28, 2003)

In response to the "power creep": you're right that Psion is a more powerful feat than silent spell, still spell, and eschew materials put together, but I think that the balance can still be maintained. Feats for spellcasters in AU are inordinately more useful  than magic feats in 3.0/3.5, there are a wide variety of templates, more than anybody could possibly take, and then we haven't even broached the exotic spell, unique spell, and complex spell feats.

This also fits in that spellcasters have a lot more flexibility in how they cast their spells (heightening, diminishing, adding spell templates, fusing spell slots up and down, and so on, added on top of the flexibility of a sorceror).

The balance is that spells seem individually less powerful: in its normal version, eldritch armor (+4 armor class: 1 hr/level, aka mage armor), is an exotic spell, meaning that you have to spend a feat to get it. 

Sure, lesser battle healing is simple, which means all casters get it, but as a 2nd-level spell, it's 1d6 + level healing (max 10 I think). 

So, to sum up, feat power for spellcasters has gone up, flexibility has gone up, but individual spell power has gone down. I like that feel, but your mileage may vary.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 28, 2003)

Note, that the above analysis indicates that you should mark a huge warning sign over players bringing in AU spell feats for 3.0/3.5 spells: it's a definite mismatch at that point. It'll be interesting to see if the conversion guide that's coming with the screen addresses this.


----------



## Kestrel (Jul 28, 2003)

*editted because it will only hijack the thread


----------



## Hairy Minotaur (Jul 28, 2003)

One thing that hasn't been touched on yet is the addition of Hero Points to the game. I was in one of the AU demo games and some people did wild stuff with theirs. We were all given 1 Hero Point and one guy used his to *charm* an undead giant, another guy used his to have a spell that only affected 1 creature to affect all the enemy creatures in the room. I'm trying to remember what everyone else used......... This is another area in which the experience of the DM especially will come into play. 

Just my $.02


----------



## anonystu (Jul 28, 2003)

Yeah, hero points are /big/! The default use of them is a whopping +d20 to one roll, and some of the other effects are to immediately take a turn out of order (and not lose your turn coming up in the initiative circle), or just simply to ignore a roll that would cause you to die (but take a horrible scar or injury instead). 

It's something that will definitely require a GM to think carefully about what level of death and player control they want. It seems pretty balanced that there's a 1st-level feat (talent) that just gives you one hero point (with the caveat for the GM that they should offer more hero points to that player throughout the game).

1 hero point/level seems like a moderately heroic/cinematic game to me: PC's would have a very low chance of dying.  Anything more than 1, and unless you're running a really tough game, players just shouldn't die.

I like them, but they're something to be wary of giving too many (or nearly any, if you want a gritty feel) out.


----------



## Alejandro (Jul 28, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *Because all fo the threads in this forum are open to posting as long as you follow the rules. Have a problem with negative comments? *




Unlike Barcode's post about his impression of AU, your response to Joshua Dyal isn't based on ownership of the product.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 28, 2003)

In his defense, he made a valid comment: Psion seemed like power creep, and he said it. I think he's right that it definitely seems like power creep, but is balanced elsewhere (as explained earlier).

I think that people analyzing the rules without the ownership is a fine thing as well: the whole point of this thread is to discuss the rules with a purpose of informing others about what we think of the book.

(edit: That paragraphs misses another point I thought to make: discussing rules without the books is something that went on montecook.com for a long time: people liked a bunch of the things, but discussed, and argued about things that seemed sketchy. Obviously someone with the book is in better shape to figure out how things flow together as a whole, but that shouldn't preclude people from the discussion.)

In either case, there's no reason to make this a meta discussion about Doc Moriarty, so back to discussing spells and hero points and classes oh, boy!


----------



## carpedavid (Jul 28, 2003)

I actually found my copy at my friendly local Waldenbooks on Friday. I swear that I find more interesting stuff there before it's supposed to come out than I do at all at the FLGS.

I've had a bit of time to read through it, and here are my impressions so far:

1. I'm not overly fond of the races. No particular reason - they just don't float my boat. Nor am I fond of the default campaign setting. Again - this is just an asthetic preference. Some people will probably find it to be just what they were looking for.

2. On the other hand, the Champion is going to replace the Paladin class in my campaign *immediately*. Since my campaign is alignment-less already, it fits the role of "holy warrior" quite well. The great thing is that it'll work for all gods, not just the "good" ones. In addition, I'll echo the sentiment that the "customizing this class" sidebars are really, really helpful.

3. The magister fits my vision of a wizard better than the traditional wizard. The arcane focus of the staff just strikes my fancy. However, I'm not completely sure it'll mix properly with standard D&D - that'll take some more thinking.

4. I like the spell templates. It really provides a nice way to customize spells without having to create all new ones.

That's it so far. I haven't had a chance to read much beyond that.


----------



## Maraxle (Jul 28, 2003)

I hope this isn't too far off from the main topic:

What parts of it are OGC?


----------



## Hairy Minotaur (Jul 28, 2003)

Maraxle said:
			
		

> *I hope this isn't too far off from the main topic:
> 
> What parts of it are OGC? *




In his Design Diary at GenCon, Monte said that technically the whole book is OGC, but you have to apply for a special liscense (which is free, you just have to ask first) in order to use the whole book as OGC.


----------



## BVB (Jul 28, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Because all fo the threads in this forum are open to posting as long as you follow the rules. Have a problem with negative comments? *




 (privately giggling)


----------



## BVB (Jul 28, 2003)

re no PHB required: What of character creation? How does AU handle attributes?


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 28, 2003)

BVB said:
			
		

> *
> 
> (privately giggling) *





Giggle like a school girl for all I care. I doubt it is worth my time to explain to you the difference that you are missing while giggling.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 28, 2003)

I think it's 4d6 drop one, although of course, free to use your own methods.


Interesting note: Since the XP chart isn't SRD, Monte had to make his own, which is basically 1,100 * current level + 1 to level. I thought at first that this was just picking a different number to satisfy legal demons, but a playtester said that in addition to that, Monte considers the core classes slightly more powerful than 3e classes, but not noticably so, such that it seems like it's okay to either ignore it and use the PHB chart, or drop as the book does, a -10% penalty on AU classes.

Or, of course, if you don't use EL/CR, and don't mix 3.0/AU then it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

*Re: Combat*



			
				gordonknox said:
			
		

> *
> 
> How would you characterize the AU combat system?
> 
> ...




It appears pretty close to the 3.0 system. It explains attacks of oppurtunity in greater, clearer detail but lacks the diagrams. 

It also goes through and describes each of the various actions you can perform in detail.

In general it looks like that is a general trend for the entire Playing the Game chapter (which includes combat plus misc. other actions). It describes things in expanded detail including what type of action it is (standard, move, free, etc.) and whether or not it draws an attack of oppurtunity. 

The few changes I did notice are that the staggered state of damage is now from 0 to your negative constitution modifier and that your are unconcious up to your negative constitution.

There is also something called Hero Points that allows you to do some pretty major stuff. The standard effect is to add 1d20 to any one roll, but there are other things you can do with it to.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 28, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> Because all fo the threads in this forum are open to posting as long as you follow the rules. Have a problem with negative comments? *




You know, I don't particularly like hockey.  But I don't go up to people talking about hockey and continually tell them about how I don't like hockey, and how it is a stupid sport (even though I have never watched hockey in my life and only know about it second-hand).  

If I did, I would be considered an ass.

Food for thought.

J


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 28, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You know, I don't particularly like hockey.  But I don't go up to people talking about hockey and continually tell them about how I don't like hockey, and how it is a stupid sport (even though I have never watched hockey in my life and only know about it second-hand).
> 
> ...




I second this -- it's rude, plain and simple.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 28, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *Interesting note: Since the XP chart isn't SRD, Monte had to make his own, which is basically 1,100 * current level + 1 to level.
> 
> a -10% penalty on AU classes. *




Is the above formula right?  The D&D formula is 1000 * current level, not * (current level + 1).  Or did you mean (1100 * current level) +1?

J


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Is the above formula right?  The D&D formula is 1000 * current level, not * (current level + 1).  Or did you mean (1100 * current level) +1?
> 
> J *




To gain a level its 1100*current level.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 28, 2003)

thundershot said:
			
		

> **sits in the camp of people who want to use the book without changing the current campaigns*
> 
> I'm having a hell of a time rigging BESMd20 to fit with D&D (and it's working out, but some attributes needed MAJORLY changed), and I don't want to have to go through that again with this book. So yes, I want AU to use with what I have established, but no, I don't want to run a campaign with it.
> 
> Chris *




I've been playing some BESM d20 and those characters seem a lot more powerful to me. What's your take on it thundershot?


----------



## Xarls Taunzund (Jul 28, 2003)

How difficult would it be to incorporate this into a current Forgotten Realms campaign?  It looks really cool, but I don't want to spend the money on something I will never get a chance to use.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 28, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *Yeah, hero points are /big/! The default use of them is a whopping +d20 to one roll, and some of the other effects are to immediately take a turn out of order (and not lose your turn coming up in the initiative circle), or just simply to ignore a roll that would cause you to die (but take a horrible scar or injury instead).
> . *




Are these like Hero Points from Forbidden Kingdoms or like d20 Modern?

More info on Hero Points please. I'm always interested in ways to keep the game heroic.


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Are these like Hero Points from Forbidden Kingdoms or like d20 Modern?
> 
> More info on Hero Points please. I'm always interested in ways to keep the game heroic. *




You can do any one of the following things with a hero point:

1. Get a +d20 to any one rolled action.
2. If used on an attack roll that would normally hit you can do double damage or cause a called shot effect.
3. He can take a normal rounds actions outside of the initiative sequence
4. He can use it to gain a +1d20 luck bonus to his AC, saving throw or whatever. If he succeeds he takes no ill effect even if there normally would be a partial one.
5. If used to effect a roll where the character would normally die it instead causes him to suffer a great, debilitating effect.
6. The character can use a hero point to mkae something work in a way the rules do not normally allow (subject to DM interpretation).

It suggests that you be somewhat stingy with hero points. There is also a feat (Born Hero) that lets you start off with a single hero point and encourages the DM to be more generous with hero points for that character.


----------



## KenM (Jul 28, 2003)

Couple of questions:
  1. Is the stuff in AU compatable with Monte's "eldrich might" stuff?

  2. Also, how much work will be needed to make AU work with 3.5?


----------



## ShadowX (Jul 28, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No I do not. Furthermore the continuing mantra of the book being different just to be different is beyond stupid in my opinion.
> 
> Reminds me of a rebellious teenager. *




And where are you seeing this mantra?  Also your first 2 posts seem to be more attacks on Monte than well formed criticism.


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *Couple of questions:
> 1. Is the stuff in AU compatable with Monte's "eldrich might" stuff?*




Yeah but you would probably need the conversion guide that is coming out with the DM Screen.



*



			2. Also, how much work will be needed to make AU work with 3.5?
		
Click to expand...


*
Well it depends on how much you would want to take from 3.5 and how much from AU.


----------



## jester47 (Jul 28, 2003)

This book completely meets my expectations.  

Thats why I am not buying it.  It is too far from what I like and what I expect.  Some of the stuff in there is just brilliant.  The classes especially.  But I will never use them.  Right now I am trying to get to the point where I have less books to reference at the table, and since the book is sar far in left field I feel I would have to do more work to make sure everything fits with it.  

I look at this work as a collector of Baroque art would look at a Picasso.  I can appreciate the talent and the mastery and I can acknowledge that the work is a good one.  But I will never buy it.

Aaron.


----------



## Maraxle (Jul 28, 2003)

Hairy Minotaur said:
			
		

> *In his Design Diary at GenCon, Monte said that technically the whole book is OGC, but you have to apply for a special liscense (which is free, you just have to ask first) in order to use the whole book as OGC. *



I'm sorry, but I think you might be mistaken.  You can't put special restrictions on OGC.  That's the point of the Open Gaming License.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 28, 2003)

Monte's got a mix of open and closed material, as usual.  

However, "Malhavoc Press invites you to inquire about our free limited license to use the Product Identity material from AU in your products."  So that's more like an AU version of the D20 license agreement than anything.


----------



## Macbeth (Jul 28, 2003)

I have not read AU yet, but I do not believe it to be "different just to be diffrent" it is an alternate PHB set up not just to be different, but to be an example of adding flavor to everything from races to base classes to spells. The PHB trys to stay away from implying to much about a setting, and at that it succeds, but AU is a PHB with heavy flavor, an advanced PHB that assumes you have used all the standard classes, and that now you may want something with a unique twist built in. For example, AU includes a vaguely druid like class called the greenbond. The greenbond is not "different just to be different" it takes aspects of the campaign and reflects them in the class.  If this was just to be different, he Monte Cook could have created any number of variant druids, but the greenbond is uniquely adapted to AU. I think that the differences in AU are perfectly justifiable.


----------



## Kevin O'Reilly (Jul 28, 2003)

I will undoutably have to pick this up...

but; little concerned on the setting, not a big fan of hero points - my games don't assume the characters are heroes and "get to break the rules"... and a I'm interested to see how the "giant" class plays out.

I know where points from other games, but the combat system in D+D is not really fatal for high level characters...only high level characters with poor judgement.

The magic system interests me, alot. Anyone any idea when Monte is releasing the pdfs?


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 28, 2003)

PDFs go on sale Aug 7th I believe.


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

Kevin O'Reilly said:
			
		

> *I will undoutably have to pick this up...
> 
> but; little concerned on the setting, not a big fan of hero points - my games don't assume the characters are heroes and "get to break the rules"... and a I'm interested to see how the "giant" class plays out.
> 
> ...




Hero points are largely optional. Its entirely up to the DM to decide when and where he is giving them out. So if the DM decides he isn't giving them out then they aren't used.

There is a .pdf that describes the giant on Monte Cook's web page.

The other .pdfs are supposed to be released next month.


----------



## thundershot (Jul 28, 2003)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I've been playing some BESM d20 and those characters seem a lot more powerful to me. What's your take on it thundershot? *




Ah, basically I take them one attribute at a time, conversion wise. The player tells me what he/she's interesting in ahead of time, so I can look it over and determine what needs changed. The big one has been Speed and Flight. I use +10 ft. for each rank of speed, and I made a new chart for Flight. 

Um... but I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll leave it at that for now. ;D

As for AU, what seem to be the biggest problems in using it for a regular d20 game? 



Chris


----------



## Barcode (Jul 28, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *Barcode,
> 
> I think Monte has anticipated your complaint, that you are paying for a lot of core mechanics, and so a large percentage of the original material in the AU book will be released as 3 pdf's over the next few weeks. I think one is about the fighter types, the second one about magic, and I forget the third one (reliability of what the PDF's have: low, but the info's out there). So, if you just want to get your hands on the spell system and related stuff, you can just buy that PDF. *




Good to know.  Thanks.  Anyone want a gently used copy of AU?   

Nah, I'll probably keep it on the shelf for ideas, though I suspect mixing in most elements into an otherwise straight 3.0/3.5 game would be difficult without some nerfing.  As I said before, I liked the races, and I might use some elements of the magic rules in my houseruled magic system for my D20 Modern/Urban Arcana game.  I also liked the hero points, and will probably use them as is.  I can't say much about the classes, since I didn't read them carefully yet, but they did not seem at first glance to be generic enough to use outside the context of a Diamond Throne campaign without also using a couple of the 3.x classes.

While I am edified by Ray Silver's point by point denigration of my impressions, which I believe were expressly solicited, I must reiterate my feeling that the major problem with this book is that too much of it is old news.  When presented in the same format and price as say, the Books of Eldritch Might, as I assume the PDF's will be, it will be a fine enough buy.  

I find the publisher's argument that they are saving us from having to lug around our PHB's to be somewhat specious.  I would suspect it is a rare table that will play without a PHB of one version or another, and they are in fact asking you and I to lug around a bigger book of AU variants, with a B&W printed copy of the 3.0 SRD mixed in to fluff up the page count.

My advice would be to buy the AU hardcover if you want to give Monte or your FLGS some extra money.  I suspect the better value for most folks is down the PDF route.  The new stuff is very deliberately different and reasonably interesting, but I can't say it lives up to the hype.


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 28, 2003)

Barcode said:
			
		

> *
> I find the publisher's argument that they are saving us from having to lug around our PHB's to be somewhat specious.  I would suspect it is a rare table that will play without a PHB of one version or another, and they are in fact asking you and I to lug around a bigger book of AU variants, with a B&W printed copy of the 3.0 SRD mixed in to fluff up the page count.  *




My group will be one of those rare tables.


----------



## Dr. Niles Crane (Jul 28, 2003)

I purchased AU and had the opportunity to play in a demo at Gen Con over the weekend.  I had some down time at the convention before the demo to give the book a quick read (fast reader) and thought it was a mix (some good, some bad).  After playing and testing out a few things (particularly the magic), I liked some of what I saw, but not enough to incoprorate it into my existing campaign (which is pretty much standard D&D).  The book was worth my $30 more for the ideas in it than actually using it or running a campaign, but your mileage will vary.

I played a 7th level Magistar (basically a sorcerer who can pick new "spells known" daily) who was a spryte (a pixie without the magical abilities basically).  I also played a series of 3.0 and 3.5 wizards in other events for a sense of contrast (not intentionally; it just worked out that way).  I found the magic system was very interesting: you can easily make spells "cost" a lower or higher spell slot by tweaking their effects (this is detailed under each spell description).  It's very similiar to the standard feat system but much cleaner and smoother.  The power level is definitely higher in some regards: for example, my 7th level character could use a 3rd level spell that was basically a lightning bolt + bull rush (with a 30 strength), but drop it to 2nd level by getting rid of the bull rush effect.  Very cool, although definitely powerful.

The spell list is unifed, so there isn't a cleric/wizard/bard/whatever list.  There are a few Eldricth Might spells incorporated into the AU book, but I don't think the spells (or D&D spells) would necessarily convert over 1:1.   My gut feeling, having played both Wizards and one Magistar, is that the two magic systems (AU & D&D) aren't compatible, at least not easily.  The AU casters have tremendous flexibiliy: it's like having a sorcerer with a "known spells" list that can change daily (with an hour prep time) to any spell in the book, whether wizard, cleric, druid, or bard (with a few limitations depending on class).  The Magistar I played was probably equal to a well constructed D&D 3.5 wizard of around 9th or 10th level based on spell power--however, the spells also are very different (not the PHB list at all!), so it's a really tough call to make.

The races are very different and several have three levels you can take to improve them (like Savage Species) instead of a standard AU class.  The races themselves are a matter of personal taste of course: I was a little disappointed as they felt to a bit cliche (lion men, dragon men, giants, pixies).  I didn't feel like they were particularly inventive or interesting, particularly in comparison to the classes.  However, one thing I did like is that they run the size categories from tiny to large with the appropriate size benefits/penalties.  Again, that's just my first impression: other folks might really like them.  I might have liked them more if there was more background or campaign stuff on the races, why they existed, and more "meat" in that section, but that's for the other AU books.

The Death's Door rule is really nifty for PCs (basically a person with higher con has a wider window of being staggered and then knocked out before dying, rather than a flat -10 for everyone).  I suspect it would be a pain to keep track of for NPCs: perhaps using the new rule for "named" NPCs and the old -10 for fodder might work, but I haven't given it much thought--other folks might be better able to comment.  

Hero Points are well done and purposefully also left open to the DM to determine how many characters get, how often they get more, and how they can use/not use them.  Of everything in the book, I suspect that system is the easiest to port over to a standard D&D campaign and would add the most value if used in moderation.  The DM who ran the demo stressed that: with a lot of hero points, the game gets a kind of superhero flavor--good if that's what you're going for, but it might bend or break a more serious game.

The book is black and white (color cover) and felt a little lightweight per page (in terms of content due to the spacing of sentences...lots of white space per page), especially compared to the PHB, but it is on par with most other hard cover suppliments and campaign settings.  Some folks might find it easier to read, but it felt like a lot of possible content space was lost due to the sentence spacing.

The classes, while probably not fitting into a D&D campaign primarily due to balance and the magic system, were very inventive and creative.  Monte's work here really impressed me and I can't stress that enough.  Honestly, the rest of the book (with several exceptions) didn't really amaze me, but the classes definitely seemed very cool and in the demo were interesting to see in action.  IMHO, if you're on the fence, take a look at the classes first and if you're impressed, it's probably worth price of admission.  

Just my two cents.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 28, 2003)

Numion said:
			
		

> *Another note: Ride the Lightning is a nice spell. Lightning Bolt + Teleportation
> *




Can someone help me remember?

I distinctly recall a discussion of this exact spell (name included) on this board or one of its predesessors something like two years ago (more or less).  Anyone else recall this?


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 28, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Can someone help me remember?
> 
> I distinctly recall a discussion of this exact spell (name included) on this board or one of its predesessors something like two years ago (more or less).  Anyone else recall this? *




No, but being as it's a Metallica song among other things, I wouldn't be surprised if there was name duplication - and once you've got the name, that seems to be the logical spell effect.

Heck, I had an NPC with that ability in a 'magic armor senshi' game (a la Samurai Troopers or Saint Seiya) back in my college years.

J


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 28, 2003)

Kevin O'Reilly said:
			
		

> *I will undoutably have to pick this up...
> 
> but; little concerned on the setting, not a big fan of hero points - my games don't assume the characters are heroes and "get to break the rules"... and a I'm interested to see how the "giant" class plays out.
> 
> ...




I think we're playing different D&D's if you don't play a incredibly lethal high level one.  Sure all lethal things can be fixed with the right spell(true res) but deadly nontheless.  Save or dies, disgusting damage outputs basically make it so people can and will drop almost every round of a high level fight.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 28, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Can someone help me remember?
> 
> I distinctly recall a discussion of this exact spell (name included) on this board or one of its predesessors something like two years ago (more or less).  Anyone else recall this? *




I think I remember a 2e dragon mag spell like this.  O at least I think it was dragon mag but I think I saw it in the magical encycolpedia thingy for wizards spells nice 4 book set that came out.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 28, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> No, but being as it's a Metallica song among other things, I wouldn't be surprised if there was name duplication - and once you've got the name, that seems to be the logical spell effect.
> J *




Yeah, I don't find it particularly surprising.  If it is a duplication, there is no doubt that it is either coincidence 

OR...



> _Originally posted by Shard O'Glase_
> *
> I think I remember a 2e dragon mag spell like this. O at least I think it was dragon mag but I think I saw it in the magical encycolpedia thingy for wizards spells nice 4 book set that came out.*




Who knows?  Maybe Monte himself already published it before.

Anyway, I'm not trying to make anything out of it.  I'm just certain I saw it before, and can't recall the surrounding details.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Jul 29, 2003)

> The book is black and white (color cover) and felt a little lightweight per page (in terms of content due to the spacing of sentences...lots of white space per page), especially compared to the PHB, but it is on par with most other hard cover suppliments and campaign settings. Some folks might find it easier to read, but it felt like a lot of possible content space was lost due to the sentence spacing.




FYI - the font used by Malhavoc has high leading (meaning the white space between lines.) This is used to offset the fact that you're getting it at a smaller font size (by one point if I'm correct) from the PHB. My wife is an editor and observed that she would have put the font size up by one and the leading down by a half-line. What you're seeing is a book that may have slightly _more_ words than the PH, but the scaling of the fonts make it smaller. But if you don't like the layout, that's cool.  It's all a matter of personal preference.


----------



## Dr. Niles Crane (Jul 29, 2003)

Ah, thanks Varianor Abroad -- that's good to know!


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Jul 29, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *Can someone help me remember?
> 
> I distinctly recall a discussion of this exact spell (name included) on this board or one of its predesessors something like two years ago (more or less).  Anyone else recall this? *



  Re: Ride the Lightning.  I know this may not be the same thing, but over two years ago I wrote a prestige class with a similar ability by the same name.  It is actually _dimension door_ combined with lightning, but the same thing otherwise (the PrC is called the Lightning Rod, it's in my sig).  *Shrug*  I think it's just a coincidence.  "Ride the Lightning" is a phrase I've seen other places, and the D&D conversion comes pretty easy with that name.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 29, 2003)

"Ride the lightning" is not an uncommon expression. Nor is the idea of a person transforming into lightning as a form of movement all that original. Remember: There are no original ideas.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 29, 2003)

Ray Silver said:
			
		

> *  Re: Ride the Lightning.  I know this may not be the same thing, but over two years ago I wrote a prestige class with a similar ability by the same name.  It is actually dimension door combined with lightning, but the same thing otherwise (the PrC is called the Lightning Rod, it's in my sig).  *Shrug*  I think it's just a coincidence.  "Ride the Lightning" is a phrase I've seen other places, and the D&D conversion comes pretty easy with that name. *



That may very well be it.



			
				 Mark Chance said:
			
		

> *"Ride the lightning" is not an uncommon expression. Nor is the idea of a person transforming into lightning as a form of movement all that original. Remember: There are no original ideas. *




Oh, yeah.  I agree 100%.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 29, 2003)

Barcode, interesting interpretation. I'm not sure how much of this I'll use, and I haven't read more than half of it yet, but I went into it with almost no expectations - and I'm extremely impressed. The classes, in particular, are really fascinating to me. It might be that my expectations weren't raised; in any event, I'm very glad I bought it.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 29, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *In his defense, he made a valid comment: Psion seemed like power creep, and he said it. I think he's right that it definitely seems like power creep, but is balanced elsewhere (as explained earlier).
> 
> I think that people analyzing the rules without the ownership is a fine thing as well: the whole point of this thread is to discuss the rules with a purpose of informing others about what we think of the book.
> 
> ...




Good point. Although I was more upset about flavor than power. It's nice that there are some unique psionic powers in there.

So I'm hearing:

1) [Psionic] powers don't cost a Mind Witch something extra.
2) Non-psionic spells cost a Mind Witch double if they don't want components.

If there's enough [Psionic] powers I wouldn't even bother with non-psionic spells. So ... are there "enough" of them? About how many are there, and can they fill all purposes?


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

Mind witches get a basically improved psion feat for free at ninth level (it not only grants the psionic template, but allows access to all complex and exotic psion spells, while the normal psion feat would only give witches access to complex psionic feats). But, before that, they have no access to complex psionic spells, or the psionic template.

Yet, despite that 9th level power, I'm recommending that the character interested in a verrik mind witch take the  psion feat at 1st level: it's a long time to wait, and there a lot of low-level good powers, and the psionic template is too neat to wait 8 levels. To give a little detail:

Psionic spells
0 level simple: contact, sense thoughts
0 level complex: telekinesis (lesser)

1st level simple: Mind stab
1st level complex: Creature Loresight, Distraction, Object Loresight

2nd level simple: none
2nd level complex: Location Loresight, Read Mind

3rd level simple: none.
3rd level complex: Clairaudience/clairvoyence

4th level simple: Telepathy
4th level complex: Modify Memory, telekinesis (greater)
4th level exotic: Inner World

There are a bunch of high level exotic psionics, but the mind witch will have witchery spellcasting (the official name for the improved psion feat-like thing they get) by then.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 29, 2003)

Okay ... but why be a verrik?

And tell me what "Inner Word" is!

This is sounding more and more positive - I'll have to scrounge and get AU. What's the $ on it? And can I order it _directly_ from Monte Cook's site?


----------



## Henry (Jul 29, 2003)

I purchased it, and gladly. So far, having read it in a cursory scan and not yet reading for detail, I love it, and cannot wait to get a chance to run a game with it. Everything, from the magic system to the new classes and races, is refreshing, and you really can't take anything for granted - which I like.

My worst problem, however, is that I have so much material to play with right now, that it may well be next year before I can play this game. Being in the middle of DMing a F. Realms game, and playing a variant Spelljammer setting with another DM, AND being tempted by the Savage Worlds game, I have more games than time. Sad, but true. 

I really am glad for Monte, and glad it's done well so far - the grin on his face was a mile wide when he was selling it on Thursday.  (I heard S&SS sold out of all their copies in THREE hours - anyone know if this is true?)


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jul 29, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *I heard S&SS sold out of all their copies in THREE hours - anyone know if this is true? *




It was very much true. Fortunately I schmoozed the guys in the booth that morning and they put aside a copy for me, which I picked up at the end of the day.

Then there were a bunch more copies that showed up the next day, so the impression I got was that there weren't many people leaving the con disappointed about not being able to buy the book.


----------



## Graf (Jul 29, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Can someone help me remember?
> 
> I distinctly recall a discussion of this exact spell (name included) on this board or one of its predesessors something like two years ago (more or less).  Anyone else recall this? *




Yeah. Or at least I think I remember. [the post below has what I was talking about, AND it's all spelled properly. Thanks Ray.]

As for why he's "reprinting the PHB" weelll he's trying to create a replacement for D&D. A game that's similar enough to appeal to people but changes things he thinks ought to be different. While I'm sure he'd be happy to have D&D players buy and use his stuff his goal is to have people become AU players running AU games. (Which is NOT to say that you can't play both or one is better than the other). 

He's making his own game, with it's own world and rules system. People who buy his stuff will hopefully form a fan-base that allows him to maintain a strong game line and sell them suppliments, revised editions, class books, adventures, miniatures, world books and everything else you sell when you make roleplaying games.

For the D&D players it's all about the PDFs.... if he breaks things down and add's sidebars (or web articles) about the different power levels of the games to help people to integrate their games with the new material then it'll be a good contribution. With proper presentation of the new material they'll have good sales and people will get excited about the material and he'll get a lot of kudos and positive feedback. I'd also say he might ultimately lure those people who are playing FR and want lots of support like adventures and other products into the Diamond Throne world.
If, like most of the Eldric magic products, he introduces a lot of stuff and the power levels are screwy (even if the ideas are cool) and lots of people who want to use the material wind up having to work to re-write things or don't look over things carefully and have to deal with probelms it causes, then the responce will be more mixed. Kind of like it is now. While I don't really agree with Doc's way-of-speaking I have to admit that some of Monte's suppliments have consistently caused power creep problems. Which has created a bit of a bad buzz around his company and caused some people (I know anyway) to dismiss what are basically decent products with good ideas.

I realize that some people don't buy PDFs btw. I guess those people basically have to sit down and deal with the books as they are and post on the boards to figure out what's more powerful than core D&D and how to adjust things.


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Jul 29, 2003)

Graf said:
			
		

> *Yeah. Or at least I think I remember. It was a d4 lightning bolt and a monster summoning spell (all rolled into one). I think it was in the first eldric might book. *



  Actually that spell is called Bolt of Conjuring and it's in the Book of Eldritch Might I.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jul 29, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *Okay ... but why be a verrik?
> 
> And tell me what "Inner Word" is!
> 
> This is sounding more and more positive - I'll have to scrounge and get AU. What's the $ on it? And can I order it directly from Monte Cook's site? *




You be a verrik because you want the basics like the stat alterations, the sensory control, innate spell-like abilities, or automatic access to the complex psionic spells.  You could also do it for the opportunity to take levels in "Verrik" giving you more spell-like abilities.

Inner World is a psionic spell that locks the target in a phantasmal world, preventing them from acting normally in the real world.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jul 29, 2003)

there was a big discussion of psionics on AU versus normal DnD psionics.

The basic difference that AU will introduce if you want to use AU magic and DnD psionics is that characters that are basically magic characters will have a fairly open ability to use psionics or psionic themed stuff.

The person who started this discussion was playing in a setting where the difference between psioncs and magic was very important so he was relatively unhappy with this.

But me, I like the way the psionics feat works a great deal.

My copy of AU hasn't come yet- curse You local lazy FedEx deliverymen, It's a two day package, Two Day!!!!- but I am really looking forward to seeing one of my players look over it.

I plan on unveiling the book to him seperately from everyone else, just because he is going to have at least four distnict moments of absolutely ecstatic surprise and delight as he thumbs through the book, and I want him to appreciate this on his own.

While I play his copy of Knights of the old Republic, another thing that is having trouble making its way to my town....


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

warning: campaign ideas ahead, ignore if it's not your thing, (mods: I don't intend the sidetrack the discussion, just answering a question, but if you want me to edit this out, just give the word)

You play a verrik because it interested my player, and so we developed a little bit of history: the verrik didn't resist particularly strongly when the giants started "caretaking" the land, but asked that the sites which were holy to their worship of the earth be left pristine.

The Order of Magisters (a mostly human organization aiding the giants) were having none of this: they built their schools directly on top of these sites, finding they made very good places to conduct research on. The verrik started to resist, and for their troubles, now all verrik must, at early adolescence, register their truename with the school at the closest city to where they are, and then get a small mark branded onto their necks to indicate that they have registered. It is notable that all verrik have to do this (because of both a grudge with their magisters, and their distrust of the innate power verrik witchery wields), while only those with notable magical power have to register for other races.

That said, while the Order of Magisters would rather wipe them off the earth (after a few experiments, of course), the Giants keep a number of them as valued servants (and trusted because their truenames are  held), serving in this particular case, as telepaths within the judicial system.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 29, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> *This book completely meets my expectations.
> 
> Thats why I am not buying it.  It is too far from what I like and what I expect.  Some of the stuff in there is just brilliant.  The classes especially.  But I will never use them.  Right now I am trying to get to the point where I have less books to reference at the table, and since the book is sar far in left field I feel I would have to do more work to make sure everything fits with it.
> 
> ...




I have to admit that as much as I dig this book so far, I wouldn't want to try and incorporate it into a 3.0/3.5 game.  I'd probably want to just play an AU campaign itself rather than try and use bits and pieces.  Just my initial thought.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 29, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Being in the middle of DMing a F. Realms game, and playing a variant Spelljammer setting with another DM, AND being tempted by the Savage Worlds game, I have more games than time. Sad, but true. *



It's a much better problem to have than the reverse, though, isn't it?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 29, 2003)

How much setting is implied with this book?  Can you run a Diamond Throne (or something that sorta resembles it) with this book, or do you really need the campaign setting?


----------



## Tuerny (Jul 29, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *How much setting is implied with this book?  Can you run a Diamond Throne (or something that sorta resembles it) with this book, or do you really need the campaign setting? *




You really need the campaign setting.

There is about as much setting material in it as there was in the PHB.

Of course with two modules coming out, you can probably use those to keep you busy until the campaign setting arrives.


----------



## thedangerranger (Jul 29, 2003)

I don't think there is enough world specific tidbits to know geography, politics or really anything world specific. 
I'd have the PC's start in a largely human small city and just add it to the map after the fact when the Diamond throne stuff comes out.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

While there is no political, geographical, historical data, there is much more of an implied feel. It's not mandatory, but it's more there.

You see this most notably in the races: the PHB is rather vague on how the cultures work and interact, but AU gives you a stronger feel. It's not: "Litorians act this way towards race Y." but the races are closer knit.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 29, 2003)

nt


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Jul 29, 2003)

nt


----------



## SJ (Jul 29, 2003)

Definitely more implied feel. There's a depth to the way the races, classes, feats, talents, and magic relate, it brings a cohesion to everything that makes a setting easier to visualize.

It's certainly possible to use any number of settings, or roll your own, but I think the AU book presents a feel from the way it's written that makes it stronger and more unique than what we see in D&D.

I also bought Plague of Dreams and Siege on Ebonring Keep, the two mods from FDP and MEG respectively, and there's plenty of info there to get your group going until DT is released.

BTW, in the demo game at GenCon I got to play the verrik mind witch, and it was really good. The verrik are somewhat spooky, and you do NOT want them to get into your head or they will twist you every which way. Heh.

SJ


----------



## Numion (Jul 29, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Everywhere. If AU is not described as DIFFERENT then it is described as ALTERNATE.
> 
> Either way the only reason given appears to be being different for the sake of being different. *




Well, if his goal was to publish an alternate / different / not-same players handbook, I'd be surprised if it _wasn't_ different. 

AU is different from D&D PHB because that's how it was meant to be. You may well find this a negative thing, but I don't think you've discovered anything great or revealing when you proclaim on this thread that it's different for the sake of being different.


----------



## nharwell (Jul 29, 2003)

Graf said:
			
		

> * <cut> ... I have to admit that some of Monte's suppliments have consistently caused power creep problems. Which has created a bit of a bad buzz around his company and caused some people (I know anyway) to dismiss what are basically decent products with good ideas.
> *




It's interesting to me how these "power creep" problems can vary so much from game to game. While I have had to alter a couple of spells from Monte's products, in general I've not had any problems. On the other hand, I've had serious "power creep" issues with almost every Forgotten Realms product -- and, to a lesser degree, from the class splatbooks. Just goes to show how much gaming experiences can vary, I suppose....


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

Revised impressions: expect low-level casters tuned for blasting to just be pumping out lots more damage.

There's a 1st-level spell, that when diminished (making it a 0-level), does 1d4 damage. 


There's Modify Spell (which may seem monstrous at first glance, but is kind of balanced compared to what other spell feats do), which lets you choose one of the following effects:

Extend Spell
Empower Spell
Widen Spell
Silent Spell
Still Spell

(plus one or two other effects I'm forgetting) for the cost of ladening (double the slot). You get to do this on the fly.

(edit: overstated the overall effect of energy mage)
There's Energy Mage (which lets you take one energy-based template). Let's take Fire: add a 20gp gem to your spell, add +1d6 fire damage, but +2d6 fire damage if it's already a fire-based spell.

So, 1st level caster, with Energy Mage (Fire), and Modify Spell, casts this 0-level spell Fireburst (diminished) with the fire template, and empowered.

For the cost of 2 cantrips, and 20gp, they get:

(1d4 + 2d6) * 1.5 = expected damage  14.25 = about 4d6.
(edit: checking out the spell description yields that it's even stronger: that's 4d6 damage to a 10-foot radius!)

Two Ray of Frosts (expected damage: 4?) looks kind of puny compared to that double cantrip.


----------



## Radiant (Jul 29, 2003)

ok you win i give, i tried to find out what this is all about by reading this but i stopped after two pages, What the heck is AU?


----------



## Citizen Mane (Jul 29, 2003)

Arcana Unearthed, an alternate PHB by Monte Cook.

Best,
tKL


----------



## BiggusGeekus@Work (Jul 29, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *For the cost of 2 cantrips, and 20gp, they get:
> 
> (1d4 + 2d6) * 1.5 = expected damage  14.25 = about 4d6.
> (edit: checking out the spell description yields that it's even stronger: that's 4d6 damage to a 10-foot radius!)
> ...




And a feat.  It also costs a feat.  Not to mention a save on the spell.

So 2 0-level spell slots, 20gp, and a feat.  And all for puny damage.

_Puny damage?  Biggus, havee you finaly flipped?_

Nope.

10'.   That's 4 "squares".  At first level you're likely to be facing opponents with 4-6 hp.  Most of that damage is overkill.   Also, 20 gp is around 10%-20% of a character's starting wealth.

This is basically a trick they can only do once or twice at 1st level.   Considering they could start out with alchemists fire or tanglefoot bags with no feat or spell slot cost at all, I don't see a problem here.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

Okay, we'll do the math with saves:

(edit: I forgot to add spell focus and gsf to the wizard, which is kind of very silly. My apologies. Added in sorcerous bolt)

Let's say you're facing a big bad. We'll give our big bad a reflex save of +5. Our magister and wizard both have int 18. The wizard has spell focus and greater spell focus evocation.

5th-level Wizard casting Lightning Bolt (saves on 14 or higher, 5d6)
17.5 65% of time + 8.75 35% of time 

14.44 ED, costs 3rd-level slot.

1st-level Magister casting 0-level empowered firefireburst (saves on 9 or higher, (1d4 + 2d6) * 1.5 dmg)

14.25 40% of time + 7.125 60% of time

9.975 ED, costs two 0-level slots and 20 gp


1st-level wizard casting magic missile (1d4+1)

3.5 100% of time

3 ED, costs 1st level slot.



Let's move on to an example where everybody is at 6th-level:

6th level wizard casting lightning bolt (saves on 14 or higher,6d6)
21 65% of time + 10.5 35% of time

17.35 ED, costs one 3rd-level slot.

6th level magister casting 3rd-level empowered eldritch firefire sorcerous bolt (saves on 13 or higher, (6d6 +2d6)*1.5 dmg)

42 60% of time + 21 40% of time

33.6 ED, costs two 3rd-level slots, costs 20gp.


6th level magister casting 1st-level empowered eldritch firefireburst (saves on 11 or higher,  (4d6 + 2d6)*1.5 dmg)
32.5 50% of time + 16.25 50% of time

24.38 ED, costs two 1st-level slots, costs 20 gp.


6th level penny-pinching magister casting 1-level empowered eldritch fireburst (saves on 11 or higher, 4d6*1.5 dmg)
25 50% of time + 12.5 50% of time

17.75 ED, costs two 1st-level slots


6th level magic missile
10.5 100% of time

10.5 ED, costs 1st-level slot.

Our 6th level magister can fire the penny-pinching version of the spell, without spending /any money/ 6 times, get better damage than a lightning bolt, and then still have enough slots left over to cast the heightened version (even more damage) 3 times on top of that.

That it costs the modify spell feat (for the penny-pincher version) is no problem at all: modify spell is a rough combination of about 6 or 7 metamagic feats from D&D, except for that every single one of those metamagic feats now costs less (they only laden spells instead of raising levels). It's a pretty easy must-take feat for just about any spellcaster.


----------



## Radiant (Jul 29, 2003)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> *Arcana Unearthed, an alternate PHB by Monte Cook.
> 
> Best,
> tKL *




thanks


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 29, 2003)

Radiant said:
			
		

> *ok you win i give, i tried to find out what this is all about by reading this but i stopped after two pages, What the heck is AU? *



We revel in our superiority of insular, useless knowledge!    How geeky is that?  I guess I just assumed everyone would know the acronym AU...


----------



## BiggusGeekus@Work (Jul 29, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *That it costs the modify spell feat (for the penny-pincher version) is no problem at all: modify spell is a rough combination of about 6 or 7 metamagic feats from D&D, except for that every single one of those metamagic feats now costs less (they only laden spells instead of raising levels). It's a pretty easy must-take feat for just about any spellcaster. *




A compelling argument.  

I'll still be picking the book up when it gets to my FLGS.  But it does seem that moving bits of AU to 3.5 won't be "plug and play".  Bit of a pity there.  However, I'm confidient that AU is balanced within its own context.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 29, 2003)

Radiant said:
			
		

> *
> 
> thanks  *




And you can read all about it here. There are two pdf teasers (one for the Greenbond class and one for the Giant race), a lot of design diary stuff (thought about the design process, and why certain things are the way they are). 

Hopefully, my copy will be here tomorrow or Thursday; it was shipped from Atlanta today, but I can't tell where it is because the tracking number is either incorrect or it hasn't been scanned that first time, yet.

So far, the plan is this: incorporate the AU classes and magic system into my existing Greatwood setting, with a few of the PHB races as well.

I doubt I'll use the Verrick, Sebaccai or Litorians right now, but the Giants would fit. The Mohj.. the mohj would definately fit. This just on the basis of the Greenbond preview, mind you, and the description of how spells work. The Greenbond is very much more my vision of the druid than the PHB version, and druids are very, very important to the setting. More so than any other caster.

We'll see if the plan survives contact


----------



## TrubbulTheTroll (Jul 29, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You know, I don't particularly like hockey.  But I don't go up to people talking about hockey and continually tell them about how I don't like hockey, and how it is a stupid sport (even though I have never watched hockey in my life and only know about it second-hand).
> 
> ...




Well said indeed! Now to see if this worthy point reached the target. Time to read on.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

More evidence of problems with spell reagents and empowering:

The sixth-level battle sorceror pulls out a lightning bolt: 6d6
That sixth-level magister, who has all the simple and complex spells in the book, can pull out an empowered firefire eldritch sorcerous bolt (a lightning bolt where you choose the element): (6d6 + 2d6) * 1.5 = 12d6 for two third level slots and 20gp.

Thrommel (one of the Council of Magisters people) and myself have come up with a set of possible fixes for this if you see it as a problem (as I do): 

1) Spells cast using a spell reagent take twice as long to cast (standard action x 2 = 1 round casting time (not full-round)). This is both balancing and has neat flavor: when the magister pulls out a gem and crushes it, you know you better try to stop him before the spell goes off.

2) Split off the empower spell into its own feat (Infuse Spell), where it costs +1 spell level to empower, and (maybe, haven't thought of this carefully) +2 levels to maximize. Modify Spell is still awesome without it.

This isn't of course, endorsed by the council, but just a suggestion.


----------



## Monte At Home (Jul 29, 2003)

Anonystu, I will point out that you keep comparing non-maxed D&D characters with maxed AU characters to make your points.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 29, 2003)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *Anonystu, I will point out that you keep comparing non-maxed D&D characters with maxed AU characters to make your points. *




This is an interesting point.

But I guess my question for clarity, would be what part of D&D would you consider for maximizing a D&D character? Just the 3.5 PHB, Tome & Blood, 3rd party support via Book of Eldrich Might?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 29, 2003)

Any suggestions for how to "max" a L6 sorcerer's lightning bolts?

Seriously, the maxed out AU guys seem to be pretty obvious "the way to go" characters.  What D&D equivalent is a more fair comparison?


----------



## dagger (Jul 29, 2003)

Isnt it like comparing apples and oranges....?


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

Monte At Home said:
			
		

> *Anonystu, I will point out that you keep comparing non-maxed D&D characters with maxed AU characters to make your points. *




I haven't read Tome & Blood in a while, so if there are obvious feats I'm missing.

I probably should add spell focus and greater spell focus (3.5 versions) to the ED examples: a battle mage would almost certainly have those for evocation. Sorry about that.

(Edit: this is done, the ed examples now account for sf and gsf)

I'll go back and do that.

Other than that, I'm not sure what to do to max them out further. I mean, maybe they could have rods of empowering or something, but I think those are pretty darn expensive.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 29, 2003)

dagger said:
			
		

> *Isnt it like comparing apples and oranges....? *




They have been advertised as balanced.

I don't yet have enough data to say that they are not.  I should have MY book in a day or two.  

So I am not saying that they are not balanced.  But, based on the info spread about so far, I am asking for more details.


----------



## dagger (Jul 29, 2003)

Balanced to what? I thought the AU classes are supposed to be played with other AU classes only?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 29, 2003)

Not according to Monte.

Clarification:  It is supposed to be playable as a stand alone alternate.  But it is also supposed to be interchangable with D&D.
This general point was made over and over in the "Why this is not Monte's 3.5" debates.


----------



## nharwell (Jul 29, 2003)

Well, if you're comparing 3.0 and AU, the an easy example would be to have the sorceror cast haste + lightning bolt x2. He then does the same amount of damage and gains a +4 to AC for the cost of 3 3rd-level spell slots. The Magister, on the other hand, would have used 2 3rd-level spell slots, 2 feats, and 20 gp. A much more balanced comparison, I think.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is an interesting point.
> 
> But I guess my question for clarity, would be what part of D&D would you consider for maximizing a D&D character? Just the 3.5 PHB, Tome & Blood, 3rd party support via Book of Eldrich Might? *




Also, I don't think I'm maxing the AU character for destruction: I only spent a single energy mage feat. At sixth level (with an 21 int human wizard (+2 headband of intellect)), if I was really maxing just for this, I could probably cast something like this following monstrosity (although I haven't read carefully enough to see if this template stacking is impossible)

Empowered Eldritch fire-sonic-electricity-cold  fire sorcerous bolt.

Effects: like a lightning bolt (choose wide or narrow path), does (6d6 fire damage + 2d6 fire damage) * 1.5  damage. (roughly 12d6 fire damage)

Reflex  DC 19 for half.

Targets hit make a fortitude save DC 19 or be slowed for one round for every 10 points of damage taken.

Targets hit make a fortitude save DC 19 or be stunned for one round.

Targets hit make a fortitude save DC 19 or be deafened for one minute (I know I'm definitely misremembering the sonic effect)

Cost: Two 3rd-level spells + 3 gems (equal to 75 gp) + a focus (tuning fork?) worth 100gp.

Descriptors (big weakness): has fire, electricity, cold, sonic descriptors

You wouldn't want to cast this often (75 gp can add up quick), and you would want to make sure that your enemy didn't know this was coming, and didn't have resistances (because any immunity would stop it, and monsters with fire, cold, electricity resistance x would have a field day), but against someone unprotected or unaware, this is big. And plus, you get everyone in the path too.

This is a bit more min/maxed.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 29, 2003)

If you start allowing being under the effect of a spell be considered, you really blur the comparison.

It would be like giving a character sneak attack that works on all attacks and saying it is balanced because greater (improved) invisibility exists.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

nharwell said:
			
		

> *Well, if you're comparing 3.0 and AU, the an easy example would be to have the sorceror cast haste + lightning bolt x2. He then does the same amount of damage and gains a +4 to AC for the cost of 3 3rd-level spell slots. The Magister, on the other hand, would have used 2 3rd-level spell slots, 2 feats, and 20 gp. A much more balanced comparison, I think. *




(edit: one feat, not two!  I will continue to insist that modify spell is simply an every spellcaster feat (maybe with a few minor spellcasters who might shy away from it in favor of taking complex spell over and over). It is too powerful and useful to be considered part of this battle mage build, rather than: "The feat magisters almost always take by 3rd level.")

You're absolutely right: haste 3.0 plus a battle sorceror probably exceeds the magister. 

I must admit, I'm not terribly worried about the 3.0 balance, since I thought haste to be a problem for just that reason.

Although, when you put it like so, empower spell as a laden makes perfect sense to balance the hasted spellcasters, which might explain it's current cost.


----------



## nharwell (Jul 29, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *If you start allowing being under the effect of a spell be considered, you really blur the comparison.
> 
> It would be like giving a character sneak attack that works on all attacks and saying it is balanced because greater (improved) invisibility exists. *




Well, if you disallow that, then the only real comparison would be to compare a metamagicked spell. I'm not sure how you'd do that -- is a Empowered Lightning Bolt (5th level slot) equal to a empowered firefire sorcerous bolt (2 -3rd level slots)? The original comparison is unfair as it matches a single 3rd-level slot for the Sorceror (with no feats) against 2 3rd-level slots for the Magister (with 2 feats).


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *If you start allowing being under the effect of a spell be considered, you really blur the comparison.
> 
> It would be like giving a character sneak attack that works on all attacks and saying it is balanced because greater (improved) invisibility exists. *




I agree with part of this sentiment, but think 3.0 haste is a very large exception: any combat-oriented 5th-level wizard+ or 6th-level sorceror+ probably always casts this as the very first spell as any combat: you always get your action right back, and cast double from there on out. I think 3.0 expected damage should at least be theroized as a haste spell being active most of the time.


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

nharwell said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, if you disallow that, then the only real comparison would be to compare a metamagicked spell. I'm not sure how you'd do that -- is a Empowered Lightning Bolt (5th level slot) equal to a empowered firefire sorcerous bolt (2 -3rd level slots)? The original comparison is unfair as it matches a single 3rd-level slot for the Sorceror (with no feats) against 2 3rd-level slots for the Magister (with 2 feats). *




To be more explicit with the post below: if we're playing 3.0, then not allowing haste is silly: all battle mages are going to be casting it. At this point, I would say, the 3.0 battle sorceror probably does slightly better: they have to cast haste to start up the lightning bolt/bolt chains, but have more high level slots and it doesn't cost money, but it's suprising how in a game without haste, the magister comes very close, and then still has all this versatility the battle sorc is lacking. But I'll cede that 3.0 battle sorcs probably outmatch.

(Edit: Oh, 3.0 battle sorcs also get +2 sf and +2 gsf, for what's it worth, but I'm not recalculating that stuff again. Add like 7.5% to the expected damage values, and you should be fine.)

If we're playing 3.5 (which is what I'm more concerned with, your mileage may vary), then the examples are valid as far as I can tell.


----------



## Dalamar (Jul 29, 2003)

Maybe the balance comes in with the fact that lightning bolt is a 120ft line? Or that a more similar spell, Fireball, is a 20ft radius instead of 10ft?


----------



## anonystu (Jul 29, 2003)

Well, if we're back at the fireburst examples, then yeah, 10-foot radius isn't as good as twenty, but it's a 1st level spell, that uses 2 1st-level slots (which, in the fluid system, is 2/3rds of a 2ndlevel spell) It shouldn't be anywhere near that good, if you use the phb as a guide.

In any case, sorcerous bolt is very similar to lightning bolt (just with more flexibility as to what kind of bolt is it). If you're worried about fireburst comparisons, then look at sorcerous bolt versus lightning bolt.


----------



## blakwind (Jul 29, 2003)

*Great layout!*

I picked up my copy of AU on the first day of GenCon and played a demo that evening with Thrommel -- great session, by the way, Tom!  I'll take the opportunity here to add a few comments on an aspect of AU that hasn't received much attention in this thread.

I really, really, like the layout of this book.  All content is black and white, with crisp dark text on a clean white background.  The font is small, but the text is well spaced, and the result is much easier on my eyes than the D&D PH.   Even the largest tables are easy to follow with simple horizontal lines every three rows.  Sidebar text is well differentiated by font and white space without any distracting shading.  The black and white art is of an entirely different sort than the glossy illustrations of the PH.  The pencil sketches and ink illustrations are generally of high quality.  They are unobtrusive, only occasionally intruding on the columns on text.  The pages are thick, and the cover feels sturdy.

Over-all, I'd say that the presentation has a unique refreshing feel that seems well matched to the unique content.  While so many d20 products imitate the WotC "look and feel", Monte and Sue have taken a road less traveled, and I for one am delighted.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 29, 2003)

Have even 3.0 with haste blaster mages ever actually been a problem.  If anyhing I think the problem has been with low daamge outputs for blaster mages at most levels.  I think the haste problem was more with save or dies than with blaster mages.

What effects a battle more a 12d6 line of damage or a slow spell, or stinking cloud, or heck even hold person.

12d6 save for 1/2 fine i eat some damage maybe the weak HD classes types drop, or if this is a mook fight I may clean up.  But overall I take an owie but I recover and am fighting at full str.  you cast slow and I'm just a body waiting for my bag.


----------



## Thrommel (Jul 29, 2003)

I'll just chime in here that if anything is radically different in AU, it's the magic system. The new races, the new classes, the feats -- all of that stuff is pretty much cut and paste right into your 3E/3.5 game.

But if you want to port the magic system into 3E, you're going to have to sharpen your pencil a little bit  -- or wait for the DM's Screen and Player's Guide next month which will have the conversion notes for you.

That said, I think the magic system *blows the doors off* the traditional Vancian style, hands down. It's very cool, extremely flexible, but built around some simple to grasp, straightforward concepts.

So keep in mind that the two approaches are very different. D&D assumes that magic is in the hands of a few (clerics/wizards/sorcerors - with a split between divine and arcane magic) and is rather rigid in spell effect and casting frequency. AU assumes that many people have access to some type of spell ability (five of the eleven classes wield magic using basically the same spell list) and puts a lot of choices at the caster's disposal.

I suggest playing through the AU magic system a bit -- it's not something I'd just eyeball and give a thumbs up or down to, because if anything in AU is *not* like 3E, this is it. It's different and, in my opinion, a vast improvement.

-Thrommel


----------



## anonystu (Jul 30, 2003)

I'd like to, for all my math, second this. I'm really excited about the magic system, I think it's a vast improvement, and is really cool, flexible, and has a great feel, and can't wait to try it out and see what happens.

It just requires a bit more watching, I think.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 30, 2003)

Does aU have anything like Haste?



> So keep in mind that the two approaches are very different. D&D assumes that magic is in the hands of a few (clerics/wizards/sorcerors - with a split between divine and arcane magic) and is rather rigid in spell effect and casting frequency. AU assumes that many people have access to some type of spell ability (five of the eleven classes wield magic using basically the same spell list) and puts a lot of choices at the caster's disposal.




Of the 11 core classes, only fighters, barbarians and rogues (3 out of 11) don't have magic. Even so, the rogue gets Use Magic Device as a class skill. It seems to me that fewer people in AU have access to magic


----------



## Thrommel (Jul 30, 2003)

Nope, no Haste in AU.

Refresh my memory -- what's the primary caster stat for the monk again?  

Let me clarify a little bit -- in AU, if you are a spellcaster, you can cast spells at first level, right off the bat. Not true for 3E rangers and paladins, and barely true for bards (even if you have a high Cha as a first level bard, you can only cast cantrips). So only four and a half of the eleven 3E core classes have basic access to magic.

Add the fact that AU has no multi-classing penalties, no distinction between divine & arcane magic, no class-specific spell lists (great selection when you're a ranger, let's face it -- you're *going* to take _entangle_) and no dictates about who can take Use Magic Device and I would say spellcasting is generally less restrictive in AU.

Is a runethane going to kick a sorceror's butt in a head to head magic duel? No. 

But he might be able to heal the warmain before the BBEG k-o's him.

-Thrommel, who might have let his feelings about bards slip out a little bit there with that 'and a half' comment.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 30, 2003)

Monks get supernatural abilities and Dimension Door. IMO that is magic.



> (great selection when you're a ranger, let's face it -- you're going to take entangle)




Speak for yourself!  I will never take that spell as a ranger. I'd rather take a flavorful ranger spell like Longstrider and not pretend to be a magister.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 30, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *Well, if we're back at the fireburst examples, then yeah, 10-foot radius isn't as good as twenty, but it's a 1st level spell, that uses 2 1st-level slots (which, in the fluid system, is 2/3rds of a 2ndlevel spell) It shouldn't be anywhere near that good, if you use the phb as a guide.
> 
> In any case, sorcerous bolt is very similar to lightning bolt (just with more flexibility as to what kind of bolt is it). If you're worried about fireburst comparisons, then look at sorcerous bolt versus lightning bolt. *




Fireburst has a hideous limitation in that it bursts out of an existing fire. If no such fire is present, then fireburst is useless. We did have fun with the witch readying an action to blast out a fireburst (with the fire template, yup yup yup) right after another PC tossed out alchemist fire.

But if you're minmaxing AU spell casters and you aren't using Spell Affinity, you really don't know what you're doing. 

PS


----------



## willpax (Jul 30, 2003)

I realize that there are many variables outside the system as it is written on paper that affect the issue of high/low magic flavor, but I would be intersted in an assessment of the tendencies of the system beyond simple damage numbers. 

If D&D 3e as written tends to high magic (an assumption for sake of discussion), then how does the AU system compare? How many changes would be needed to run this system in a low magic homebrew? 

(I'm struggling to create my own system, and am always looking for someone else to have done the work for me).


----------



## Storminator (Jul 30, 2003)

willpax said:
			
		

> *I realize that there are many variables outside the system as it is written on paper that affect the issue of high/low magic flavor, but I would be intersted in an assessment of the tendencies of the system beyond simple damage numbers.
> 
> If D&D 3e as written tends to high magic (an assumption for sake of discussion), then how does the AU system compare? How many changes would be needed to run this system in a low magic homebrew?
> 
> (I'm struggling to create my own system, and am always looking for someone else to have done the work for me). *




Our experience as playtesters was, if you try to run AU like a regular D&D game, you get your :bleep: handed to you on a platter. Our spell casters were tossing out heightened and laden spells like mad, to get all those cool effects and big blasts, and at the end of the fight, there's no healing. Healing is harder to come by (Battle Healing is a 2nd level spell, and not as good as CLW) so you're down to one fight a day. 

Every time we tried to stretch things out we got a TPK.

A lot of AU classes get magic (witches, mageblade, runethane, greenbond, magister) and a lot of classes have magic-like abilities (akashic, champion, oathsworn, some totem warriors). So if you want a real low magic game, there's a lot you have to pull out. 

But if you want some magic in your game, you could make classes like witches and runethanes your magic classes, and that would work really well. I'm contemplating some ideas like this for a game of my own, but they aren't real developed yet.

PS


----------



## Thrommel (Jul 30, 2003)

I think AU operates under the assumption that magic is more pervasive than in D&D -- everybody can do a little magic and the setting is charged with magic & fantasy.

One of the key concepts embedded in AU is that magic makes fantastic things possible -- you can do a ritual and become bonded with your sword, giving you +1 to attack. You can use someone's truename to dominate them. You can create your own unique spell. And so on.

That said, if you wanted to run a low-magic campaign, I think if you simply removed the greenbond and magister characters and used the 'secondary' spellcasters (runethane, mage blade, witch) you could run a low magic campaign that wouldn't be as radically impacted as if you were to take traditional D&D and just ditch sorcerors, wizards, clerics and druids.

In other words, you'd easily be able to run a game where magic is low-powered. 

If you're looking for a world where magic is scarce, that has your typical challenges of healing, dealing with magical beasts, etc. -- just like D&D would.

-Thrommel


----------



## kenjib (Jul 30, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *
> Interesting note: Since the XP chart isn't SRD, Monte had to make his own, which is basically 1,100 * current level + 1 to level. I thought at first that this was just picking a different number to satisfy legal demons, but a playtester said that in addition to that, Monte considers the core classes slightly more powerful than 3e classes, but not noticably so, such that it seems like it's okay to either ignore it and use the PHB chart, or drop as the book does, a -10% penalty on AU classes.
> 
> Or, of course, if you don't use EL/CR, and don't mix 3.0/AU then it really doesn't matter. *




Is that kind of strange for one of the authors of the 3e DMG to go back to the 1e/2e tradition of assigning different XP charts for different classes depending on how powerful they are?

Also, I assume this means that it's OGC and not d20, right?

I think the magister sounds cool, but there aren't enough bits to steal for me to make the price tag worthwhile.


----------



## Thrommel (Jul 30, 2003)

Just to clarify, all the classes in AU use the same XP chart.

Since it's an OGL book, there is no direct reference to the D&D core classes.

If you want to mix & match, pick one chart and use that. It's more a technical legal issue than a compelling design choice, IMO.

-Thrommel


----------



## woodelf (Jul 30, 2003)

Barcode said:
			
		

> *Disappointed.
> 
> I understand the desire to present this as an "alternate PHB", meaning that you won't need a Players Handbook, but how realistic is that?  Just about everyone who buys this will own the PHB anyway.  Therefore, the estimated 40-60% of the book dedicated to reprinting SRD core mechanics are wasted repetition for anyone who already owns a PHB.
> 
> ...




Contrasting view:
I don't own any D&D3E books.  I likely never will.  This is not my dislike of D20 so much as my disappointment in the WotC books.  AU has me converted--i'm getting a copy as soon as i have the money.  If it had required a PH, i probably wouldn't buy it.  

With some of the optional rules in Diamond Throne (armor as DR, frex), i think this is in every way superior as a game to both D&D3E and D&D3.5E.  If you like D&D3/3.5E will you like this more? Can't say for certain.  But if you don't like D&D3/3.5E, i'd give this a look anyway.  IMHO, this is a *way* better buy than the new D&D books.

On layout: i like it.  It's clean, if a bit plain.  Much easier on the eyes than the D&D books.  From a cursory flip-through, much better organized and better written, too.  It may not be visually appealing--it *is* fairly plain--but neither is it visually off-putting, like the D&D core books.

oh, as for reprinted material: i doubt there's anywhere near that much reprinted (without the book in front of me to reference).  Many of the things that are reprinted are also significantly altered.  Take spells: they've had many more descriptors added, diminished and enhanced versions added, and all been classified as Simple/Complex/Exotic.  Couple that with rewritten spells,deleted spells, and new spells, and i suspect you'd be bitching at the difficulty of cross-referencing the info in AU and the PH had they not just reprinted all the spells that it uses.  

So, where do you get 40-60% from? Do skills, combat (and i believe that's been slighly changed), reprinted feats, reprinted equipment, Abilities, and reprinted spell descriptions really make up that much of the book? Doubtful.


Finally, if you just want some of the bits, buy the PDF versions.  Me, i'm disappointed that i have to buy the book, because not all of teh content is found in the PDFs.


----------



## Psion (Jul 30, 2003)

Thrommel said:
			
		

> *Since it's an OGL book, there is no direct reference to the D&D core classes.*




Um, that really has nothing to do with it. The core classes are in the SRD, so could have been used here had Monte wanted.


----------



## kenjib (Jul 30, 2003)

Thrommel said:
			
		

> *Just to clarify, all the classes in AU use the same XP chart.
> 
> Since it's an OGL book, there is no direct reference to the D&D core classes.
> 
> ...




Ah, I see.  Good point.

-Kenji


----------



## BryonD (Jul 30, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> Um, that really has nothing to do with it. The core classes are in the SRD, so could have been used here had Monte wanted. *




I am just speculating.

I think that while AU is compatible with normal D&D, part of the goal was to be optional used as a compleetely stand alone replacement for the PH.  To meet that goal there would need to be an XP progression.  He can't use the PH progression because it isn't open.  Therefore, he had to modify.

No big deal.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 30, 2003)

Thrommel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So keep in mind that the two approaches are very different. D&D assumes that magic is in the hands of a few (clerics/wizards/sorcerors - with a split between divine and arcane magic) and is rather rigid in spell effect and casting frequency. AU assumes that many people have access to some type of spell ability (five of the eleven classes wield magic using basically the same spell list) and puts a lot of choices at the caster's disposal.
> 
> ...




I don't have AU yet but I'm wondering if we're playing the same D&D game.

Bard: Spellcaster
Barbarian: Non
Cleric: Spellcaster
Druid: Spellcaster
Fighter: Non
Monk: Non
Paladin: Spellcaster
Ranger: Spellcaster
Rogue: Non
Sorcerer: Spellcaster
Wizard: Spellcaster

So out of 12 classes, 7 cast spells and that's in tha hands of a few? And a 'split' betweeen arcane and divination? I agree that there are some differences but between domains and general purposes spells, there is a ton of overlap, especially with the classes that use spells on both lists.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey Joe,

You are missing a Rogue.  He appears to have found a calling in life.


----------



## Macbeth (Jul 30, 2003)

As was said in an earlier post, you really can't consider the half-and-half spellcasting/combat classes (Ranger, Paladin) Spellcasters, they only get a very few spells: you'll never replace you party cleric with a paladin. the ranger and paladin only dabble in magic, and therefore don't really count as spellcasters. 

And by the way, magic is divided into Arcane and  *Divine*  , not divinaton.

I also noticed your list has the "priest" last time i checked there was no priest class. I thought that maybe you ment "cleric," but thats already on your list. Odd.

Also, the Bard is hardly a competent spellcaster. he gets a few spells from a very narrow list. At best the bard is half a spellcaster.  So now the chart reads:

Bard: Half Spellcaster
Barbarian: Non
Cleric: Spellcaster
Druid: Spellcaster
Fighter: Non
Monk: Non
Paladin: Not enough to matter
Ranger: Not enough to matter
Rogue: Non
Sorcerer: Spellcaster
Wizard: Spellcaster

That gives us four and a half spellcasters (or five and a half if you generously count the Paladin and Ranger as half each) out of 11 classes. Less then half of the classes have any meaningful ability in magic. 

Having said that, I think tha both AU and D&D are high magic. 'nuff said.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 30, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *Hey Joe,
> 
> You are missing a Rogue.  He appears to have found a calling in life. *




Goes to edit post.

Why BryonD, what do you mean?


----------



## Thrommel (Jul 30, 2003)

Maybe the larger point that I'm trying to make is better put a different way.

In D&D, magic is fairly specialized. If I'm a cleric, I can heal people, cast protective spells, bolster my allies, etc. If I'm a wizard, I can do some flash-bang magic, readily attack at range, charm people, and so on.

But those two roles don't cross very much. A cleric generally isn't going to lightning bolt a line of monsters and you're hard pressed to get your wizard to heal anyone  -- including himself, and he probably needs it the worst of anyone.

In AU, the system provides a lot more flexibility to spellcasters. Need some ka-boom spells but want some healing capability to fall back on?  Just ready the proper spells.  You don't need to do any weird multi-classing or take some bizarre PrC. At worst, you have to take a feat or two. AU gives you a lot more options in spell selection, along with greater flexibility in how often you can cast. 

So you can define the role of your character, rather than having your character define it for you. You don't have any more of this "Is this a wilderness or dungeon adventure, cause I was thinking about playing a druid."

-Thrommel


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2003)

Thrommel said:
			
		

> *So you can define the role of your character, rather than having your character define it for you. You don't have any more of this "Is this a wilderness or dungeon adventure, cause I was thinking about playing a druid."
> 
> -Thrommel *




So, are you saying I can not create a "wilderness" character in AU?  

Seriously, AU sounds fairly cool to me, but I think you are overstating the case here.  

If I want to create a Druid and then find out that the DM  (or is it AM?) is running an AU game, can't I still build that concept?  And then wouldn't I be back to hoping that it isn't a dungeon centered campaign? 

I can build a character to fit more or less any reasonable concept in D&D.  I expect this is true for AU as well.  

In D&D I can create specialized or generalized characters.  If I create a specialized character then I face the chance that it may not be an idela match for the given campaign.

If this is not still true in AU, then the only thing that could mean is that my options for creating specialized characters has been curtailed.  Which would be a bad thing.  Somehow, I doubt this is the case.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2003)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Goes to edit post.
> 
> Why BryonD, what do you mean? *




Well Joe, You know they say the life of a priest can be challenging.  I guess sometimes some people may slip back to their former lifestyle.


----------



## darkbard (Jul 31, 2003)

i think thrommel's point re: spellcasters is that you can't easily be a successful all-around caster in 3e/3.5.  if you are a cleric, you are basically a healer/party buffer/protector, whereas if you're an arcane caster, you've got no healing ability but the abilty to dish out tons of damage and a variety of multipurpose spells.  in AU, there is no such class divide.  potentially every spell in the book is open to every caster, be it by feat or class ability.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2003)

darkbard said:
			
		

> *i think thrommel's point re: spellcasters is that you can't easily be a successful all-around caster in 3e/3.5.  if you are a cleric, you are basically a healer/party buffer/protector, whereas if you're an arcane caster, you've got no healing ability but the abilty to dish out tons of damage and a variety of multipurpose spells.  in AU, there is no such class divide.  potentially every spell in the book is open to every caster, be it by feat or class ability. *




So how does the wilderness/dungeon part fit in?

My point was not disputing this.  It was that his presentation of his point goes to far.  

I am hoping my book will show up tomorrow, so I can discuss in more detail, rather than just based on second hand knowledge.

Obviously the wizard can not heal.  But the bard does a fine job of catch all.  The cleric has a lot more blasting potential than you are allowing.  And the druid is nicely rounded as well.

But I am not trying to say that D&D is equivalent to AU.  God, I would hope not.  But I think the comparison we are getting seems a bit slanted.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 31, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So, are you saying I can not create a "wilderness" character in AU?  *




He meant in 3E/3.5E.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> He meant in 3E/3.5E. *




Sorry, but you have completely mis-read my post.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 31, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No I do not. Furthermore the continuing mantra of the book being different just to be different is beyond stupid in my opinion.
> 
> Reminds me of a rebellious teenager. *




I never got that impression--has Monte said it outright at some point?  To me, it comes across as changing things just to be better--and, in most cases, i think he's succeeded.  If i had to choose just one set of base classes or races, i'd choose those in AU over the D&D3E PH.  Ditto for feat lists and spell lists.  And i *love* the way he's dealt with spell lists, spell descriptors, and caster level stacking.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 31, 2003)

Barcode said:
			
		

> *Good to know.  Thanks.  Anyone want a gently used copy of AU?
> 
> Nah, I'll probably keep it on the shelf for ideas, though I suspect mixing in most elements into an otherwise straight 3.0/3.5 game would be difficult without some nerfing.  As I said before, I liked the races, and I might use some elements of the magic rules in my houseruled magic system for my D20 Modern/Urban Arcana game.  I also liked the hero points, and will probably use them as is.  I can't say much about the classes, since I didn't read them carefully yet, but they did not seem at first glance to be generic enough to use outside the context of a Diamond Throne campaign without also using a couple of the 3.x classes.
> 
> ...




Well, if you change your mind, i might be interested in buying youl AU.  Given my current budget, and the fact that i'm not all that likely to actually play it (but rather just mine it for ideas), i'll buy it used if i can.  I'd rather buy the PDFs--like you, i consider this content a steal at PDF prices, but a bit steep at hardcover prices--but not all of the content of AU is contained in the PDFs, even if you get all of them.  Grrrr...

As for hype: it depends on the hype you read.  I expected it to be flavorful (something D&D isn't), more flexible, less rulesy and more GM-dependent, and better written (this last isn't something anyone said, just my opinion of the writing in the D&D3E PH.

And WRT duplicate content: this may be the book that finally gets me to play, or even run, a D20 game.  I absolutely adore Spycraft, but i'm not interested in the action/espionage genre.  I love B5, but i'm likely to just mine it for the setting and convert it to Fudge, CORPS, EABA, or Tri-Stat.  AU is the second D20 game to get me interested in the rules side of the game (Spycraft was the first), and i love the elements of the setting.  I'd likely take what's in AU and run with it, rather than using Diamond Throne--just as i've always taken the core elements of D&D and built my own setting around them.  And if i were to do so, there's a good chance there wouldn't be a D&D PH at the table--i certainly don't own one, and don't intend to buy one.I don't care if it's compatible with D&D (3 or 3.5), because there's precious little that i don't dislike in the current version of D&D (dislike the way the races are structured, how the classes are built, how spellcasting works, how clerics work, how combat works, how psionics work, and how a good chunk of the feats work). 

Actually, that's not quite the whole truth: i played in a D&D3E game for 2 years.  I joined only under duress (long story).  Once i let my guard down and actually started learning the system, the more familiar i got with the system, the more i disliked it.  Every couple of weeks i'd discover another element that bugged me.  But the only D20 product i've bought to date is Dynasties & Demagogues, and that's mostly to mine for ideas for non-D20 systems. AU has me genuinely excited about gaming.  So it's done something right.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 31, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sorry, but you have completely mis-read my post. *




Mea culpa.  I was confused.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 31, 2003)

anonystu said:
			
		

> *The sixth-level battle sorceror pulls out a lightning bolt: 6d6
> That sixth-level magister, who has all the simple and complex spells in the book, can pull out an empowered firefire eldritch sorcerous bolt (a lightning bolt where you choose the element): (6d6 + 2d6) * 1.5 = 12d6 for two third level slots and 20gp.
> *




Um, how is using two 3rd-level slots and 20gp and two feats to do 12d6 damage more powerful than using two 3rd-level slots to do 12d6 damage? Seems to me your example is in the sorcerer's favor. All the magister is doing is doing it in one round instead of two--certainly a reasonable tradeoff for 2 feats and some money?


----------



## woodelf (Jul 31, 2003)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> *So out of 12 classes, 7 cast spells and that's in tha hands of a few? And a 'split' betweeen arcane and divination? I agree that there are some differences but between domains and general purposes spells, there is a ton of overlap, especially with the classes that use spells on both lists. *




You mean like how everyone can heal?


----------



## woodelf (Jul 31, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *I think that while AU is compatible with normal D&D, part of the goal was to be optional used as a compleetely stand alone replacement for the PH.  To meet that goal there would need to be an XP progression.  He can't use the PH progression because it isn't open.  Therefore, he had to modify.
> 
> No big deal. *




Not true (on the facts--can't speak to Monte's motives).  The WotC OGL does nothing to prevent you from recreating the experience chart for D&D--it's a simple mathematical progression.  The D20 license, OTOH, explicitly forbids describing how to level up.  However, it does *not* forbid creating a new XP chart--you just can't tell the reader what to do with that XP chart.  Anyway, i thought  AU was just using the WotC OGL, not the D20STL--am i mistaken?


----------



## Thrommel (Jul 31, 2003)

_Why_ did I know that druid comment was going to get me in trouble?

I guess my point is that the D&D magic system tries to confine your character to certain roles, while the AU approach adapts itself to your concept.

D&D lays out a framework for each character and if you want to buck the typical role, you're going to have to bend that frame to make it work. 

AU has a more modular approach, yielding more flexibility and variety.

Sure, a talented and veteran player can make almost any class work with a particular concept. But it's a question of effort.

Why work that hard?

-Thrommel


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> *
> Not true (on the facts--can't speak to Monte's motives).  The WotC OGL does nothing to prevent you from recreating the experience chart for D&D--it's a simple mathematical progression.  The D20 license, OTOH, explicitly forbids describing how to level up.  However, it does *not* forbid creating a new XP chart--you just can't tell the reader what to do with that XP chart.  Anyway, i thought  AU was just using the WotC OGL, not the D20STL--am i mistaken? *




It is the D20STL that forbids describing progression.  And clearly that part is irrelevant because AU does not use the D20STL.

However, the point is not that the OGL does not forbid it, rather, that it does not provide an allowance for using the D&D system.  So under the OGL only a progression may be allowed.  BUT, the D&D progression does not exist in the SRD and is not Open.  Your point that it could be re-produced because it is simply a mathematical progression is way beyond my non-lawyer assessment.  But I think that would certainly be a possible point of contention.  

So one the one hand, that would make a possible legal vulnerability that just isn't worht the trade-off (the 10% revised system is fine; I'd guess that the "more powerful" comment is a hand wave as much as anything; and a house rule to D&D standard is obvious and simple)

And on the other hand, and far more significant in my mind, the D20 community, so far, has shown a clear spirit of working together, above and beyond the legal requirements.  Monte has been among the more out spoken advocates of this approach.  So even if he could reproduce the D&D chart by using a simple loophole, I tend to doubt that Monte would.

Again, the above is entirely my personal non-lawyer speculation.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2003)

Thrommel said:
			
		

> *
> I guess my point is that the D&D magic system tries to confine your character to certain roles, while the AU approach adapts itself to your concept.
> 
> D&D lays out a framework for each character and if you want to buck the typical role, you're going to have to bend that frame to make it work.
> -Thrommel *




Thrommel,

I appreciate that there is a group of people who are highly enthusiatic about AU.  That is cool.

But I guess I just have to take your comments as coming from an advocate rather than from an independant reviewer.


----------



## Thrommel (Jul 31, 2003)

And that's entirely appropriate. I'm obviously an enthusiastic fan who's way more involved in AU than your average gamer. 

That being said, these are my honest opinions based on 20 years of playing D&D and spending the past 6 months playtesting AU.  I'm just trying to explain what it is about AU that _makes_ me such an enthusiastic fan.

But as always, YMMV. My advice is: check out the book or pick up the PDF's next week, play a session or two, and we can compare notes then.

-Thrommel


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2003)

Thrommel said:
			
		

> *And that's entirely appropriate. I'm obviously an enthusiastic fan who's way more involved in AU than your average gamer.
> 
> That being said, these are my honest opinions based on 20 years of playing D&D and spending the past 6 months playtesting AU.  I'm just trying to explain what it is about AU that makes me such an enthusiastic fan.
> 
> ...




I certainly understand.  And I did not mean any offence.  I can relate to the enthusiasm for something new.

This exchange seems to be coming off as me questioning the merits of AU.  I'm not.  

The point to me is that there is a big difference between saying the AU is cool because AU <<fill in the blank>>, and saying D&D isn't as good as AU because D&D <<fill in the blank>>.  

Even if your statement about D&D was true, I do not think that is a good sales approach.  And in this specific case, I think your statement is in fact not correct.

That is all.

I'm not attacking AU, just defending D&D.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 31, 2003)

Incidentally, I just read over Plague of Dreams, FDP's AU adventure. _Very_ nice. So are the AU counters.  Next, I'll be reading MEG's adventure for the system (Ebonring Keep) which also looks superb.


----------



## Apok (Jul 31, 2003)

Got my copy yesterday and I'm thouroughly enjoying it.  As far as the magic system is concnerned, I like alot more than D&D's Vancian system.  The sheer level of flexability you get when casting is incredible, especially when you consider all the feats that let you modify your spells on the fly.  

I admit I wasn't terribly impressed with most of the new races.  In fact, the only two I really liked were the Giants and Faen.  The Sibeccai, Litorians, and Mojh just seemed to be anthropomorphic "filler" designed to take the place of your more traditional fantasy races.  Of course, if your into the whole "cat-man" and "dog-man" thing, you'll probably dig them.  The concept of each race having racial levels so that they can augment their natural abilities is a great one and I definitely think it should be used more in the future.  The Verrik are... well, different, but you could just as easily swap them out with Githyanki or Githzerai as a playable PC race.  

The class section is definitely my favorite.  Almost every class made me think, "damn that's cool!"  Lots of flavor and interesting concepts, though I think Monte definitely triumphed with the Witch and Akashic classes.  My biggest complaint was the fact that the Warmain and Unfettered classes, while good, are rather blah when compared to the others.  Not saying that they are unbalanced or weak, just not very "sexy."  Also, given the choice between playing an Oathsworn and a 3.5 Monk, I'll take the Monk.  

The chapter devoted to feats is about what you'd expect, lots of familiar feats and lots of cool new feats.  Monte, bless him, avoided the temptation to make a bunch of "+2 to Two Skills" feats and just made a single feat that could cover all of 'em.  Go Monte!  The various ceremony feats exist primarily to give your character cool special abilities like Opportunist, Defensive Roll, etc.  There are also Talents, which are basically feats you can only take at 1st level.   Ambidexterity falls under this category, as do a few others that give you some pretty nice benefits.  

The spells chapter is one which I haven't fully had time to go over yet.  It's a big chapter and most of the spells in it are different than your typicall D&D fare.  The fact that every spell has a normal, diminished, and heightened effect is excellent.  It's just one more thing that enhances the overall flexability of AU's spell system and gives the player's more options to play with.  

Overall, I think the book is top notch, though I don't know if I would play or run it strictly as written.  For example, there really isn't a class that functions as a direct corollary to the Bard, so I would probably do some quick modifications to fit him into the AU spell system.  I would probably also convert the Ranger and Monk classes over just to have a couple of "generic" classes in the mix.  While the AU classes are great, some of them carry alot of roleplaying baggage which might make it difficult for some people to really dig the class.   Fortunately, this is an easy thing to fix, so it's all good.

If anyone has any questions regarding AU, feel free to ask.


----------



## RobNJ (Jul 31, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No I do not. Furthermore the continuing mantra of the book being different just to be different is beyond stupid in my opinion.
> 
> Reminds me of a rebellious teenager. *



This description would also seem to fit your presence on this thread.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 31, 2003)

Apok said:
			
		

> *
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> ...




I think you can build a pretty respectable Bard from multiclassing AU classes. Akashic/witch or akashic/mageblade would do very well.

PS


----------



## Olorin (Jul 31, 2003)

*Song Witch*

Someone on the Malhavoc message boards is working on some variant witches, one of which is a Song Witch. Looks promising... a Song Witch/Akashic would make a good sound-focused all around type character.

http://pub102.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm29.showMessage?topicID=562.topic


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 31, 2003)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *This description would also seem to fit your presence on this thread. *




Enough, please. He edited out later comments; please let the insults drop.

Thank you.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 31, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You mean like how everyone can heal? *




I hope everyone can heal! Can you imagine having to get repaired or something!

Oh, you mean casting spells to heal.

Well, D&D isn't the only game by a longshot to seperate things into the damage/heal factors and it seems to work pretty well.

Having said that, bards, clerics, druids, rangers and paladins do have healing spells so that leaves out sorcerers and wizards which leaves pretty much 5 out of the 7 spellcasters with some healing ability.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 31, 2003)

Since nobody has particularly mentioned this, some other points I've noticed on my initial skim through.

Ceremonies. The implied setting puts a lot of store on ceremonies, and many important or powerful feats require a ceremony with the presence of appropriate friends to complete. I like this.

Truenames. Characters need truenames to get some feats, to be affected by some good spells (so you want your friends to know your truename) and also some bad spells (so you *don't* want your enemies to know it!).

The Wounded Land. OK, Not directly, but I seem to remember seeing Stephen Donaldson the author with a mention somewhere on the credits page? And thinking about it the Thomas Covenant books included friendly giants, the bloodguard who remind me of the oathsworn, the wizardy-guys who used staffs... I wonder if Monte was attributing a degree of inspiration? Just guessing.

I like the fact that it has no alignment and no detect evil style magics. You have to suss out people and their actions for what they are.

I like the unified spell list and the variety in casting. Another thing that nobody has mentioned yet is "power components". Anyone with the dosh can pick up and use special very-expensive material components to improve a spell. Nice flavour. If you see the arch-magister raise an emerald in his fist as he starts casting, you might want to duck!

Cheers


----------



## RobNJ (Jul 31, 2003)

*The scales have fallen away from my eyes (or something)*

I can't really explain how enthusiastic I am about this book.  I had basically given up all remaining love my heart had for D&D (for the second time, actually, came back for 3E and then became disillusioned again).  But reading this thing has rekindled an enthusiasm for the game that I never thought would come back.  In a day of reading I have 2 pages worth of ideas for a campiagn, and I'm not done reading all of the first class entry.

Flexibility, flavor-first, good engaging writing, ideas that make you go, "God, why didn't I think of that?"  The list goes on and on.

I think it's summed up by the way I put it to a friend of mine:  This is how D&D _should_ be.


----------



## Lalato (Jul 31, 2003)

A lot of folks seem to be gushing over AU.  While I think AU is definitely deserving of said gushing... I don't think people are giving enough credit to the game that spawned it:  DnD.

I have both 3.5 and AU.  I like both of them.  They're both good, but in different ways.  Personally, I like the fact that I now have such a diversity of good material to pick over.

I only got into 3e DnD in the last 9 months.  I found it to be very good.  I have always enjoyed playing what are now the traditional DnD archetypes.  I'm pretty sure I'll never get tired of playing them.  

That said, AU offers some new and alien archetypes.  It is important to note that these archetypes are alien because I hear these nagging questions from myself and others...  "Well, how do I play a [insert traditional DnD archetype here] in AU?"  There are very few direct analogs between DnD and AU.  Does that mean that one or the other is better?  No, but they are different.  Does that mean that one is more flavorful than the other?  No, they're just different.

Now after all of that...  My group is converting to AU, but we're tacking the Psionics Handbook to it.  Why?  call us kooky, but we like the PsiHB... and it's an integral part of our current campaign.  

My character is 3.5 Ranger2/PsiWar2.  There are no direct correlates for Ranger in AU.   This made my conversion difficult, but not impossible.  Based on the history of my character I realized that the following progression made sense, but also gave him enough Ranger cred that it might actually work...

Level 1 = Unfettered
Level 2 = Wolf Totem Warrior
Level 3 & 4 = Psychic Warrior

It's a bit of an odd progression, but it made sense for the character.  Do the first two levels really make a Ranger?  Not exactly, but they do make a very interesting Ranger-like character.  I'm happy with the results.  

I'll found out this Sunday whether I like playing this new "Ranger" better than my old Ranger.  Either way, I like the archetypes from both systems.

--sam

EDIT:  grammar


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 31, 2003)

I love AU, especially the classes. However, does the Oathsworn seem to be even weaker than the 3.0 Monk? I mean, the ability to ignore food, water, fatigue, etc. in a game is nice, but how often do those abilities even come up in a typical game? Wouldn't you rather have Slow Fall or Still Mind? 

Further, the ability to penetrate Damage Reduction is rather poor as well. Given the Oathsworn's lack of base attack, a Hands as Weapons will be needed to add enhancement bonuses to the Oathsworn's attack so that he can hit.

Also, without the Monk's ability to add Wis to AC, an Oathsworn's AC will likely be lower as well. 

Did I forget a few abilities of the Oathsworn here, or is it really that weak?


----------



## Breakstone (Jul 31, 2003)

I'll be picking this up tomorrow at my FLCBS (friendly local comic book shop... and the only one in Marin County to boot!), but I have a few questions right now:

1) Is there a list of monsters for Arcana Unearthed, or are you expected to use the Monster Manuals? If the latter, do the monsters in 3.0 stand up to the challenge of fighting AU characters, or do they need to be adjusted?

2) Are there any races that fit the niche of the "mining" or "mountain guys," like Gnomes and Dwarves do in D&D?

3) Is the game especially suited for Dungeon Crawling, as 3.5 seems to be (from my impressions), overland exploration, political games, or a mix of all three? Or something I haven't thought of yet?

Thanks for your time, folks- it looks as if Mr. Cook pulled of a very successful book.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2003)

Thrommel said:
			
		

> *
> But as always, YMMV. My advice is: check out the book or pick up the PDF's next week, play a session or two, and we can compare notes then.
> 
> -Thrommel *




OK I got the book and just spent the last 2 1/2 hours devouring it.  Clearly, this is not enough to go making final judgements.

But my initial impression is as follows:  

Well worth the money.
Lots of cool ideas and mechanics.

As a stand alone replacement for the D&D PH, I do not see me switching over.  I would happily try some one shots and am certain it will be a cool short term alternative to our regular game.

But I think D&D is a better game overall.

Largely this appears to be because it shows how much AU was worked around D&D so as to be a different system.  It seems that being different than D&D was sometimes more important than being as good.

Also, I find parts of it to be significantly less readily convertable than previously advertised.  Things like collective knowledge and truenames and cultural relations seem pretty heavily built in.  Plus, as often discussed, the magic system is not purely compatible (meaning it is not mix and match).

Finally, I really like 3.5 and seeing some of the old 3E stuff that I like less was unappealing.  Obviously, this part is the easiest to house rule around.

I'll comment more over time as I get to now things better.


----------



## Apok (Jul 31, 2003)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> *I love AU, especially the classes. However, does the Oathsworn seem to be even weaker than the 3.0 Monk? I mean, the ability to ignore food, water, fatigue, etc. in a game is nice, but how often do those abilities even come up in a typical game? Wouldn't you rather have Slow Fall or Still Mind?
> 
> Further, the ability to penetrate Damage Reduction is rather poor as well. Given the Oathsworn's lack of base attack, a Hands as Weapons will be needed to add enhancement bonuses to the Oathsworn's attack so that he can hit.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I don't care much for the Oathsworn as a "replacement monk."  To my mind, the 3.5 Monk (heck, even 3.0) is far superior in the combative sense.  I think this one would've done much better as a Prestige Class rather than a Core class.


----------



## Apok (Jul 31, 2003)

Tsunami said:
			
		

> *
> 1) Is there a list of monsters for Arcana Unearthed, or are you expected to use the Monster Manuals? If the latter, do the monsters in 3.0 stand up to the challenge of fighting AU characters, or do they need to be adjusted?
> *




You are expected to use the Monster Manuals, since the summoning spells make direct reference to creatures from the MM.  You could theoretically also use monsters from the Creature Collections, Tome of Horrors, Monsternomicon, etc.  As to weather or not the monsters need to be adjusted, I don't know because I haven't "field-tested" any of the AU classes yet.  For myself, I just plan on using monsters with the conversions recommended in the 3.5 Conversion Guide.  



> *
> 2) Are there any races that fit the niche of the "mining" or "mountain guys," like Gnomes and Dwarves do in D&D?
> *




Not particularly, no, though you could make an argument for mountain-dwelling giants or Sibeccai miners.  However, none of the races presented have any abilities directly geared towards mining or subterrainean endeavors.



> *
> 3) Is the game especially suited for Dungeon Crawling, as 3.5 seems to be (from my impressions), overland exploration, political games, or a mix of all three? Or something I haven't thought of yet?
> *




From what I've seen, it could work well for all three.


----------



## Apok (Jul 31, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But my initial impression is as follows:
> 
> ...




Yeah, I'm kinda with you on this one.  I don't necessarily like everything presented in AU and wouldn't run it straight up, but with a few modifications and some things from 3.5e thrown in.  I think the biggest draw for me is the magic system (which I like better than standard D&D) and the classes.  

My current plan is to devise a way to integrate Bards, Rangers, and Monks into the system and run it in a Scarred Lands campaign.


----------



## tburdett (Jul 31, 2003)

AU is probably one of the best d20 products that I will never buy.  I love, and frequently buy, your other stuff Monte, but this one is just too out there for me.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Aug 1, 2003)

> 1) Is there a list of monsters for Arcana Unearthed, or are you expected to use the Monster Manuals? If the latter, do the monsters in 3.0 stand up to the challenge of fighting AU characters, or do they need to be adjusted?




There will be an expanded list (and additional setting-specific monsters) forthcoming in The Diamond Throne, due out toward the end of August. Monte has said that he's going to recommend monsters from Tome of Horrors and Creature Collection that are also appropriate.

So far (one adventure in), the 3.0 monsters that I've used were fine. I bump them up to deal with my 3.0 group to begin with, but unadjusted they were okay. Of course, this is a statistically nil sample size and you should try on your own. 



> 2) Are there any races that fit the niche of the "mining" or "mountain guys," like Gnomes and Dwarves do in D&D?




Well, no PC race anyway.... FWIW, you could certainly import gnomes or dwarves if you want them in your game. A dwarf warmain might be a neat contrast to the giant warmain!



> 3) Is the game especially suited for Dungeon Crawling, as 3.5 seems to be (from my impressions), overland exploration, political games, or a mix of all three? Or something I haven't thought of yet?




Dang, good question! Let's go with "something I haven't though of yet" either. I would say its suitable for adventures where your PCs will go "Cool! I can do what?!" 

Though it is an alternate player's handbook, so to some extent you're not dependant on the _dungeon_  but the D&D design standard of 4 encounters per day to keep the PCs on their toes. Still I like plenty of RP challenges, and it's working fine so far.


----------



## Mystic Eye (Aug 1, 2003)

Have any of you looked through Siege on Ebonring Keep yet? We went to great pains to introduce the feel and new options of AU/Diamond throne to the adventure in order to introduce people to all the differences.


----------



## Michael Tree (Aug 1, 2003)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> *However, does the Oathsworn seem to be even weaker than the 3.0 Monk? I mean, the ability to ignore food, water, fatigue, etc. in a game is nice, but how often do those abilities even come up in a typical game? Wouldn't you rather have Slow Fall or Still Mind?
> 
> Further, the ability to penetrate Damage Reduction is rather poor as well. Given the Oathsworn's lack of base attack, a Hands as Weapons will be needed to add enhancement bonuses to the Oathsworn's attack so that he can hit.
> 
> ...



It's not weak at all.  It's true that the Hands as Weapons feat is a 'must have' for oathsworn, but it's also a major part of what makes them worthwhile: it's essentially a magic item that cannot be broken or taken away, which applies to all the oathsworn's attacks.  By a generous reading of the Thrown Objects and Objects as Weapons abilities, the magical bonuses also apply to these improvised weapons.

I do greatly prefer the 3.5 approach to multiple monk attacks to the 3.0/AU one.  In 3.0 it was often nicknamed "flurry of misses" for a reason.  If I make one house rule for AU, this will be it.  

As for AC, Oathsworn may have a lower AC at low levels, but in the long run they balance out.  A monk with an 18 Wis and a +6 item enhancement bonus to Wis will have a total of +11 to AC at 20th level, while an Oathsworn will have a +10.

The lack of Wis-based AC and abilities also means that an Oathsworn doesn't need to put a high attribute in Wis, so he could put it in Str, Dex, or Con instead, and be more physically potent than a monk.


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 1, 2003)

My point is that Hands as Weapons takes away a lot of the Oathsworn's class abilities. It's a must have feat, and Oathsworn tend not to have many feats.

And by 20th level, most monks will have far more than a 24 Wisdom. He would probably use magical books to raise his Wisdom, giving him another +4 or +5 inherent bonus. Besides, a monk in 3e generally has access to Mage Armor nearly all the time, a luxury the Oathsworn does not enjoy. An Oathsworn will likely be behind the Monk in AC for most , if not all, his career.

Although Oathsworn will be more likely to have higher physical stats than a Monk, the Monk's abilities generally mechanically exceed the Oathsworn's. When a MONK, the weakest class in 3rd Edition*, is more powerful than a class, I think you have problems.

Also, does the feat Hands as Weapons apply to a Winter Witch's Iceblade ability. Otherwise, that thing quickly becomes useless at higher levels.


----------



## Kitsune (Aug 1, 2003)

I prefer the Oathsworn's DR-beating powers to the Monk's, personally.  Beating half their level worth of DR points on a normal attack or beating their full level worth of DR points on a single attack should be ample for dealing with creatures that they'll be running across of the appropriate CR.
Also, those Oathsworn attacks beat an object's hardness rating, allowing them to do truly impressive amounts of property damage.
Then, on top of that, they can take the feat to let their hands be enchanted like weapons, which is just great icing on the cake.


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 1, 2003)

But ordinary monks can get the Amulet of Might Fists, an item them gives an enhancement bonus to all their unarmed attacks.


----------



## Magestrike (Aug 1, 2003)

*I have it now!!!*

We just received our copies at the bookstore I work at tonight, and I now have a copy in my hands.  I havent actually had a chance to look at it...but dang it...at least I have it now.  Woohooo....

So, the book should be filtering into booksotres today and tomorrow, for those interested.

Mage


----------



## Kichwas (Aug 1, 2003)

So, as a d20-ish book, how easy is it to pull the material into a regular DnD 3.5 game?

Are the classes and races balanced with the PHB ones?

What issues might I face if I told my players they could use them?


----------



## Apok (Aug 1, 2003)

arcady said:
			
		

> *So, as a d20-ish book, how easy is it to pull the material into a regular DnD 3.5 game?
> *




Well, that depends on what you are trying to pull.  Pulling in races and classes would be easy, as would transporting the feats.  However, many of the Ceremony feats exist to give characters special abilities that are typically only acquired as Class abilities in 3.5 (Defensive Roll, Skill Mastery, etc) and those that grant access to the Spell Templates probably wouldn't fit very well.  

So, I guess you could say that some things are highly portable while others are less so because of the way the two games are set up.



> *
> Are the classes and races balanced with the PHB ones?
> *





The races I believe are, yes.  The balance might shift when you take into account racial levels, but then it becomes no more unbalancing than allowing the use of Savage Species.  

For the classes, it's much more difficult to say.  I'm positive you could throw in the Champion, Warmain, Oathsworn, Unfettered, and Totem Warrior (which constitute the bulk of the non-spellcasters) into your regular D&D game with little trouble.  The spellcasting classes, however, are a little trickier because AU's spellcasting system is so different.  The Akashic seems to be the only class that I can think of that would definitely not be balanced because it would completely outshine the Rogue in the skill department, which is the Rogue's main schtick.



> *
> What issues might I face if I told my players they could use them? *




Well, any spellcasting class would have to be seriously revamped unless you don't mind having two totally different spellcasting systems running around in your game.  If that's the case, then the AU spellcasters will likely outshine your typical D&D casters in terms of utility and flexability.  Individually speaking, the 3.5 spells are more powerfull but AU's are more open and mutable, especially with the addition of Spell Templates and Weaving spell slots.  Couple this with the fact that AU uses an open spell list and you're looking at a character who could conceivably take over the roles of party healer, buffer, and blast-mage all in one.


----------



## Malacoda (Aug 1, 2003)

I have had the book for a few days now, and these are my general impressions:

Ugly. I do not find the book visually appealing. The cover is fairly good, but the insides do not look good at all. Weird spacing and margin choices, with headers that I do not find distinctive enough. Plus, I don't like most of the art. Even Sam Wood, an artist I like, doesn't seem to be in top form.

I dislike much of the skill section, as I feel Monte made some odd choices on what skills to keep and pitch, especially as compared to 3.5e.  He got rid of Read Lips completely, but kept Innuendo and Intuit Direction?

The races, while different from the generic D&D races, are generic in their own ways, with a few exceptions. Overall, the races didn't do much for me, and I can't see using any of them.

A lot of the classes look interesting. The one exception is the Warmain, which strikes me as Monte basically admitting you need Fighters in most campaigns, since the differences seem negligible.

Magic looks cool, but sometimes seems ill-defined. For example, do all spellcasters know all spells they could theoretically know? Do Mageblades know all the spells they have access, should they be of sufficient level? Or do they have to go out and learn them? What about the others?

Magic, out of all the new stuff, seems to be the most problematic when it comes to integrating with D&D. I do not think this is a crime, since it allows Monte to go different directions. My one real serious complaint is the idea that spells themselves are less powerful for a given level in most situations (which I have not seen as of yet, but many people say it), which means the spells don't compare to D&D spells well. I think sticking with the same power/utility for a given spell level would have been preferable. Who knows, though, perhaps those people are wrong.

Unless I am reading wrong, most spellcasters seem capable of readying more spells than they can cast. This is not an "error," I suppose, but it is not how I expected it to work.

Ultimately, it seems to me that AU is going to be much harder to integrate into D&D than I feel we were lead to believe. It has a lot of interesting ideas, and I have not truly dug into the meat of some sections, but I am still, currently, disappointed. 

I also dislike the fact that the guidelines for integrating the new rules into a D&D game are going to be in a different book. Yeah, yeah, it's a company, make a living, and so on, but I still believe those guidelines should be a free download; many people likely bought it thinking such guidelines would be unnecessary.


----------



## woodelf (Aug 1, 2003)

*Re: I have it now!!!*



			
				Magestrike said:
			
		

> *We just received our copies at the bookstore I work at tonight, and I now have a copy in my hands.  [snip]  So, the book should be filtering into booksotres today and tomorrow, for those interested.
> *




Around here, they've already come and gone--everybody has sold through (that's 3 dedicated game stores), and can't get any more because the distributors have all sold through.  :-(


----------



## woodelf (Aug 1, 2003)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> *But ordinary monks can get the Amulet of Might Fists, an item them gives an enhancement bonus to all their unarmed attacks. *




My biggest complaint with the monk in 3E (and, i presume, 3.5E) is precisely this reliance on external items.  I can accept the idea that magic items are an integral part of character power in D&D3E, and that challenges, etc., are scaled on the assumptions for magic item distribution given in the DMG.  However, using magic items goes completely against the basic feel of the monk, IMHO.  I think monks without any items should be balanced with fighters (and others) who are properly decked out for level.  I play a monk to be self-sufficient.  It works great at low levels.  At high levels, i either am significantly handicapped, or i give in and rely on magic items.  It sounds to me like the Oathsworn are a better conceptual fit, at least for me.


----------



## woodelf (Aug 1, 2003)

*Re: The scales have fallen away from my eyes (or something)*



			
				RobNJ said:
			
		

> *I can't really explain how enthusiastic I am about this book.  I had basically given up all remaining love my heart had for D&D (for the second time, actually, came back for 3E and then became disillusioned again).
> 
> Flexibility, flavor-first, good engaging writing, ideas that make you go, "God, why didn't I think of that?"  The list goes on and on.
> 
> I think it's summed up by the way I put it to a friend of mine:  This is how D&D should be. *




Agreed.  I find D&D really lackluster compared to AU.  D&D3E wasn't sufficient to get me back into D&D--it didn't fix most of the things i'd thought were wrong with D&D, and introduced new problems.  I'd needed 40pp of new rules (and that's just the players' summary, not all the tables and charts and descriptions) to make D&D playable.  Exactly one of the things i thought needed fixing actually got changed in the same direction from AD&D2 to D&D3E.

But AU has me excited to play "D&D" again.  I like almost all the changes, and only wish he'd gone further (though i gather the armor-as-DR rules are optional, in the Diamond Throne book).  The classes are cool, the races are interesting, the magic system rocks.  The only things i've heard about that i don't like are things that are the same as those in D&D3/3.5.


----------



## Nine Hands (Aug 1, 2003)

Xarls Taunzund said:
			
		

> *How difficult would it be to incorporate this into a current Forgotten Realms campaign?  It looks really cool, but I don't want to spend the money on something I will never get a chance to use. *




I have been using AU in my Forgotten Realms game for several months now (I was a playtester and had access to a pre release version).  I have used the classes in FR without any problems and some of the feats have been also added.  

The spell system is cool but is just not in the style my group is used to.  I personally would convert all of the core D&D spellcasting classes to AU spellcasting.

Since I'm using the standard D&D spellcasting, I have given each AU spellcasting class a core class spell list (cleric, druid, wizard, etc).  The only other change I made was to change the Exotic Weapon Proficiency so that it works the way Monte has it (which I like more anyway).


----------



## Bluemoon (Aug 1, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *So far, so cool. I like the racial classes, and was surprised how similar his approach seemed to the one in the second world sourcebook.
> 
> Still have much reading to do... *




Uhmm...What's the second world sourcebook?


----------



## Psion (Aug 1, 2003)

Bluemoon said:
			
		

> *Uhmm...What's the second world sourcebook? *




It's a product that came out last year that basically describes how to run a twin world situation with a fantasy earth parallel to our own. See:

http://www.second-world-simulations.com/Second World Sourcebook.htm

or my review:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Psion&product=TSWS


----------



## RobNJ (Aug 1, 2003)

Malacoda said:
			
		

> *Magic looks cool, but sometimes seems ill-defined. For example, do all spellcasters know all spells they could theoretically know?  Do Mageblades know all the spells they have access, should they be of sufficient level? Or do they have to go out and learn them?*



It's pretty clear.  I'll use the Mageblade, since you do in your question.  Page 40:

Mage blades have access to simple spells.  A mage blade may choose to ready _any_ simple spell provided she can cast psells of that level.

Emphasis mine.  How more clearly could it have been put?  I don't mean to sound overly antagonistic here; I'm genuinely confused as to how that is not clear.



> *What about the others?*



From Magister, p. 43:  A magister may choose to ready any simple or complex spell, provided he can cast spells of that level.



> *Magic, out of all the new stuff, seems to be the most problematic when it comes to integrating with D&D.*



Perhaps, but I don't know why anyone would want to pollute this game with standard D&D.  Most of the charm, to me, is that it is free of all of that baggage.

For the record, I'd agree that the intercompatability has been overstated (at least, stated beyond the expectations of the highly gameist D&D playing population).


----------



## Malacoda (Aug 1, 2003)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *It's pretty clear.  I'll use the Mageblade, since you do in your question.  Page 40:
> 
> Mage blades have access to simple spells.  A mage blade may choose to ready any simple spell provided she can cast psells of that level.
> 
> Emphasis mine.  How more clearly could it have been put?  I don't mean to sound overly antagonistic here; I'm genuinely confused as to how that is not clear.*




Your definition of clarity when it comes to rules appearently differs from mine. Given the background as a D&D player (which is what the vast majority of AU players will have), I would expect the rules to be more specific. The above certainly implies that they can simply choose any spell, but it does not seem a given.

Plus, that seems to be overly generous. Not saying it _is_ overly generous, but by D&D standards it seems to be, and most people will come to the game with D&D standards in mind. Magisters come across as the AU version of wizards, and wizards certainly don't get all spells, in the same way as a cleric does. 

There are sections in the book it talks about masters teaching their students spells. The implication of the passage is that they must learn spells. But, in truth, it doesn't work that way mechanically. When a caster gets to a level where they get new spells, they just instantly get access to all spells they can cast.


*



			Perhaps, but I don't know why anyone would want to pollute this game with standard D&D.  Most of the charm, to me, is that it is free of all of that baggage.
		
Click to expand...


*
Because I don't find AU to stand well on its own, nor do I find it so compelling to want to run it on its own.

Besides, I bought AU so I could flesh out cultures and races across the the expanse of Arcane Space for Spelljammer, so I want it to mesh with D&D. I buy a lot of d20 stuff for that reason.


----------



## RobNJ (Aug 1, 2003)

Malacoda said:
			
		

> *Your definition of clarity when it comes to rules appearently differs from mine. Given the background as a D&D player (which is what the vast majority of AU players will have), I would expect the rules to be more specific. The above certainly implies that they can simply choose any spell, but it does not seem a given.*



???

You're kidding, right?  It says in every Spells section, the word _any_.  Can prepare _any_ (complex, simple, whatever) spell.  How much more clear can it be.  Should it say, "He can prepare any simple spell.  No, really.  Honest.  Any one.  I mean it.  I promise.  Any simple spell."?



> *Plus, that seems to be overly generous. Not saying it is overly generous, but by D&D standards it seems to be,*



I think that Malhavoc shot itself in the foot (or at least dropped a heavy rock on its foot) by trying so much to argue that it's perfectly compatable with 3E.  That said, it's not overly generous in context with everything else.  If everyone is getting that ability, it doesn't matter if you do too.



> *and most people will come to the game with D&D standards in mind. Magisters come across as the AU version of wizards, and wizards certainly don't get all spells, in the same way as a cleric does.*



You're right.  My bad.  Given this, he probably should've done something clear, like state that magisters can prepare _any_ spell.  You know, a simple, declarative sentence that says something like, "A magister may choose to ready any simple or complex spell, provided he can cast spells of that level."  I'll be sure to lobby hard for them to include this sort of clarity in the next edition of the book.  Because what they have in there, man, it's way too vague.



> *There are sections in the book it talks about masters teaching their students spells. The implication of the passage is that they must learn spells.*



I haven't read this passage yet, but it sounds to me like they're talking pre-1st-level stuff.

And you may want to _include_ a rule where people have to learn new spells.  I may do this myself, require someone to make a spellcraft check on seeing a spell with which they're unfamiliar cast.  I may do this for supplimentary spells found in additional AU source material, as well.


----------



## drquestion (Aug 1, 2003)

RobNJ: Your group doesn't happen to be taking new players, does it?  I live in the Princeton area, and I'm currently groupless.



> _Originally posted by Malacoda:_
> *Given the background as a D&D player (which is what the vast majority of AU players will have), I would expect the rules to be more specific.*



I agree that there are some places where the rules aren't as clear as they should be (for example, the Akashic list of class abilities doesn't specify which version of _learn secret_ they get), but I don't think it's a major problem, and it's not any more prevalent than I would expect from the first printing of a book with this many rules.

However, I think that the question of whether casters automatically know all of their spells was probably left vague intentionally.  Most DM's will likely decide that it's simpler just to let everyone know their entire list, but this way a DM can also decide that he wants to have players learn some of their spells in-game.  

Note that on p. 4, ("Giving Power Back to DMs"), Monte specifically says that more things will be left up to DM's interpretation in AU than in standard D&D.

drquestion


----------



## Henry (Aug 1, 2003)

Let's please be a little more friendly in this: We're all gamers, here, some of us digging AU a little more than others.



---------------------------------


In my opinion, the AU rules are pretty clear about spell acquisition: It's powerful, but not too much so for the context of Arcana Unearthed.

The biggest problem seems to be the taking of these "analogs" too literally. Taking the Magister as a wizard or sorcerer analog is reading TOO much into it, in my opinion.

As is equating Greenbonds with druids; if anything, they are Druids, with elements of clerics and mages thrown in. Warmains may be fighter-types, but they weild some abilities that Fighters just could not take advantage of in 3.5 without special prestige classes. Calling Akashics rogues are being too limiting; if anything, the Rogue should be more like the Akashic, than vice-versa. If you take a 1st Akashic expecting to get sneak attack, you will be disappointed.

It is more helpful to UNlearn the D&D conventions while dealing with AU; understand that many D&D conventional thoughts (Alignments, known spells, spell components, etc.) are quite different, or removed entirely. It's almost better to assume it's balanced, play a few games, and go from there.

It will be the rare group who has played more than one or two games of AU since having picked up the book on Thursday. It needs more than one or two sessions to properly get a feel of all elements of a new game system.


----------



## RobNJ (Aug 1, 2003)

drquestion said:
			
		

> *RobNJ: Your group doesn't happen to be taking new players, does it?  I live in the Princeton area, and I'm currently groupless.*



Actually, we just lost two players, however the one I normally play in is down in Monmouth County.  I don't know if you want to go that far.  But if you do, we have a game on Saturday, and you can email me privately if you're interested (bowell@rci.rutgers.edu).

Also, we're not yet playing AU, though I intend to run a game as soon as there's an opening.

Finally, I'm considering restarting a group up in Middlesex county like I had last year but at this point I don't have any candidates.

Incidentally, I still honestly don't see this vagary in spell choice.  It is really, really clear.


----------



## Fedifensor (Aug 1, 2003)

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> *Since I'm using the standard D&D spellcasting, I have given each AU spellcasting class a core class spell list (cleric, druid, wizard, etc).  The only other change I made was to change the Exotic Weapon Proficiency so that it works the way Monte has it (which I like more anyway). *



I've been looking to bring in some of the AU classes (particularly Mage Blade) into my FR campaign.  What spell list do you use for Mage Blades, and do they seem balanced compared to the D&D classes?


----------



## Derulbaskul (Aug 1, 2003)

First impressions?

Love it. Looks great. Desperately want Diamond Throne.

Cheers
D

PS: Sam Wood's art was great. Some of the other pieces, though, reminded of the really bad stuff from the first Creature Collection. Ugh.


----------



## Geoffrey (Aug 1, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *It is more helpful to UNlearn the D&D conventions while dealing with AU; understand that many D&D conventional thoughts (Alignments, known spells, spell components, etc.) are quite different, or removed entirely. It's almost better to assume it's balanced, play a few games, and go from there.*




It sounds like I will have an advantage, then. I've never played 3.0 or 3.5 D&D, nor have I purchased any of the books. I have ordered AU from Amazon. Maybe AU will be clearer to me than to most since I won't be looking at it through D&D goggles.


----------



## Merlion (Aug 1, 2003)

Well I shall at last be getting my copy today, so once I've absorbed, I'll give my impressions 
  Although I can tell you its almost certainly going to be mostly good ones ::


----------



## Malacoda (Aug 1, 2003)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *You're kidding, right?*



No

*



			It says in every Spells section, the word any.  Can prepare any (complex, simple, whatever) spell.  How much more clear can it be.
		
Click to expand...


*Leaps and bounds, I would say.

How about this...

Page 164, column two, paragraph three:

"Casters learn the spells they have access to by reading books, studying scrolls, and from studying under others. This study is assumed to have happended to have occurred before the campaign, or during campaign down time."

What if I have no downtime? What if a character gains access to a spell level while slogging through a dungeon, having spent no real time studying, or anything resembling downtime except for sleeping and short resting? Does he have access to all those new spells for his level? The rules tells use they learn spells, not gain them automatically, like clerics. So what happens when you don't get a chance to learn them?


*



			Should it say, "He can prepare any simple spell.  No, really.  Honest.  Any one.  I mean it.  I promise.  Any simple spell."?
		
Click to expand...


*As amusing as that would be, I will settle for knowing if he means any spell in the game, any spell on the list or any spell they know, since there does seem to be a distinction.

*



			I think that Malhavoc shot itself in the foot (or at least dropped a heavy rock on its foot) by trying so much to argue that it's perfectly compatable with 3E.  That said, it's not overly generous in context with everything else.  If everyone is getting that ability, it doesn't matter if you do too.
		
Click to expand...


*I would certainly not argue that it is overly generous within its own context. I might be, but I haven't read enough to tell.


*



			I'll be sure to lobby hard for them to include this sort of clarity in the next edition of the book.  Because what they have in there, man, it's way too vague.
		
Click to expand...


*Not really interested in a discussion, are you?


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 1, 2003)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *???
> 
> You're kidding, right?  It says in every Spells section, the word any.  Can prepare any (complex, simple, whatever) spell.  How much more clear can it be.  Should it say, "He can prepare any simple spell.  No, really.  Honest.  Any one.  I mean it.  I promise.  Any simple spell."?
> 
> *




No but it should of said something like.  Can prepare any X spell, upon gaining a new spell level they have access and know all X spells learning them is considered aprt of the process of gainng the new level.

Considering it is D20, and people will be coming from D&D to not write the above basicaly means a lot of people will spend time looking for the passage that describes how people learn spells.


----------



## RobNJ (Aug 1, 2003)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *Considering it is D20, and people will be coming from D&D to not write the above basicaly means a lot of people will spend time looking for the passage that describes how people learn spells. *



It is patently unreasonable to expect an author to predict the reading comprehension levels and biases of everyone who might buy their book.  Monte clearly intended AU to stand on its own, and if you read it as its own book, rather than comparing it to D&D, you'll see that everything is very clear.

My frustration at this is that people didn't read clearly, and are blaming it on the writer, who wrote a very clear sentence (several of them, in fact).  Instead of just saying "oops", the reader is demanding that the writer predict the ways in which he might misinterpret what he's reading.  That's far too great a burden to put on anyone, because (and I know this from professional experience) the ways in which people can misinterpret a simple and straightforward sentence are myriad and unfathomable.

Why can't people just say, "Oops, my bad, there it is."?


----------



## BiggusGeekus@Work (Aug 1, 2003)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> *I've been looking to bring in some of the AU classes (particularly Mage Blade) into my FR campaign.  What spell list do you use for Mage Blades, and do they seem balanced compared to the D&D classes? *




As for balanced compared to D&D, I'd have to give a bit of pause.  

All the AU classes have a 10% experience penalty to level gain compared to D&D classes.  So your Mage Blade is going to be gaining levels slower than a fighter/sorceror.

But ultimately, I don't think that AU is perfectly balanced with D&D.  This isn't a bad thing.  I mean, _Broncausaurus Rex_ isn't prefectly balanced with D&D and no one thought to complain.  But you can't casually drop an AU class into an existing D&D game and call it a day.  Which is a darn shame because the AU classes are REALLY FREAKING COOL!


----------



## Apok (Aug 1, 2003)

Malacoda said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What if I have no downtime? What if a character gains access to a spell level while slogging through a dungeon, having spent no real time studying, or anything resembling downtime except for sleeping and short resting? Does he have access to all those new spells for his level? The rules tells use they learn spells, not gain them automatically, like clerics. So what happens when you don't get a chance to learn them?
> 
> *




Then I would guess the character in question wouldn't gain access to his new level of spells until he's had some downtime and a chance to study.

Exactly what does studying entail?

Player: Ok, now that we're through and have some time off, I'm going to expand my spell repetoir by learning from other spellcasters, reading tomes of ancient lore, and attending that "Better Spells and Incantations" seminar that's going on this weekend.

DM: Ok, done and done.  You now have access to your new level of spells.  Enjoy.

It's that easy.  Now, if you don't think it _should_ be that easy, that's fine but it's also a whole other topic of discussion.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 1, 2003)

Malacoda said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What if I have no downtime? What if a character gains access to a spell level while slogging through a dungeon, having spent no real time studying, or anything resembling downtime except for sleeping and short resting? Does he have access to all those new spells for his level? The rules tells use they learn spells, not gain them automatically, like clerics. So what happens when you don't get a chance to learn them?
> *




I would assume the same thing that happens to wizards in D&D that don't have downtime, but magically have two new spells in their books every level.  *shrug*


----------



## Apok (Aug 1, 2003)

BiggusGeekus@Work said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But you can't casually drop an AU class into an existing D&D game and call it a day.  *




Actually, there are a couple that you could do just this with.  Champion, Totem Warrior, Unfettered, Oathsworn, and Warmain could be dropped into an existing D&D game with no trouble.  

And, in all honesty, you can just as easily use the standard D&D experience table for the AU classes.  There was a reason Monte did the 10% increase, but it didn't have anything to do with the relative power of the AU classes.


----------



## BiggusGeekus@Work (Aug 1, 2003)

Apok said:
			
		

> *Actually, there are a couple that you could do just this with.  Champion, Totem Warrior, Unfettered, Oathsworn, and Warmain could be dropped into an existing D&D game with no trouble.  *




Good point.  The non-casting classes would be fine.

*



			And, in all honesty, you can just as easily use the standard D&D experience table for the AU classes.  There was a reason Monte did the 10% increase, but it didn't have anything to do with the relative power of the AU classes.
		
Click to expand...


*
Really?  Bad assumption on my part then.  Why'd he do it, if I may ask?


----------



## Apok (Aug 1, 2003)

BiggusGeekus@Work said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Really?  Bad assumption on my part then.  Why'd he do it, if I may ask? *




I think it had something to do with the fact that the standard D&D experience table isn't part of the OGL and there may have been some legal ramifications if he reprinted it in AU.  I think that's the reason, anyway.  

The only non-spellcasting class that might be a tad unbalancing would be the Akashic, if for no other reason than it totally outshines the Rogue in every area except Sneak Attack damage.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 1, 2003)

What about the Unfettered? What distinguishes it from a fighter or warmain?

I heard it gets sneak attack, but maybe it got Precise Strike instead.


----------



## Apok (Aug 1, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *What about the Unfettered? What distinguishes it from a fighter or warmain?
> 
> I heard it gets sneak attack, but maybe it got Precise Strike instead. *




The Unfettered is your quintessential swashbuckler-type fighter.  Disdains heavy armor and weapons for lighter fare.  Basically, they get a Sneak Attack progression, a class AC bonus, Evasion, some bonus feats, and other abilities that help their AC when wearing light or no armor.  They can also potentially parry spells targeted at them.  

It's not a very "sexy" class, per se, but it makes a lightly armed and armored fighter viable as the main line of offense.  If I were to change anything about the class, it would be the way their Parry ability works, which is kinda bleh.


----------



## mmu1 (Aug 1, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *What about the Unfettered? What distinguishes it from a fighter or warmain?
> 
> I heard it gets sneak attack, but maybe it got Precise Strike instead. *




It does get sneak attack, up to 5d6. It also gets proficiency with Exotic (Agile) weapons, a class-based AC bonus that only works in light armor or no armor, the Parry ability (adds his Int bonus to AC, but this bonus can't be higher than his level / 2), Ranged Parry, more skills, and some other stuff, but has a d8 hit die and only has a good Reflex save.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 1, 2003)

Apok said:
			
		

> *
> I think it had something to do with the fact that the standard D&D experience table isn't part of the OGL and there may have been some legal ramifications if he reprinted it in AU.  I think that's the reason, anyway.
> 
> The only non-spellcasting class that might be a tad unbalancing would be the Akashic, if for no other reason than it totally outshines the Rogue in every area except Sneak Attack damage. *




I agree with you on both accounts here.

I'm really disappointed that the magic system doesn't work better side by side with D&D.  My expectation was that having a magister alongside a wizard would be comparable to having a wizard alongside a cleric in that they have different magic sets due to different learning (instead of divine and arcane, you have divine, arcane and montean).  Unfortunately, this simply does not appear to be true.  

Right now I don't think I would have trouble using the warmain, totems or the unfettered.  I'd be tempted to tweak the warmain (d10 HD, no wpn size increase, ) but these are details that I would try out for a few games first.  But really, a warmain becomes largely redundant in a game with the fighter already there.  The class was not made because the D20 system needed a fighter.  It was made because a system without a fighter needed a replacement.  So why add it to a system with one?  It is not different enough, IMO (Intentionaly so, I assume).

The Unfettered, OTOH, is cool.  It fits the swashbuckler type in a way that the fighter/rogue (even duelist) only flirted with.

Akashic is no problem as long as you are willing to let the collective memory thing be part of your campaign.  That shouldn't be a big deal in most cases, but I think it could.

Champion and Oathsworn - Eh, whatever.  They are fine.  Champion seems more PClass to me and oathsworn is to redundant if a monk is in the game.

Totems are also cool.  At first blush they seem pretty cultural to me.  But if you assume a world where things just work this way, it is reasonable that many cultures would have these people.


----------



## mmu1 (Aug 1, 2003)

Apok said:
			
		

> *
> The only non-spellcasting class that might be a tad unbalancing would be the Akashic, if for no other reason than it totally outshines the Rogue in every area except Sneak Attack damage. *




Really? My first reaction was that the Akashic was hopelessly outclassed by the Rogue, and I sitll think it's pretty much the case after taking the time to think about it.

Rogues are amazing when it comes to skill use. Akashics are even better, and get some abilities that can only be used a few times per day that give them even more of a boost. They also basically get Bardic Lore, and some spell-like abilities relating to skill use.

But they get no spells, and their combat ability is truly pitiful - they can pick up some minor Sneak Attack (3d6 tops, at something like 15th level), and while the various "Battle Memory" abilities are very nice, again, they're only useable a very limited number of times per day.

Which means that they can't hold their own in a fight, and while they can upstage just about anyone when it comes to skill use a few times per day, overall, they're only a little better than a Rogue or a Bard when it comes to skills. Bleh.


----------



## Angcuru (Aug 1, 2003)

drquestion said:
			
		

> *RobNJ: Your group doesn't happen to be taking new players, does it?  I live in the Princeton area, and I'm currently groupless.
> *




If rob doesn't have a space open, we're always looking for another player in my group.  Drop me a line if you're interested.


----------



## Angcuru (Aug 1, 2003)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Actually, we just lost two players, however the one I normally play in is down in Monmouth County.  I don't know if you want to go that far.  But if you do, we have a game on Saturday, and you can email me privately if you're interested (bowell@rci.rutgers.edu).
> 
> Also, we're not yet playing AU, though I intend to run a game as soon as there's an opening.
> 
> ...




I might be interested in that; I know that blackshirt is interested in finding another group to play in besides our main one.


----------



## RobNJ (Aug 1, 2003)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> *I might be interested in that; I know that blackshirt is interested in finding another group to play in besides our main one. *



Well, it sounds to me like that makes 4.

To keep it on topic (at least vaguely), I would like to runn or play in an Arcana Unearthed game.  Email me off-the-boards and maybe we can get something going.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 1, 2003)

I can see the new ads now, "Arcana Unearthed, bringing gamers together."


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 2, 2003)

Maybe someone could start a game on the boards.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 2, 2003)

Apok said:
			
		

> *The only non-spellcasting class that might be a tad unbalancing would be the Akashic, if for no other reason than it totally outshines the Rogue in every area except Sneak Attack damage. *




I'm not entirely convinced.  An akashic certainly will deliver more skill-using ability than a rogue.  But not getting the combo of evasion and a fast Reflex save schedule is kind of a big deal in a _fireball_-rich environment like D&D, and I'm not sure that the akashic's combat-related abilities really make up for the 7d6 gap in sneak attacks over the course of a career.  I'm not saying they don't, either, it's just that they're so different in nature that it's hard to tell, and seven dice is a lot.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 2, 2003)

Akashics should play completely differently from rogues. They have heavy armor and shields, and all martial weapons. They fight like clerics, even tho they have rogue skill levels (only better).

They have a lot of style if you ask me.

And if you think they're weak now, you should have seen the playtest version! 

PS


----------



## woodelf (Aug 2, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *It is the D20STL that forbids describing progression.  And clearly that part is irrelevant because AU does not use the D20STL.
> 
> However, the point is not that the OGL does not forbid it, rather, that it does not provide an allowance for using the D&D system.  So under the OGL only a progression may be allowed.  BUT, the D&D progression does not exist in the SRD and is not Open.  Your point that it could be re-produced because it is simply a mathematical progression is way beyond my non-lawyer assessment.  But I think that would certainly be a possible point of contention.
> 
> ...




From the D20 Guide, v3:


> Definition of Applying the effects of Experience to a Character:
> 
> Applying the effects of Experience to a Character means a description of the process for comparing the accumulated experience point total of a character to a chart to determine if the character's level should be incremented.
> [snip]
> Applying the effects of Experience to a Character does not include creating or modifying an experience point chart, defining a new class (including describing what benefits that class provides at each level).




So not even the D20STL prevents you from providing a progression table--it just doesn't let you say what to do with said table. Advancement, not the progression itself, is what's forbidden.

Now, if you sincerely believe that the triangular number progression is something that WotC has *any* sort of dominion over, then, yes, you're better off creating your own chart.  However, i sincerely doubt that there is anything in IP law that can prevent you from reusing a simple, known-since-antiquity, mathematical progression.  He could've recreated the standard XP chart, so i suspect the "slightly more powerful" is *not* a handwave, but an actual concern.  

WotC also didn't explicitly release material to the effect that when you multiply a number by 1.5, it becomes half-again as large as it was, so a 6 becomes a 9.  It's basic math, and thus public domain.  

Now, you *might* have a problem with recreating the entire XP chart--the one that puts BAB, saves, skill rank caps, feats, and ability increases all on one chart.  I really doubt it, but i can see the argument.  But just the level & XP columns from that chart?  Too close to basic mathematics.

I hardly see including an XP chart as "exploiting a loophole".


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 2, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> *Akashics should play completely differently from rogues. They have heavy armor and shields, and all martial weapons. They fight like clerics, even tho they have rogue skill levels (only better). *




I wasn't counting on the heavy armor and shields because we were side-by-siding them with rogues, and if an akashic is taking the stealth and athletic skills he can ill afford the armor check penalty.  Outside of the question of whether they eclipse the rogue, that's definitely more significant.

The broader weapon proficiency does help with their damage output, but only by a point or two per blow unless they go for something _really_ heavy.

The real stuff comes with their battle memory, feat memory, and bonus feats, plus the little bit of sneak attack they can select (up to 3d6).  The upshot seems offhand to be that their combat ability is less situational (not relying on sneak attack), but more resource-bound (having limited uses per day for many abilities).  Plus those battle memory abilities come with a significant start-up opportunity cost and risk (concentration for one round, which is a big deal in a battle).  But how it comes out in the final analysis, I couldn't say.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Aug 2, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> *He could've recreated the standard XP chart, so i suspect the "slightly more powerful" is *not* a handwave, but an actual concern.*




I seriously doubt it.  The two tables are only different by 10%, and (the aside from any psychological effect) a 10% difference in experience totals is pretty insignificant.  Because of the quadratic progression of level XP requirements, that's only about 5% of a level over the long haul, or about a level in 20.  I would be willing to bet good money that there are greater imbalances between either the 3.0 or even the 3.5 PHB classes than that.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 2, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> *
> From the D20 Guide, v3:
> 
> So not even the D20STL prevents you from providing a progression table--it just doesn't let you say what to do with said table. Advancement, not the progression itself, is what's forbidden.
> ...




Like I said, I am only speculating.

Clearly the PH chart is not open.  The question, as you have described, is: "Is the PH chart something that could be protected as IP or is it to basic?".    You seem highly confident that it could not be protected.  

OK.  I don't know what background you have to be so certain.  I know I don't have any background to make me certain.  I do tend to think that if it could not be protected at all, there would be minimal value in excluding it under the D20STL (or even not just putting it in the SRD).  So these things make me tend to think that WotC feel they can protect it.  

But I agree that your point makes sense.   I certainly do not think they can protect a simple mathematical progression.  That, of course, would be silly.  But perhaps the relationship between a given progression and a game mechanic is a different matter?  I really do not know.

But, like I said before, to me it is not that AU certainly could not use the PH progression.  But that the alternate progression used is really no big deal.  

So there is a slim chance that WotC could claim that he could not do this.  Even if they were wrong, that hassle is not worth the bother.

More likely than that, because Monte knows (and in many cases is friends with) many people at WotC, he understands that they would not appreciate him reproducing the PH chart, regardless of legal authority.  So possibly Monte choose to do so purely because he felt it was the right thing to do.  That would certainly be within Monte's character as I have observed him.

So I do not know.  But without any presumption on the ultimate legal status of the PH progression, I am comfortable presuming that the AU system progression is different do to at least an informal acknowledment of WotC's control over the standard version.  And Monte made the choice because it was the "good guy" thing to do.

[end of non-lawyer wild speculations]


----------



## Henry (Aug 2, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *More likely than that, because Monte knows (and in many cases is friends with) many people at WotC, he understands that they would not appreciate him reproducing the PH chart, regardless of legal authority.  So possibly Monte choose to do so purely because he felt it was the right thing to do.  That would certainly be within Monte's character as I have observed him.
> *




Of course, not knowing Monte's mind, there's also the old adage, "Better safe than sorry" to consider. 

But yeah, if there is one thing I don't think the chart is for, it's to compensate for more powerful classes than 3.0 or 3.5, for the exact reasons Dr. Rictus says.


----------



## Apok (Aug 2, 2003)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Rogues are amazing when it comes to skill use. Akashics are even better, and get some abilities that can only be used a few times per day that give them even more of a boost. They also basically get Bardic Lore, and some spell-like abilities relating to skill use.
> *




Right.  So, we are agreed that in terms of skills and skill usage, the Akashic has the definite edge.



> *
> But they get no spells, and their combat ability is truly pitiful - they can pick up some minor Sneak Attack (3d6 tops, at something like 15th level), and while the various "Battle Memory" abilities are very nice, again, they're only useable a very limited number of times per day.
> *




Rogues don't get spells either, so it's even there.  Combat-wise, they get better weapons and armor and use the same BAB progression as Rogues.  The only thing they lack is good Sneak Attack damage, which the Battle Memory abilities help to make up for by increasing not only the Akashic's damage output, but his Attack bonus and AC as well.  Yes, they can only be used a certain number of times per day, but honestly; how many fights do you get in over the course of a day?  



> *
> Which means that they can't hold their own in a fight, and while they can upstage just about anyone when it comes to skill use a few times per day, overall, they're only a little better than a Rogue or a Bard when it comes to skills. Bleh. *




I disagree.  With their Battle Memory abilities,  proper feat selection, and some choice weapons and armor, an Akashic can easily hold their own on the battlefield.  Not as well as a more martial oriented class, perhaps, but then again neither can the Rogue, so in that respect they are relatively equal.  

Personally, I think the only reason someone would take the Rogue over the Akashic is for the Sneak Attack ability.  Unless, of course, the overall concept of how the Akashic works just doesn't appeal to them.


----------



## ScyldSceafing (Aug 2, 2003)

*First impressions*

Ok, I got the AU hardcover as a gift during the last session (see the thread "My group is amazing" for details). After we went out to eat, we retired to my house to sit around and discuss the campaign, brainstorm, what have you ...

... at least, we would have, if we didn't have the AU book to pore through.

Good lord, we're loving it. We wound up talking character concepts for a couple of hours. The book got passed around a lot - it would usually change hands when someone went "Oh wait! Look at this! Cool." and off it'd go.

We've got a player missing for next week's game, so we're doing an AU one-shot. So yeah, we're excited. I'm loving the whole package - yes, even the races. The concept of race levels is fresh and easy to implement. The classes are cool, cover all the bases, and are different enough to keep you thinking. Love the flexibility and trade-off decisions prompted by the new feats. And the magic system - now that's meaty.

I love it. Monte Cook, you da man.


----------



## woodelf (Aug 2, 2003)

Malacoda said:
			
		

> *Page 164, column two, paragraph three:
> 
> "Casters learn the spells they have access to by reading books, studying scrolls, and from studying under others. This study is assumed to have happended to have occurred before the campaign, or during campaign down time."
> 
> ...




GM's call.  I think that is the intended answer.  Monte made a big deal, both when developing this, and in the forward, that this game is unlike D&D3E in that it assumes a competent GM, and thus lets the GM have more power and make more decisions.  I'd say that this is a case where it'd be up to the GM (or the group) to decide what fits their game best.  It won't necessarily be the same from group to group.  

And that's ok.  I, for one, find his attitude refreshing. The degree to which D&D is designed to play the same regardless of the skill/experience/fairness of the DM is very frustrating, since it does so by controlling every little detail.


----------



## Merlion (Aug 2, 2003)

Well I've got the book, and it met my expectations nicely. I havent read it cover to cover, focused mainly on races, classes and magic.
  Like many others, all of the races didnt exactly get me super excited, but I really like the Faen and the Verrik.
  The classes are wonderful. Mageblade, Witch, Runethane and Magister are particularly nice...also the Champion...probably the best holy/unholy warrior I've seen so far. The Unfettered fits the agile warrior perfectly. the Witch's witchery powers are fantastic...finaly a class with actual supernatural powers apart from just spells. and they can really make use of those various blade manifestations to since they have medium BAB. And the Mageblade, at last a single class for the archtype of the magic wielding warrior. About time  And I looove the Magister Aspects of Power. The glowing eyes, the booming voice, being able to know when your name is spoken or live without food or water by drawing sustence from magic. Great stuff. ANd not to sound repetative but..Runethane, finaly a good runic BASE CLASS. again about time.
   The magic system itself is as wonderful as we all thought it would be, and the feats are amazing. In DnD spellcasters have very little choices for feats to actualy influence there magic...in essence, metamagic feats, spell focus, spell penetration. But the AU magic system itself includes many ways to alter spells, between heightning/diminishing, slot weaving, and the fact that there are many spells that can be cast in different ways. then add Modify Spell, and the various "mage" feats, and you've got some real flexibility.
  Personaly, I was always a tad annoyed that DnD metamagic feats essentialy have level requirements to use them. Some of the feats in AU require an increase in spell level, but most require "ladening" (using an extra slot), which I prefer.
  Now yes this book doesnt look quite as good as the WOTC stuff we are used to. Now this really doesnt matter much to me personaly...while I enjoy good artwork a great deal, the only thing that really enters into my decsion making process as far as RPG stuff is content. the quality of the materials is reasonbly good too...the book is layed out like most of the sword and sorcerery products, which does take a tad of getting used to.
  Now the only thing I dont like about the magic(and till I have a chance to play it, I wont really know for sure) is that the overall power of spells does seem significantly reduced...in fact at first glance it seems like Monte might have gone just a tiny bit overboard. I mean virtualy every offensive spell is at least Complex. Of course many of thease things can be easily overcome with a feat or two. and I think the part about most of the attack spells being complex is mainly to give Magisters the role of best offensive caster.
  It also just feels like a little bit is missing...there dont seem to be many enchantment or illusion spells, and I'm not totaly satisfied with the summoning.
  However again thease things are based solely on reading through the book..wont really know till I get to play. and the taking of a few feats, and possibly the importing of a few DnD spells could easily patch the little holes I see.
   Not really wild about the implied setting and racial interactions, but thats purely taste and easily done away with.
      The fact that religion, aside from the Faen and there(in my opnion and to my taste) silly creating gods for everything and anything, isnt hardly touched on at all I'm not 100% happy with, but it is better in many ways than how polytheism based around a not always that great an alignment system is shoved down ones throat in DnD. I also miss alignment dependant spells and the like...if I was to run AU I would re institute alignment, but only with Good and Evil..and with things like Detect Evil not always totaly surefire.
  The real trouble is going to be, once the day comes that I actualy get to play, deciding what to be. Mageblade, Magister and Witch are probably most likely...or Runethane.
  The magic system isnt quite as cross compatible as we were given the impression it would be. I think that importanting an AU spellcaster into a DnD game and just having each type of caster use there native magic system would work...or if your willing to spend more time, conversion either way probably wouldnt be that hard. Plus there are some where it wouldnt really be needful..you dont need Magister and Wizard, or Warmain and Fighter(although Unfettered and fighter could work).
   Me, I would like to eventualy see a campaign that merges the two in a deep way. Use whichever of the redundant classes is better, use the AU magic system but with a few DnD spells converted over.
  Phew..ran a bit longer than I had planned, but those are my thoughts. Overall, I love it.


----------



## shady (Aug 5, 2003)

I don't have the book to hand, nor have I finished reading it. Nor for that matter have I started using it. 

In terms of first impressions, I liked most of the races, the most uninspiring being the Verrik at this point ... but that could change. Actually I think good new player races are very difficult to do, so this is an achievement. I particularly liked the Mohj and the Faen. Other people have commented on the art - it's not brilliant and could actually put you off the Sibbecai, who look somewhat mangy.

For the classes, I liked the Totem Warrior in particular, but again was generally impressed. Didn't like the Oathbound - it looked like a variant monk class (and may as such work) but doesn't work in its own right - if the overwhelming motivation for these guys is their oath, then I just don't see why they shouldn't use armour etc. Unless this is a very specific cult, in which case why is it a class rather than a PrC.

Despite having obviously been written for a particular setting, I'm not sure all the elements actually hang together. For example, one cool part of the totem warrior is that over time they pick up more and more characteristics of their totem animal - much like Beorn in the Hobbit. Great. But what if you start off with a Littorian or a Sibbecai - you've now got a "lion man" who is gradually turning into a "shark lion man". Good luck.

On the other hand, the races and classes are I think movable to other campaigns, piecemeal. What I'd actually like is an updated version of the race selection table from Richard Bakers 2E World Builders Guide, to help build some new worlds for the better new races that have come out.


----------



## Wombat (Aug 5, 2003)

My group, which is deep in a rather complex campaign, is now asking if I can incorporate parts of AU into the mix.  

**sigh**

I LOVE this book, but given the campaign o' th' moment, it's not going to be an easy fit.  The Oathsworn I can work in fairly quickly and easily (we do not use Monks), but given the tenor of the current campaign most of the other slots are already taken.

OTOH, if I don't watch out there is going to be a mutiny and the campaign will be replaced with an all-AU game...


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Aug 5, 2003)

Shady, interesting question about the litorians taking totem warriors. I've got one in my group that's a Hawk Totem Warrior. Guess what, he's turning into a griffon.


----------



## Ezrael (Aug 5, 2003)

*Question: how useful is the book *as* a Variant Players Handbook?*

What I mean by that is, much as many people buy the big three (PHB, DMG, MM) and create their own campaign worlds rather than using the default setting in the PHB, does anyone have an opinion as to how easy it would be to use AU without the Diamond Throne setting? I've been looking over the book since I got it, thinking about how best to make use of it, and I've decided what I'll do is create my own setting using it (especially timely since my current group is in serious flux right now, players coming and going) as the baseline, much the way so many settings have been created assuming the PHB as the baseline. Does anyone have any ideas on how to make this easier or harder, any suggestions for rules to import/ignore, any feedback as to how much easier or harder it would be to use AU for this purpose than it would be to use the PHB?


----------



## RobNJ (Aug 5, 2003)

shady said:
			
		

> *Didn't like the Oathbound - it looked like a variant monk class (and may as such work) but doesn't work in its own right - if the overwhelming motivation for these guys is their oath, then I just don't see why they shouldn't use armour etc. Unless this is a very specific cult, in which case why is it a class rather than a PrC.*



It's not a variant monk class.  They don't just not use armor, they don't use _tools_.  They actually have reasons for all their limitations:  They believe in maximizing the potential in themselves, as channeled through the power of their dedication to the oath, and regard tool use as a crutch.  Perfect reason not to use armor.  Monks have the whole ki thing, whereas everything about the oathsworn is about their oaths, and channelling power from them, not some inner magic.



> *Despite having obviously been written for a particular setting, I'm not sure all the elements actually hang together. For example, one cool part of the totem warrior is that over time they pick up more and more characteristics of their totem animal - much like Beorn in the Hobbit. Great. But what if you start off with a Littorian or a Sibbecai - you've now got a "lion man" who is gradually turning into a "shark lion man". Good luck.*



Well, if you read it, it's pretty straightforward.  Lion/sharks don't make much sense (since litorans rarely become shark types because they're not coastal dwellers), but it just means that their faces become more bullet-like, their skin or fur goes a duller color, their hide becomes thicker, etc.  It's pretty easy to visualize.  Much easier if you use one of the ones they're more likely to become (such as the hawk or wolf).


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 5, 2003)

I'll have to make final judgement once I've actually played a few sessions with the new classes and races. Soon, I'll be starting a new campaign (well, and old setting with new people) and I'm going to use a great deal of AU in it. 

1. Not sure about the races. Verrik, yes. Faen.. maybe. Litorian and Sebbecai, as much as I like them, probably not. Giants.. maybe. Mohj, yes. Runechildren, definately. Probably going to use the standard PHB races, add in the Verrik, and see what happens. I think Monte's doing a set of racial levels for PHB races as a fun enhancement soon, so I may use that or make up my own; I like that concept a lot and it fits with the elves I'll be using.

2. Love the classes. Most of these are the types of things I really needed beforehand when I ran this, esp. the Greenbond, the Totem Warrior and the Witch.


----------



## BVB (Aug 5, 2003)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> *Shady, interesting question about the litorians taking totem warriors. I've got one in my group that's a Hawk Totem Warrior. Guess what, he's turning into a griffon.  *




Litorian + shark totem = catfish?

Seriously, though, I don't see a problem conceptualizing a furry race taking on a totem of another animal. Is it really that much different than trying to imagine why humans don't stick with ape totems?


----------



## BVB (Aug 5, 2003)

I see no problem with allowing all the races and classes to exist side by side in one campaign. As long as the class rules (spell access particularly) stay within their own books, a smart DM can handle it fine.


----------



## Henry (Aug 5, 2003)

Moved to d20 Systems/OGL Games Forum.


----------



## Tsyr (Aug 5, 2003)

The more I read Arcana Unearthed, and the more I just stop and think about what I've read, the more I am comming to the realization that, in terms of flavor, style, attitude, and general "This is the way fantasy should feel!", this is as close to the game that I've been waiting to find all along as I think you can make within any sort of set framework of rules... There I thinks I don't like, like the magic system (I still prefer a more free-form, force-of-will approach to magic... But it just doesn't balance with non-magic users... Even in fantasy novels that use that sort of magic (The Velgarth books, for example), it's quite clear the magic is simply far to powerful to, in game terms, let into the hands of PCs.


----------



## Razuur (Aug 5, 2003)

Okay, here is my 2 cents (and likely then some)

Let me make this initial caveat, that I am not a Monte fanatic or a Monte hater.  Just some RPG consumer who has liked some things that he has put out, and not others.

Next, let me say that after listening to Monte's comments on these boards for the last few years and after seeing most of his products, one can say the following as fact:  Monte loves DnD.  He loves 3E.  He acknowledges that it has its problems, but he loves it.  He likes playing the DnD genre as well (and DnD fantasy is a genre).  And after three years he has created an alternate players guide for DnD.  Note that this offers alternatives, and is not necessarily geared as a replacement (despite being able to stand on it's own).  Is it compatible?  Sure is.  Is it for everybody's campaign.  Probably not, but then that was not the claim.

Lets look at the issues above in a little detail to see what I mean:

Classes:

DnD is a game that has classes that are truly archetypes: fighter, cleric, wizard, etc.  It even has some non archetypical classes Bard, Monk, Ranger (with spells), sorcerer that are really specialized versions of an archetypical class.  UA offers this.  The classes in it are specialized alternatives.  Are they balanced?   I have never really cared about that issue, but some do, and I believe the answer is yes.  Are they neat and unique?  You bet!  Do they have a place in you game?  I would say that if you are the type of person whose setting who allows a wilderness fighter who can cast magics (the Ranger) then nothing in UA really wouldn't fit.  If you play a more realistic game setting like something more medieval europe where rangers are just wilderness warriors, then probably not.  But that is not the point.  Monte has given you a book of DnD alternatives - in the DnD genre.  I could see these classes being used in FR, Kalamar, Greyhawk, etc.  Dragonlance maybe.   Midnight may be pushing it. But that is the point isn't it?  One needs to decide if it is ones cup of tea or not, not knock it for not being compatible ( which is a vague complaint, because what about it isn't compatible - and compatable with what?)  This issue at hand is whether it fits your style.

Races:

Well obviously this represents a Monte's DnD.  The races included may not be your cup of tea.  Thats not a compatability issue, its a taste issue.  The races are fine, and will be very useful depending on your world... if they are your cup of tea.

Magick:

It is a great alternative to the DnD magic.  Is it compatible?  Can it work in your game?  Why not?"  Why can't a world have several types of magic that work different?  It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.  Whether alone or with trad vancian magic, this is a nice alternate magic method.

Compatibility in General:

I have never rreally understood this complaint.  If I am reading a supplement and I find something that would be neat in my world, then it takes very little effort to make the adjustments to get it to fit.  Compatibility is not taste or flavor, and I think people get distracted by this.  If this did fit my world, I would have no trouble dropping stuff in, as it is designed very well.

Art:

C'mon folks.   This is pretty subjective.  I have seen art that is better and worse.  This too is a "cup of tea" issue

Overall:

Monte's stuff tends to be a little too much DnD genre for me.  No surprise obviously since he is one of the authors of the 3rd edition.  But his stuff has always been top notch, design wise.  It has always been a question of "Does his stuff fit me?" rather than is this high quality.  My only complaint is that many of his products have been a litle brief in my opinion.  However, UA is an unqualified success in my opinion.  He really let loose with this, and while all of it is not useful to me, some of it is.  And what is, is really good.  A lot of neat things are in here.

And the best part for me, is not the magick or the classes, but the attitude.  The attitude is that lets put the control back in the hands of the GM/DM, which is kind of contrary to 3.5, IMHO.  It doesn't force minatures down your throat, which is ironic, because if I remember correctly Monte uses minatures.  He has sense enough to know that there are those out there who do NOT use minatures.  He states that many items should be adjudicated by the GM/DM - as they should be.  There doesn't need to be a rule for *EVERYTHING*.   I was pretty grateful for the presence of this philosphy.

The only thing that may be missing from this whole book is a conversion to standard DnD.  I heard that it is coming in a later product, but I think its inclusion in the UA "core" book might have silenced many of the criticisms this book is getting.

Bottom Line:

This is not a replacement for the PHB.  This is a book of alternatives to the PHB which present a certain flavor that may or may not suit your tastes.  It is also a guide and starting point for a new campaign designed by Monte and supported by other affiliated companies.  I would say, check it out and see if it meshes with your style.  There is som much stuff in here, that I would be surprised if something in there didn't fit you right - whether it be new classes, races, truenames, magic etc. And if the whole package doesn't suit you, maybe just check out the PDFs coming out of the broke down sections.  

While I may not be using all of UA, it is obvious that this is a well made product - and the best product I have seen from Monte.

Razuur


----------



## Monte At Home (Aug 5, 2003)

BVB said:
			
		

> *
> Is it really that much different than trying to imagine why humans don't stick with ape totems? *




Hey, you stole my standard answer!


----------



## woodelf (Aug 5, 2003)

Razuur said:
			
		

> *Is it compatible?  Sure is.  Is it for everybody's campaign?  Probably not, but then that was not the claim.
> *




And, on the flipside, D&D has always *claimed* to be fairly "generic", refusing to acknowledge its fairly strong implicit setting assumptions.  So, frex, D&D3E may claim to be for everyone's D&D-genre campaign, but i'd say it isn't.  D&D3E doesn't really handle Midnight, either (i'd say tossing half the classes and ripping out pretty much the entire magic system to be replaced with something else constitutes "not compatible").  I'd have real trouble using out-of-the-box D&D3E (or 3.5E) for the setting i developed around the AD&D1/2 rules, frex.  I'd have less trouble using AU for this setting.  

And, let me just jump on the bandwagon to say that i think AU is better at being "D&D" than D&D3/3.5E is.  D&D3E is trying to straddle an awkward line: it wants to preserve the implicit-setting elements while being generic.  IMHO, you have to go one way or teh other.  AU embraces the implicit setting (albeit a slightly different one).  I'm currently working on a fantasy D20 system that excises as much of it [implicit setting] as possible.



> *This is not a replacement for the PHB.  This is a book of alternatives to the PHB which present a certain flavor that may or may not suit your tastes.
> *




I disagree.  This is just as much a replacement for the D&D PH as the Everquest or Spycraft core books are. There's no reason you can't use this either for a Diamond Throne campaign, or as the toolkit for a homebrew setting. It's certainly no more limiting in the latter regard than D&D3.5E is.

I certainly intend to use it as is, but probably not with the Diamond Throne. I'm not enamored enough of D&D3E to buy the books (or, actually, to put up with playing it, really--tried it for 2 years, and it got worse the more familiar with it i got).  AU, OTOH, is like Spycraft: it has me wanting to play, or even run, a game, despite not caring for class/level systems, the huge variability of the d20, the combat-centric mechanics, or the relative unimportance of skills.

More importantly, i haven't seen this much D20 stuff worth stealing outside of Spycraft or Dynasties & Demagogues.  Given access to the OGC, i'll be reusing a *lot* more stuff from this than from the D20SRD.



> *While I may not be using all of UA, it is obvious that this is a well made product - and the best product I have seen from Monte.
> *




Second this: previously, i've been very hit-n-miss with Monte's stuff.  Some, i love (his new bard and the spellsongs).  Some is just too, well, "D&D3E" for me. AU, i *love*.  Only minor quibbles so far: every race except humans get racial levels, and yet every one of them in the description says, "Unlike humans and some other races..." they can take racial levels.  It just seems both silly and overblown--the only non-human race that can't take racial levels is pre-metamorphosis faen, and since sprytes are the same race, and can....  I think it would've read much more cleanly if it just said "[insert race name here] can take racial levels." Period.

Also, i'm a bit disappointed that runethanes cast "regular" spells, in addition to their runes.

Oh, an actual question i haven't figured out for sure:
I take it that taking the Runechild "race"/template gives you ECL +1, and he just says it in a slightly convoluted way?  Or is it actually that your XP totals behave as though you were ECL +1, but your total character level is unchanged (as the text seems to be saying?)


----------



## RobNJ (Aug 5, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> *Oh, an actual question i haven't figured out for sure:
> I take it that taking the Runechild "race"/template gives you ECL +1, and he just says it in a slightly convoluted way?  Or is it actually that your XP totals behave as though you were ECL +1, but your total character level is unchanged (as the text seems to be saying?) *



I don't have books easy to hand at the moment, so I'm going ot make up numbers.

Let's say that level 5's XP total is 7000 and level 6's is 13000.

I am 5th level, and at the end of session, my XP total is 13249.

I tell my DM, "Instead of gaining 6th level in Whatzis, I want to be a Runechild."

DM looks over her notes and thinks to herself, "Has he sacrificed, been altruistic?" etc.  She decides yes.

I am now a 5th level Whatzis Runechild with 7000 XP.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 5, 2003)

Razuur said:
			
		

> *DnD is a game that has classes that are truly archetypes: fighter, cleric, wizard, etc.  It even has some non archetypical classes Bard, Monk, Ranger (with spells), sorcerer that are really specialized versions of an archetypical class.  UA offers this.  The classes in it are specialized alternatives.  *




I'm not sure I agree.  Many of the classes in UA are really just as archetypical as the ones in standard D&D - and some are _more_ archetypical than their closest D&D counterparts.

For instance, many years of playing D&D has conditioned us to accept the heavily armored knight and the swashbuckler as to instances of the 'fighter' archetype - but really, they aren't the same, and probably shouldn't be the same.  Monte realized that and split them into Unfettered and Warmain.  

The Magister as far as I'm concerned is just as archetypical as the D&D wizard - in fact, with the staff and the aspect of power class features, they are arguably _more_ archetypical.  Like I told a friend, "these guys outwizard the wizard."  (Was anyone else thinking of Gandalf talking to Bilbo about the Ring when they read about the 'Display Power' ability? I'll bet a copper Monte was...)

The Champion is mostly what I was thinking about when I said some are more archetypical than their D&D counterparts, though - it encompasses the paladin, and other similar concepts without limiting itself by alignment.

Classes like the akashic are more heavily tied to the implied setting, it's true - but not really any more than the D&D paladin or ranger or other specialized classes.

J


----------



## Lousifer (Aug 5, 2003)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> * When a MONK, the weakest class in 3rd Edition*, is more powerful than a class, I think you have problems.
> *




lol.  I just find this quote ironic, as I was trying to convince someone that the 3.0 monk isn't hideously overpowered just a few weeks ago.  He is convinced that a monk is worth any 2 other characters of equivalent level.  I, obviously, disagree.

The 3.5 monk looks pretty tough.  Picking up AU next week, so I'll have a look at the Oathsworn then.


----------



## Mythtify (Aug 6, 2003)

Well, I just got  my copy of Au today.  I wasn't going to, but all the good things said about it sold me.  I respect Monte as a designer, but a lot of the things he has written in the past just isn't for me.

I have enjoyed what I have read so far.  I like the races, and the  classes. I havent gotten t othe magic system yet.

The only thing that realy bugs me is all the space that is used to give rules that are already in the players handbook.

Monte states  that AU is written for experinced players who are familiar with "other games" that use system.  If thats the case, the book is written for people who already know how combat works, how skills work, what the core mechanic is, ect, ect.

Basicly he is reprinting rules he already expects people to have and know.  

Why reprint all this material.  I understand that he wanted to make it stand alone, which it isn't anyway.  

This is a shame, since all the orginal material seems to be very good. I would have loved to see more orginal designed material than reprinting rules we all have.

I am realy looking forward to the conversion document.

All in all, Good Job Mr. Cook.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 6, 2003)

Razuur said:
			
		

> *
> And the best part for me, is not the magick or the classes, but the attitude. The attitude is that lets put the control back in the hands of the GM/DM, which is kind of contrary to 3.5, IMHO. It doesn't force minatures down your throat, which is ironic, because if I remember correctly Monte uses minatures. He has sense enough to know that there are those out there who do NOT use minatures. He states that many items should be adjudicated by the GM/DM - as they should be. There doesn't need to be a rule for *EVERYTHING*. I was pretty grateful for the presence of this philosphy.
> *




This to me, is VERY significant. Like you, I agree that 3.X has definitely gone too far in making D&D a player-centric game vs. earlier editions. Of course one could argue earlier editions were too DM friendly, but 3.X  has overcompensated, IME.

Ona  more general note,  I've found that while just a  couple of weeks ago I was gushing all over the pretty new 3.5 PHB, now I sneer at it, put it back on the shelf and pick up AU instead.  

I still don't care for the races, and some of the "throwbacks" to 3.0 (vs. 3.5), but overall  I love this product, and  I was eager to dismiss it before I ever saw the thing.

I will be using most of the rules-set in the next campaign I work up (building up my own setting around the rules). I will include the standard D&D races instead of AU's, but  that's about the only major change, though I will tweak here and there.


----------



## Tsyr (Aug 6, 2003)

Mythtify said:
			
		

> *Well, I just got  my copy of Au today.  I wasn't going to, but all the good things said about it sold me.  I respect Monte as a designer, but a lot of the things he has written in the past just isn't for me.
> 
> I have enjoyed what I have read so far.  I like the races, and the  classes. I havent gotten t othe magic system yet.
> 
> ...




He never intended it to be _stand alone_, he intended it to be a _varient player's handbook_, as it says on the front cover, which it is.


----------



## Mythtify (Aug 6, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> *
> 
> He never intended it to be stand alone, he intended it to be a varient player's handbook, as it says on the front cover, which it is. *





Au page 3,
What Other Books Do I Need?

In theory, you don't need any other books. Monte Cooks's Arcana Unearthed contains all you need to play.



The way  I read it, it sounds like he is saying that AU is a stand alone product.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 6, 2003)

I don't want to play a parsing game here.

It's possible you could play with just AU.  I think at some point as DM, you'd want the DMG to get some NPC classes and info on different conditions like stunned, blinded, and the like.  You might also want the monster manual so that you have the stats for those nifty energy creatures your magister is summoning.

I think the point is that you don't need the PHB or FRCS to play.  Although, I suppose you could have a campaign with just PC-classed characters of the AU races.


----------



## Ezrael (Aug 6, 2003)

It seems to me that some people are saying that yes, AU is sufficient to build an entirely new campaign world around. So bolstered by such arguments, I suppose it's time to bite the bullet and make use of it to do so. I may cheat and take an old campaign idea and entirely retool it to suit AU (although I *know* I'm going to include the Psionics Handbook and make heavy use of Illithids, Githyanki and Githzerai...I'm weak, I love Psi too much to leave it out) 

This therefore leads to another question: how hard to people think it would be to extend the magic system changes to the psionics rules? I'm thinking of taking the psion and psychic warrior powers and dividing them into simple, complex and exotic powers...will this require me to entirely retool the point costs for powers, will I need to come up with enhanced versions of same? 

Also, how easily does anyone think I can combine AU with the Epic Level Handbook? I realize the ELH isn't Open Content (will the truncated ELH information in the 3.5 DMG become Open, does anyone know?) so I don't expect Malhavoc to release Epic Warmains, Epic Akashics et al, but will I be breaking my spine to try and do it myself?


----------



## WizWrm (Aug 6, 2003)

> This therefore leads to another question: how hard to people think it would be to extend the magic system changes to the psionics rules? I'm thinking of taking the psion and psychic warrior powers and dividing them into simple, complex and exotic powers...will this require me to entirely retool the point costs for powers, will I need to come up with enhanced versions of same?




Psionics are handled entirely differently in Arcana Unearthed. I don't know how much you know, so I'll try to give you the gist of it. Certain spells that are thematically appropriate for psionics (such as _read minds, psychic blast, inner world_ [somewhat like _microcosm_]) are assigned a psionic descriptor, which means they are accessible to psionically-flavored characters: verrik spellcasters of any kind and mind witches always have access to psionic spells (there are maybe 3-4 per level), even if they're complex (or exotic in the case of the mind witch) - complex meaning only magisters have access to all of them, but with a huge stack of exceptions for every class; and exotic meaning you have to take a feat to be able to cast a specific exotic spell. In addition, you can take the Psion feat which gives ALMOST the same benefit as being a verrik or mind witch, plus access to the "psionic" spell template, which is casting a spell as a mental action only, for a price.

So, yes, psionics are handled but they've been subsumed into the general magic system. You could probably toss some PsiHB powers into the mix as spells, if you wanted, but mind witches are nearly psions as it is, considering the manifestations they get.



> Also, how easily does anyone think I can combine AU with the Epic Level Handbook? I realize the ELH isn't Open Content (will the truncated ELH information in the 3.5 DMG become Open, does anyone know?) so I don't expect Malhavoc to release Epic Warmains, Epic Akashics et al, but will I be breaking my spine to try and do it myself?




ELH will supposedly eventually become OGC, but there is a huge queue in front of it, and as you can see, there hasn't been much added since the original SRD. Something about a labor shortage.

It looks to me like it would be a lot of work converting it - if only because AU is so different (and fresh, and fun, and...), and the ELH is designed to be 'another twenty levels' for standard implied-setting D&D. Some of it could work unchanged, but you'd be spending a lot of time designing epic-level progressions, creating appropriate monsters, and writing worthwhile feats for uber-characters to pick up (no undead turning, for example, so that knocks out maybe 4-5 feats from the ELH alone). But considering the amount of effort needed, I personally don't think it would be worth the effort, though your mileage may vary.

[*SIDE NOTE:* Incidentally, for everyone else, there are six of us in Talking the Talk interested in playing in an Arcana Unearthed PbP game, but no one really wants to GM. If anyone has free time and wants to give it a shot, we'd appreciate it if you'd take a look.]


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 6, 2003)

Ezrael said:
			
		

> *Also, how easily does anyone think I can combine AU with the Epic Level Handbook? I realize the ELH isn't Open Content (will the truncated ELH information in the 3.5 DMG become Open, does anyone know?) so I don't expect Malhavoc to release Epic Warmains, Epic Akashics et al, but will I be breaking my spine to try and do it myself? *




The DMG epic stuff is already in the 3.5 SRD.

Some of the classes would be dead easy - warmains come to mind, magisters and mageblades too.  Akashics and oathsworn may be tougher, because they're classes of the 'special ability every level' sort.

J


----------



## Ezrael (Aug 6, 2003)

I did read the AU approach to Psionics but I guess I missed the complete picture you mentioned, WizWrm. That makes for interesting food for thought...I actually *like* the PsiHB approach to psionics and so I may well have to decide if I should bring it in as an alien system of power used by the evil Illithids and their Gith-descended enemies or just go with the AU system. (I suppose while I'm at it I could pick up Mindscapes and see if I like that system better.) Thanks to COC D20 and the Monster Manual, I'm already thinking of ways to work an entire series of inhuman empires crushed under the heel of the Giants into the background.

I probably wouldn't do anything towards converting ELH/the DMG epic stuff until such time as the game was actually rolling, but I'm a sucker for that kind of thing and I know I'd want to do it eventually. Of course, I don't need it to be open content to use in my own game, but it would have been nice to see what Malhavoc would have come up with, if they were of a mind to.


----------



## woodelf (Aug 6, 2003)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *This to me, is VERY significant. Like you, I agree that 3.X has definitely gone too far in making D&D a player-centric game vs. earlier editions. Of course one could argue earlier editions were too DM friendly, but 3.X  has overcompensated, IME. *




I'd describe it a bit differently: D&D3[.5]E is too rules-centric--the players don't have any more power than in previous versions of D&D, nor than in AU.  What AU has done is return some of the power to the play group--focusing on the GM, because it's a fairly gamist game.  

Basically, there are two significant distribution-of-power issues when constructing an RPG: between mechanics and group, and between players and GM.  I don't see any significant difference in the player/GM balance between D&D3E and AU, but i see a huge difference in the power balance between mechanics and group as a whole.  To see a game that actually gives more power to the players, at the expense of the GM, you need to look at something like Over the Edge or Trollbabe, or even our own Four Colors _al Fresco_.  

In fact, now that i think about it, AU actually gives *more* power to the players than D&D3[.5]E--hero points are one of the most basic player-empowerment tools in the RPG toolbox.  The simple ability of the players to choose to succeed at something important to them (even if only occasionally--i.e., until the hero points run out) is a *huge* empowerment.  Likewise, the ability to create new causes for champions or totems for totem warriors--or even the Unique Spell feat--are all things that give the players more power, even if they include the caveat of GM approval.


----------



## woodelf (Aug 6, 2003)

Mythtify said:
			
		

> *AU page 3,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Which may be partly marketing-speak.  Though, in fairness, *i* consider it standalone.  I don't own a single other D20 product 'cept Dynasties & Demagogues, and i don't see any reason i can't run a game using just AU.  (If i do, i *will* be tacking on the social-interaction stuff from Dynasties, mind you--but D&D doesn't have that stuff, either.)

I think my favorite bit of WotC OGL-necessitated marketing-speak i've found yet, however, comes from 2 paragraphs further down:



> The rules in this book are entirely compatible with other fantasy roleplaying supplements you might already own. In fact, _Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed DM's Screen and Player's Guide_ offers conversions to help you translate your existing campaign material, ...




Lessee--"other fantasy RPing supplements" i already own...  Cool! I finally have another book compatible with Aria: Worlds!  Or maybe it works with Cugel's Compendium of Indispensable Advantages.  And then there's Sky Point & Vivane. And, while we're on really cool fantasy cities, howabout Cliff Spider and Cry-Star?  This is gonna be *so* cool, putting all of those together.  :-^)

As for translating my existing campaing material, my current campaign is using heavily-modified Ars Magica, hybridized with the D&D3E spell list, for the system.  I wonder how comprehensive his conversions will be?...    

At least with the Scarred Lands stuff, they're only claiming compatibility with 3rd Edition RPGs, so i *know* it won't work with Ars Magica 4th or Earthdawn (there isn't even a 3rd ed yet).

</rant> 
Sorry.  I just get sort of sick of RPG publishers talking like D20 System is the only game in town--WotC OGL restrictions notwithstanding.  I also think they're shooting themselves in the foot a little bit, when it comes to pretty-much standalone products like AU (and Spycraft, and so on), which clean up or improve the D20 rules significantly, and could very well appeal to non-D&D players (like myself).


----------



## woodelf (Aug 7, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> *     The fact that religion, aside from the Faen and there(in my opnion and to my taste) silly creating gods for everything and anything, isnt hardly touched on at all I'm not 100% happy with, but it is better in many ways than how polytheism based around a not always that great an alignment system is shoved down ones throat in DnD.  *




You sorta say it yourserlf, but it's not like D&D3E really touches on religion, either.  In D&d3E, there is no religion, just nifty powers.  At least in AU, religion is a part of the fabric of life, as in the real world, and not just an excuse to get more kewl powerz.  I particularly like that the various instances of religion (feats, Faen beliefs) aren't munchkin-fodder.

Also, the removal of a "cleric"-type class was deliberate.  Apparently, nobody wants to play clerics in D&D, but everybody needs healing, so someone is usually "stuck" playing the cleric.  Monte figured that was silly, and tried to design classes that people would *want* to play.  Me, i've never seen the problem--but most of the D&D groups (of all editions) i've talked to have.  'Course, i think a large part of the problem is linking the religious class to the Knights Templar archetype.  I saw a lot more specialty priests (AD&D2) get played than clerics in any edition.  And most players chose a significantly less-combat-worthy priest.  Unless they went for the wargod priest with very little healing ability.


----------



## JEL (Aug 7, 2003)

Have the book and liking it a lot.  The races are good, but not anything that impressed me too much.  I really like the classes the most, especially the Runethane, which doesn't seem to get any attention.  The skills should have been done 3.5 style.  The feats are good, if maybe a few too many of them.  The magic system, for the most part, is excellent.

The one thing I don't get is exotic spells.  I like the idea, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion.  Specifically, it requires the expenditure of an entire feat to learn one spell that is slightly better than the other spells of that level.  At lower levels this is a complete waste and even at higher levels, I'd question it's value in light of all the other feats available.  It especially seems odd after he went through the trouble to boil down all the exotic weapons down into two feats.  If I use this system, I think I'll have to come up with an alternative to how exotic spells are handled.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 7, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> *The fact that religion, aside from the Faen and there(in my opnion and to my taste) silly creating gods for everything and anything, isnt hardly touched on at all I'm not 100% happy with, but it is better in many ways than how polytheism based around a not always that great an alignment system is shoved down ones throat in DnD.*




Really? I thought AU had a lot more usable information on religion than the PHB - and by 'usable' I mean information on what the religion is like rather than the name of the god and his favorite weapon.  I can read the racial descriptions in AU and describe a Giantish or a Sibbecai religious ceremony.  I can read the faen description and picture a bunch of faen 'rabbis' arguing over where the boundaries between each god's sphere of influence lie.  I can read the St. Cuthbert description in the PHB...and have zero idea of what a church of Cuthbert is like, what a priest of Cuthbert is like (except for his favored weapon!), etc.

J


----------



## Geoff Watson (Aug 7, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Really? I thought AU had a lot more usable information on religion than the PHB - and by 'usable' I mean information on what the religion is like rather than the name of the god and his favorite weapon.  I can read the racial descriptions in AU and describe a Giantish or a Sibbecai religious ceremony.  I can read the faen description and picture a bunch of faen 'rabbis' arguing over where the boundaries between each god's sphere of influence lie.  I can read the St. Cuthbert description in the PHB...and have zero idea of what a church of Cuthbert is like, what a priest of Cuthbert is like (except for his favored weapon!), etc.
> 
> J *




That was intentional, as the PHB isn't campaign specific.

Geoff.


----------



## woodelf (Aug 7, 2003)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> *That was intentional, as the PHB isn't campaign specific.
> *




riiight...  

That's why it doesn't assume particular races are PCs, vice enemies; doesn't make any assumptions about the sorts of roles that are tied to various skill sets, or which abilities go together [you wanna be sneaky and deceptive?  you must also be interested in killing people by surprise.]; doesn't make any assumptions about what sorts of deities are worshipped, or, for that matter, what sorts of deities *can* be worshipped [where's the Domain of love&sex? or [crop] fertility & health?]; and *certainly* doesn't assume a particular style of campaign by focusing on one sort of challenge almost to the exclusion of others.
</sarcasm>

Monte's absolutely right: there's a *lot* of setting built into D&D, and there always has been.  It's a lie to pretend otherwise, and hopeless to try and divorce it completely--you'd end up with something like Aria: awesome game, but can't really be played "out of the box".  Embracing the setting causes fewer problems than trying to pretend it's not there--you end up with all sorts of built-in bits that you can't address becaues they supposedly aren't there.


----------



## Ezrael (Aug 7, 2003)

> Monte's absolutely right: there's a *lot* of setting built into D&D, and there always has been.  It's a lie to pretend otherwise, and hopeless to try and divorce it completely--you'd end up with something like Aria: awesome game, but can't really be played "out of the box".  Embracing the setting causes fewer problems than trying to pretend it's not there--you end up with all sorts of built-in bits that you can't address becaues they supposedly aren't there.




I actually agree with half of your statement: sure, there's lots of setting built into D&D, especially now with 3E using the Greyhawk gods and such as the default. It can, however, be divorced wholly from the game, unless you count the very class concepts as setting material. I don't. I think a fighter can be anything from a massive brawler to a quick and deadly archer, a rogue can be a stealthy assassin or a nimble pilferer, a bard can be a master seducer or a friendly banterer, etc, etc. There's plenty of room to strip the game down to the bare essentials and rebuild it however you want, and you can do that if you choose using just the big three books.

However, in my disagreement with you, I'm not a fool (at least I hope not): using the critters from the MM unmodified, as an example, *does* impose setting ideas on you, as does using the races and gods from the PHB. A lot of good gamers and designers have taken those setting ideas and run with them, of course...both the Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun use elves, dwarves, humans and halflings, as an example, but those worlds are leaps and bounds away from each other. (In fact, I had an interesting idea while reading through the recent Dark Sun 3 PDF, that Arcana Unearthed would be an interesting way to shake up your Dark Sun game. Imagine if, just past the tablelands of Athas, a whole new verdant world awaited, the lands of the Giants whose degraded offspring are the half-giants of Athas...but I digress) That doesn't change the fact that to use them is to accept a certain level of setting.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you that the setting material is setting, but not that you can't reject it and still use the game. But that might in fact be what you mean after all, since you did use the terms "awesome game but can't be played out of the box" - you do need to put the work in to use the PHB to create a wholly new world, just like you would to use AU. Most people, I expect, would simply use the parts they like and discard the parts they don't...I know in my case, the biggest problem I'm having while thinking about how to use AU to create a new campaign is the idea of losing some of those setting ideas from D&D that I really like. In the end, I'll probably cheat and find a way to shoehorn them in.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 7, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> *you'd end up with something like Aria: awesome game, but can't really be played "out of the box". *




If you can play Aria at all you're a better man than I.  Bloody thing makes my head pound after ten minutes.  The Worlds book is nice though.

J


----------



## woodelf (Aug 7, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If you can play Aria at all you're a better man than I.  Bloody thing makes my head pound after ten minutes.  The Worlds book is nice though.
> 
> J *




If you want to see an example of the wondrous things that Aria can bring about, check out <http://www.tiltingatwindmills.net/web/ogalepihcra/>.  It's a wholly-original fantasy setting [Talislanta has "No Elves!"? Well, we've got "No Humans!"] built with Aria, and initially played with Aria for quite some time.  I've even run a few convention games in the setting using Aria rules.  We've since created rules for it using BESM and Fudge, and this is the setting that i built a social-centric D20 for.  Don't worry, no head-hurting Aria-ness is evident on the webpage.  ;-)
</plug type="shameless">


----------



## woodelf (Aug 7, 2003)

Ezrael said:
			
		

> *I actually agree with half of your statement: sure, there's lots of setting built into D&D, especially now with 3E using the Greyhawk gods and such as the default. It can, however, be divorced wholly from the game, unless you count the very class concepts as setting material. I don't. I think a fighter can be anything from a massive brawler to a quick and deadly archer, a rogue can be a stealthy assassin or a nimble pilferer, a bard can be a master seducer or a friendly banterer, etc, etc. There's plenty of room to strip the game down to the bare essentials and rebuild it however you want, and you can do that if you choose using just the big three books.
> *



*

Actually, the classes and races are the biggest elements of setting in D&D, IMHO.  You can't really build a con artist who isn't also pretty good in combat, and knows how to sneak attack, frex.  Or a cat burglar.  There are a whole passal of thief/rogue archetypes out there that either can't be done with the Rogue class, or end up with a bunch of extraneous abilities.  Extraneous abilities aren't as bad as missing abilities, but they still cause a problem: the classes are balanced assuming all abilities are used, so if you don't use them you have an unbalanced character. And if you do use them, you've changed your character concept.  And you can't "trade them in" for something appropriate, other than through GM fiat. [yes, obviously, you can change the classes.  i'm talking about the game as written.]

I still don't understand why they chose to make the dirty-fighting elements of the Rogue the core of the class, and shuffle all the deception and nimble-fingered stuff off to skills (where (1) you might not have them and (2) any class can learn them).

Or, look at the ranger and druid, especially in 3.5E: what if you want a woodsman, not a one-with-nature-guy?  And, now, you can't even play a beastmaster, because you get one animal companion, period.

Why do "barbarians" have berserker ability?  Where's the class for playing the "noble savage"?  How is it that barbarians are "honorable" yet not Lawful? Is this some new definition of "honorable"?

Why must those devoted to a deity (1) be good at magical healing, (2) be very good warriors, or (3) cast spells at all?

If you want to boil the classes in D&D down to their archetypes, you'd end up with 
--> guy who can fight
--> guy who's got good social skills (such as fast-talking and/or charisma)
--> guy who's really skilled/jack-of-all-trades
--> guy who can cast spells
--> guy with faith
--> guy who is in touch with nature
--> guy who draws upon inner strength

i can easily argue for the social-skills part to be split between the jack-of-all-trades guy and the faithful/religious guy, with parts of it (being charismatic) being elements associated with all of the archetypes.  [The jack-of-all-trades, as a heroic fantasy archetype, is usually the charismatic rapscallion, and/or the quick-thinker who is good in all situations that don't rely solely on brute force.] That leaves me with 6 basic archetypes for heroic fantasy.  Sometimes, you see these combined.  Sometimes you see them further differentiated (Unfettered vs. Warmain, frex).  

How does D&D3E stand up to these archetypes?  Well, there are really only two of the pure archetypes that you can do: guy who fights (fighter), and guy who casts spells (wizard).  The sorcerer, psion, psychic warrior, and monk all sort of dance around the inner-strength guy archetype, and likely one of them will be appropriate for a character concept in that mold, without too much extraneous junk.  The closest you get to the wilderness guy are barbarian (comes with a bunch of personality and ability assumptions, like rage), ranger (comes with spellcasting, and a strange juxtaposition of huntsman and friend-of-nature), and druid (pretty good, but the spellcasting needs to go).  

Skill guy? Nope.  Your options are rogue (tons of inappropriate combat stuff), expert (explicitly underpowered), and bard (more hedge wizard than bard, much less jack-of-all-trades).

And then we get to faithful guy--this one is the worst match.  Your choices are paladin (holy warrior--a much narrower archetype, and this one is a very specific morality of holy warrior), druid (at a stretch--they're about equal parts priest and one-with-nature), and cleric (what's with all the militarism?).  And all of them are wizard-style (as in, like wizards in literature/folklore, not wizards as in D&D class) spellcasters.

AD&D2 was moving in the right direction, and D&D3E should've continued in that direction: all of the personality-specific classes shoulda been made prestige classes, and the core classes should've been built around just skill sets, not personalities/societal roles.  Then, it'd be relatively easy to create whatever character you wanted by multiclassing just right.  

And, lest you think i'm just spouting: yes, i *do* think i can do better.  And i'm in the middle of it.  There will be 6 classes, with abilities grouped as above.  Flexibility, for those who want to differentiate more within an archetype (a la unfettered and warmain) comes from having many of the class abilities be like talent trees or bonus feats: choose appropriately from a broad set, to customize the character.

Oh, and to get vaguely on-topic: i think a previous poster was right that, in many ways, the classes in AU are closer to the fantasy archetypes than those in D&D3[.5]E are.  The greenbond, with the spirit-talking abilities and healing, is much closer, IMHO, to the general shaman/nature-magician archetype than the druid is.  The akashic, while using a bunch of mystic mumbo-jumbo to get there, essentially is a jack-of-all-trades if you look just at results and game mechanics.  The Oathsworn is at least as good as the monk or psychic warrior for inner-strength archetypes, and maybe better (some of the new feats help this one out, particularly). Religion/faith is a core element of your character (through ceremonies/feats) -- or not-- rather than being just another excuse for kewl powerz.  Actually, that's not entirely true: the champion is an *excellent* interpretation of the faithful warrior, much better than the paladin, because it's much less straight-jacketed.  Finally, the totem warrior, along with the greenbond, is a *very* cool class, very much along the lines of the one-with-nature or noble savage archetypes.

So, while AU has some fairly specialized classes [though the only one i've questioned the grouping of abilities for is Runethane: why do they cast spells at all?], i think it also has classes that let you get closer to more of the pure archetypes of heroic fantasy than D&D3E does.



			
				Ezrael said:
			
		


However, in my disagreement with you, I'm not a fool (at least I hope not): using the critters from the MM unmodified, as an example, *does* impose setting ideas on you, as does using the races and gods from the PHB. A lot of good gamers and designers have taken those setting ideas and run with them, of course...both the Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun use elves, dwarves, humans and halflings, as an example, but those worlds are leaps and bounds away from each other.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you that the setting material is setting, but not that you can't reject it and still use the game. But that might in fact be what you mean after all, since you did use the terms "awesome game but can't be played out of the box" - you do need to put the work in to use the PHB to create a wholly new world, just like you would to use AU. 

Click to expand...



But, Dark Sun is hardly "straight out of the box" as D&D is concerned.  And notice that, other than name, they may as well have invented all new races (even their general appearance is changed), and they basically redid all the classes, tossed several, and invented several more.  Obviously, you can strip out the setting elements and/or change them.  But that entails a fair bit of work, and stripping things down beyond the basics--some of the "basics" of D&D3E are the problem.

Anyway, my complaint is that D&D3E wants to be a fairly generic system, and it was known that many, if not most, D&D players build their own worlds.  So i'm rather disappointed that they didn't go further in getting down to the core genre archetypes, so you *don't* have to break things down, just build them up (such as by favoring certain feat trees).

edit: doh! missed a tag.  much better now.*


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 7, 2003)

JEL said:
			
		

> *The one thing I don't get is exotic spells.  I like the idea, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion.  Specifically, it requires the expenditure of an entire feat to learn one spell that is slightly better than the other spells of that level.  At lower levels this is a complete waste and even at higher levels, I'd question it's value in light of all the other feats available.  It especially seems odd after he went through the trouble to boil down all the exotic weapons down into two feats.  *




That's what I thought, too. I think the same holds true, to a lesser extent, for Complex spells -- one feat for one level is a pretty steep price for non-magisters to pay. Especially given the changes to Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

The first thought I had was to double the benefits of the Complex/Exotic spell feats -- that is, the feats give two levels of Complex spells, or two exotic spells, as appropriate. Or, for Unique Spell, maybe it gives some number of levels worth of Exotic Spells -- it seems kind of silly for a low level spell to cost as much as a high level spell.

A question that just occured to me -- PC-researched spells are automatically considered "Exotic"; so do PCs have to take Unique Spell every time they want to research a new spell? I don't have the book at hand, so I can't check.


----------



## Negative Zero (Aug 8, 2003)

have the book. love the content. not a big fan of the art, but that's just filler anyway. the font sizing and spacing is a lil odd, but very clean looking. and the book feels very sturdy. the races are cool, but not mindblowing. the classes are very very nice and in a lot of cases, they _are_ mindblowing. 

the champion i feel should replace the paladin everywhere! the warmain i felt works like an elite fighter type likely more accesible to nobles and wealthy merchants with cool abilities, but fewer feats, so a standard fighter might likely be more versatile. the oathsworn didn't grab me tho.

i loved the mageblade, and the concept and execution of the magister feels a lot more like what i expected a wizard to be. the runethane and witch are just beautiful.

i also have to hand it to Monte for the feats chapter. there are a lot of very useful and conceptually attractive offerings here. (not sure how they play out yet.) the magic feats are just sweet! and by sweet i mean totally awesome!  



			
				Malacoda said:
			
		

> *... What if I have no downtime? What if a character gains access to a spell level while slogging through a dungeon, having spent no real time studying, or anything resembling downtime except for sleeping and short resting? Does he have access to all those new spells for his level? The rules tells use they learn spells, not gain them automatically, like clerics. So what happens when you don't get a chance to learn them? ...*




the AU spell system is *not* DnD. and it hurts your understanding to think of it as such and to make a direct comparison to it. this is an entirely new way of doing things. the old rules and MO do not apply here.

i think it may help to think of the system not in terms of spells being created by individuals, but more so in the sense that spells are already a part of magic. (or at least certain spells, like simple spells, for example.) 

therefore, when a character gains the ability to cast spells of a new level, he doesn't need to go out and learn these spells, his new access to that level of power means he simply needs to call on the already existing power.

now, if you want to rule that the character needs to spend at least a full 24 hours in deep meditation (for example) in order to attune his mind to this new level of power, then feel free. that's one of the very cool things about AU, it's your choice. 

Monte says very specifically, that this is an advanced book. if you are a beginner, then this book is not for you. when i first read that sentiment, i thought it a bit pretentious, and that it smacked of overblown self-importance. but that was just the knee-jerk reaction. 

as i read some more, i realised that it really is true. it's not meant as an insult to anyone, simply a warning, that a certain level of competence is required. (NOTE: i am _not_ suggesting that you do not posses the required level of competence.)

so basically, this is a new system. and the old rules do not apply.

~NegZ


----------



## Ezrael (Aug 8, 2003)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *Monte says very specifically, that this is an advanced book. if you are a beginner, then this book is not for you. when i first read that sentiment, i thought it a bit pretentious, and that it smacked of overblown self-importance. but that was just the knee-jerk reaction.
> 
> as i read some more, i realised that it really is true. it's not meant as an insult to anyone, simply a warning, that a certain level of competence is required. (NOTE: i am not suggesting that you do not posses the required level of competence.)
> *




You know, I had the same feeling when I bought the book...I even remember rolling my eyes a bit at the idea that it was 'Advanced' D&D. (I may have even made a joke to that effect.) But the more I read the book, the more I come to realize that if nothing else there is a lot more careful reading required to make use of it, and probably a good deal of learning on the go while mastering the system. I was originally thinking about trying to make the Psi Handbook system work with AU, but now I think I'll give that a pass and just use the book's magic system (and its psionic components) for a while until I've learned it thoroughly enough.

I'd like to believe I possess sufficient competence, but at the same time, new is new and needs to be learned. And a lot of this is new, even though it's built out of familiar parts. I understand better why so many people seem so thoroughly taken with it.


----------



## Negative Zero (Aug 9, 2003)

another cool thing i noticed is that there are no longer only "good" and "bad" saves. there's an "ok" one now. check out the warmain's will (i believe). i like this addition. should have been in 3e.

~NegZ


----------



## ShadowX (Aug 9, 2003)

Can anyone tell me how 2-weapon fighting is different?  And can anyone give me a list of D&D feats that are in AU?


----------



## woodelf (Aug 9, 2003)

woodelf said:
			
		

> *Actually, the classes and races are the biggest elements of setting in D&D, [snip]
> *




Sorry 'bout that last post--missed a tag.  I didn't *really* quote that much text for a 2 paragraph reply.


----------



## Omega Lord (Aug 9, 2003)

Personally, I love AU. It puts a whole new spin on the whole 'fantasy RPG' bit and I love it.

Races- Eh, lukewarm about most of them. Like the faen, just dont feel any pressing need to play them. Sibbeci- its not that I dont think they are a good race its just that their mentality and apperance put them in the "Will only play if forced to" file, personal preference of course. Litorians- I like the image of a lion dude with dreadlocks, might play one eventually. Giants- I like them alright I might play one straight off. Mojh- like em and the cultural implications they have. Heard a suggestion that Mojh with all 3 racial levels can "give birth" to true mojh rather than kobolds, I will probalby do this in the eventuality that I actually get to play in this setting. Runechildren- me likey, I may devise a counterpart for them. Verrik- alien mindset, neat apperance, psionics, definitely considering running one of these guys my first time out.


My general impression of the classes- holy monkey     batman! Almost every one of the class descriptions made me want to play that class.

Akashik(sp?)- This is the first time I have ever wanted to play a skills based class EVER. Rouge/bard never really did it for me but the Akashik, mmmmmm.

Champion- Paladins done right, nuff said.

Greenbond- Neat alternative to druids. As has been said before, much closer to the spirit talking wise man image of druids.

Mage Blade- A caster/fighter where I dont have to go into some convoluted prestige class and/or quibble about armor? Where do I sign up?!

Magister- As someone else said "out wizards the wizard" and I like it that way.

Oathsworn- I like these guys better than the monk really. I just have this mental image of a high level oathsworn swimming oceans, running from one end of a continent to the other and other such superhuman deeds. I like this class alot .

Runethane- Neat take on the rune user type mage.

Witch- Genius plain and simple.


I like the new magic system MUCH more than the typical vancian spell system. The flexablity alone boggles the mind.

For the record yes I am a little bit of a Monte Cook fanboy but not because he helped make 3.0 or his support of D&D. I like his stuff because he consistently delivers high quality products which, more often than not, are immediately put in my "idea factory". I am not saying that he has not made perfect products but on average, I am very pleased with the products he has worked on. He also strikes me as a pretty decent guy to boot .

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 9, 2003)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> *Can anyone tell me how 2-weapon fighting is different?  And can anyone give me a list of D&D feats that are in AU? *



For the first question: Ambidexterity is a Talent (feat than can only be taken at first level), and I think it removes the Strength penalty for the off-hand as well. Also, there's a "Two-weapon fighting, massive" feat that lets you use a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it was light (prereq: Two-weapon fighting, Str 17+, BAB +7).

For the second question, I don't know. I only have the PDFs, which only have the stuff that's new (and not even all of that - it's mainly the equipment chapter that's missing).


----------



## Ezrael (Aug 10, 2003)

In my opinion, there has been insufficient love for the Totem Warrior. A very, very cool idea and one I'm loving tinkering with. As for AU races, I like them all fine except for humans. I see no reason to include them in the AU homebrew I'm working on. So I took them out. Admittedly it does bring back memories of Talislanta, but I liked Talislanta so that's fine by me, too.


----------



## ShadowX (Aug 10, 2003)

Can anyone tell me what the 2-weapon fighting feat does in AU?  It sounds like Ambidexterity gets rid of all penalties.


----------



## Rybaer (Aug 10, 2003)

ShadowX said:
			
		

> *Can anyone tell me what the 2-weapon fighting feat does in AU?  It sounds like Ambidexterity gets rid of all penalties. *




It just reduces all penalties for fighting with two weapons by 4.  Also, it's a prereq for improved two weapon fighting and two weapon defense.


----------



## volcivar (Aug 11, 2003)

*AU in Northern Virginia*

I will be running a DEMO of AU at the Game Parlor near the Potomac Mills Mall on Saturday August 16th, at 1:00 PM.  If any of you are interrested come on by.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 12, 2003)

I think the only bits I really don't like are the dog people and the cat people, not least because they read like sub-standard rip-offs of the Aslan and Vargr from Traveller (even down to the dog-people being the ones which are artificially raised to their intelligent status).

At least Traveller managed to bring some "alieness" into the alien races.

Regarding Runechildren - I like the idea, but I think those would have been better done as a racial level. It could have given no BAB, saves or HD, but opened up the special abilities as per normal - it becomes clearly a case of "purchasing" and ECL with xps, rather than the somewhat muddled approach which is actually used.

Cheers


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 12, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *I think the only bits I really don't like are the dog people and the cat people, not least because they read like sub-standard rip-offs of the Aslan and Vargr from Traveller (even down to the dog-people being the ones which are artificially raised to their intelligent status).
> 
> At least Traveller managed to bring some "alieness" into the alien races.
> *




I think "alienness" of "alien races" is far more important in a sci-fi game than it is in a fantasy game.  For a sci-fi game, part of the attraction is dealing with strange new races and their outlook.  

Very little fantasy involves "first contact", on the other hand.  Instead, the races are generally better integrated into the society of the game, and are used more as reflections of or a mirror to humanity, often being embodiments of one aspect of culture or personality.  In other words, they are archetypes, and as such they are far more "human" than the aliens from sci-fi (at least good sci-fi).

J


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 12, 2003)

Rybaer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It just reduces all penalties for fighting with two weapons by 4.  Also, it's a prereq for improved two weapon fighting and two weapon defense. *




I think you'll find its only a prereq for Improved 2WF.


----------



## Negative Zero (Aug 12, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *... it becomes clearly a case of "purchasing" and ECL with xps, rather than the somewhat muddled approach which is actually used.
> 
> Cheers *




ironcally, i started a discussion based on a very similar premise not too long ago. so i guess it goes without saying that i'm all for the idea 

~NegZ


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 13, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think "alienness" of "alien races" is far more important in a sci-fi game than it is in a fantasy game.  For a sci-fi game, part of the attraction is dealing with strange new races and their outlook.
> 
> ...




I actually see this as a common and recurring problem in fantasy though. Too many different species (they are more different than races really) sit in the Star Trek mould of aliens. They are humans with funny ears (or noses) and a stereotype. Part of this comes from the strange D&D homogenous settings, where there is a tacit assumption that there is an equal distribution of all human races, all humanoid races, all classes across the entire game world

There is no reason why fantasy races need not be as fully distinct as alien races in a sci-fi game... little of those games are about first contact after all, most sci-fi settings have well-known aliens (sounds a bit like an oxymoron!). I'd fully welcome anything which led players to make PC's from different species more than just "humans with funny ears and power-ups".

Pet peeve, really. Nothing more to see here


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 13, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *There is no reason why fantasy races need not be as fully distinct as alien races in a sci-fi game... little of those games are about first contact after all, most sci-fi settings have well-known aliens (sounds a bit like an oxymoron!).*




Very few sci-fi games have well known alien races that are truly alien, especially as PCs.

To me, the entire mohj mindset is alien.  Give up your gender and your race for scales and the ability to bud kobolds?  I'd think that anyone who became a mojh would be a creepy, creepy dude, and probably more alien than most so-called "aliens" in sci-fi, if only because he used to be human.

J


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 13, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Very few sci-fi games have well known alien races that are truly alien, especially as PCs.
> 
> J *




No disagreement there! I think that Traveller is the only one I saw that really came close - especially the Hivers and the Centaurs.


----------



## EarthsShadow (Aug 14, 2003)

*impressions and questions*

I like the book as I knew I would.

My question (I only have one) deals with magic spells.  I understand that you can weave slots... combine 3 lower level slots to use 1 higher level slot... or split up 1 higher level slot for 2 lower level slots.  Okay, if you split up a 3rd level slot for 2 2nd level slots in a round of action, do you get the spell energy to cast those two 2nd level slots in the same round, or how does this really work out?  I do understand that you can make this decision anytime during the day, and you can't change your mind back.


----------



## volcivar (Aug 14, 2003)

> do you get the spell energy to cast those two 2nd level slots in the same round




If you have the right feats, you can use those slots to power one spell in the same round.  So the answer is yes.  You cannot use those slots to cast 2 separate spells unless you had the quicken spell feat and 2 more slots as the cost to quicken is double to laden (use 2 slots).


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 14, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No disagreement there! I think that Traveller is the only one I saw that really came close - especially the Hivers and the Centaurs. *




And the Kafers from 2300AD, the Kafer Sourcebook has to be the best RPG book on an alien race.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 14, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No disagreement there! I think that Traveller is the only one I saw that really came close - especially the Hivers and the Centaurs. *




...and so we come full circle, since there have been many people talking about the similarities between Aslan/Vargr and litorian/sibbecai (ignoring the fact that Monte did litorians long ago for some kind of Rolemaster supplement, I believe).

J


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 14, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ...and so we come full circle, since there have been many people talking about the similarities between Aslan/Vargr and litorian/sibbecai (ignoring the fact that Monte did litorians long ago for some kind of Rolemaster supplement, I believe).
> 
> J *




I'm pretty sure that Aslan predated anything that Monte may have done for Rolemaster... they've been around for decades (but then again, I'm not so familiar with Rolemaster). Litorians are so bleh though. Just like every other cat-race that I've seen from fantasy games. Where was the imagination?


----------



## tetsujin28 (Aug 14, 2003)

The only fantasy rpgs that had really alien races were Runequest (when it was connected to Glorantha) and Tekumel.


----------



## drnuncheon (Aug 14, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Litorians are so bleh though. Just like every other cat-race that I've seen from fantasy games. Where was the imagination? *




I guess that depends - are they supposed to be new, unusual and imaginative, or are they supposed to be archetypal (like the core races)?  I figured the latter, so something _really_ strange/unusual/alien would actually detract from the purpose of the AU races.  

If you want an elf in D&D, then you probably want the base elf to be woodsy and magical (not slash-and-burn farmers), and you want dwarves to live underground and mine things (not live in treehouses and be gourmet chefs).  Certain settings can change that, but they only work well because the base is there.  Similarly, if you want lion-people in D&D, you probably want strong, individualistic, proud warrior types, and not something weird but original like a race of pacifistic philosophers.

(Giants aren't quite the archetypical giants, it's true - unless you go back to, say, Prometheus, but calling a race 'titans' when they start out as size M seems wrong.)

J


----------



## Ezrael (Aug 15, 2003)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> *The only fantasy rpgs that had really alien races were Runequest (when it was connected to Glorantha) and Tekumel. *




I'd also say Talislanta had quite a few alien races.

On the whole Aslan/Vargr thing, why not just say he ripped off the Kzinti? I don't say this thinking he did rip anything off...it's hardly a new concept, as someone else wrote in the thread about the hostility the game's recieved from people who think it's overly 'furry' or whatever, there have been legends of animal-human combinations going all the way back to the Egyptian gods, even. 

I think the mojh and the verrik are alien enough considering how AU is intended to be used. I admit I would have liked it more if there were another four or five races in AU, gotten a little weirder. But I can wait for the Diamond Throne to see what else he's created.


----------



## Negative Zero (Aug 16, 2003)

Ezrael said:
			
		

> *... people who think it's overly 'furry' ... *



there's been a lot of talk about "all the furries" in AU, and this strikes me as odd. there are 9 new races in the book, and only 2 of them fall into this grouping. maybe i'm dense, but, i just don't get it.

~NegZ


----------



## JeffB (Aug 17, 2003)

Negative Zero said:
			
		

> *there's been a lot of talk about "all the furries" in AU, and this strikes me as odd. there are 9 new races in the book, and only 2 of them fall into this grouping. maybe i'm dense, but, i just don't get it.
> 
> ~NegZ *



Because two furry critter races are two too many!


----------



## Krieg (Aug 18, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *To me, the entire mohj mindset is alien.  Give up your gender and your race for scales and the ability to bud kobolds?  I'd think that anyone who became a mojh would be a creepy, creepy dude, and probably more alien than most so-called "aliens" in sci-fi, if only because he used to be human.
> 
> J *




I am in complete agreement, which is why the main "human" antagonist in my CoC campaign is going to be making the transformation very soon.

My players should find it suitably disturbing.


----------



## woodelf (Aug 20, 2003)

Omega Lord said:
			
		

> *Akashik(sp?)- This is the first time I have ever wanted to play a skills based class EVER. Rouge/bard never really did it for me but the Akashik, mmmmmm.
> *




Perhaps it's because it's the first time there's really *been* a skills-based class in D&D.


----------

