Arcana Unearthed & DnD 3.5

[garyh]

I recently started a new campaign, and I mixed AU with 3.5 (as well as WarCraft and the Complete Warrior ), and what I decided to do was to include all the combat and skill classes from AU, but not the magic classes. I decided two magic systems running around would be too confusing. So my world looks like this (anything not labeled is as from the PHB):

Races - Dwarf, Giant (AU), Human, Orc (WC), Goblin (MM)

Classes - Akashic (AU), Barbarian, Bard, Champion (AU), Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Hexblade (CW), Marshal (Mini Handbook), Ranger, Rogue, Samurai (CW), Sorcerer, Totem Warrior (AU), Unfettered (AU), Warmain (AU), Wizard

Oh, and I'm using the Celestial, Demon, Devil, Elemental, Gold and Red Dragon bloodlines from UA.

I didn't give the bonus ceremonial feat to anyone, but everyone is using the PHB XP chart. Oh, and to compensate for and mesh the increased number of classes available with Favored Classes, I gave each non-human race three choices (Barbarian, Druid and Totem Warrior for Orcs, for example) of favored class, to be decided by the player when their PC take a level in a second class.

In case anyone's curious, the party looks like:

Dwarf (earth-blooded) Warmain
Giant Samurai
Human (air-blooded) Druid
Orc Hawk Totem Warrior
Human Rogue

No arcanists anyway, but luckily the Rogue has maxed Use Magic Device.

This approach gives your warrior/skill-types a lot of room to specialize, and leaves magic (already the most complicated part of the game, IMHO) alone.

Regarding including these options in an existing campaign, I'd stick to whatever races are in your world, and just open up the AU non-magic classes to PC's, unless you can come up with a good reason for a new approach to magic being discovered.

 

[DMScott]

Okay, I am running my homebrew game and I am enjoying, but I would like to spice it up a bit as well. So far everything is syncing up quite nicely. But if I throw Arcana Unearthed into the mix, will that upset the balance of things? How well do the classes from DnD and AU mix?

Balance and mechanics-wise, they seem to mix OK. AU characters are a little stronger at lower levels and probably a bit weaker in the mid-to-high level range (since they don't have access to easy cures to some common conditions - ability damage is a surprisingly big deal in AU), but nothing is too far out of whack. IMHO, the biggest problem with mixing AU and regular D&D is in the magic systems. AU's mechanics are a lot more flexible and fun, while D&D allows you to do more with magic. Running the two side-by-side, you might find there's a bit of friction if players using one system get jealous of what the other can do, and this can work both ways.

I am aware that the Diamond Throne is the core setting for AU, but I do not wish to start up a new campaign.

AU is no more strongly bound to the Diamond Throne setting than D&D is to Greyhawk, so porting stuff into your own campaign shouldn't be a problem. Only thing you have to do, if you have a pre-existing campaign, is explain why the new stuff your adding - be it races, classes, feats, equipment, or the magic system - wasn't previously known.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I'd give the bonus feat to all the players and use one chart. Doesn't matter which one.

As to spellcaster systems, the wizard can be side by side with the magister. Each player uses the appropriate book. Don't mix the two. Works fine.

 

[garyh]

As to spellcaster systems, the wizard can be side by side with the magister. Each player uses the appropriate book. Don't mix the two. Works fine.

I considered that, but I decided not to for two reasons: 1) Half my players had never played before, so I didn't want to confuse them more than I already was, and 2) magic is my weak spot as a DM already, so I didn't want to confuse myself.

Given the right group, I see no problem with your approach, Varianor.

 

[Style]

The XP chart is still not OGL; neither are any character generation methods, for that matter.

What about the Mongoose's Pocket Player's Handbook? That's OGL (not d20), isn't it? It has character generation methods and the xp chart.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Thanks for all the responses, guys. This should really help me integrate AU much easier. Again, my thanks.

 

[MarauderX]

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100049

 

[MarauderX]

Oh, forgot this one...

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=94286

 

[ruleslawyer]

Welcome to the boards, Frukathka!

As a rule, I find that the following elements of AU can be dropped into a D&D campaign, 3.0 or 3.5. The AU non-spellcasting classes, item creation feats, most combat-related feats, truename rules, and races fit pretty well. I'd say that if you're giving PCs the extra feat at 1st level, you give it to all PCs regardless of class. I don't think it's unbalancing to do that.

The exceptions are the oathsworn class, which IMHO should use the 3.5 monk flurry rules, Defensive Move/Stance (where you should just pick whether to use these feats or Dodge), and TWF, where you should just pick an alternative. (I'd go with 3.5 TWF, especially if you're using the ranger class.)

While I respect Varianor's suggestion about using AU and D&D magic side by side (that suggestion has been endorsed by Monte, after all), I find that the approach causes too much proliferation of rules for my taste and is a bit complicated for new players from the POV of creating options. I'd suggest picking one magic system or the other, and keeping the relevant classes, or combining the two. The scenarios might look like this:

1) AU spells, magic-related feats, spell templates, greenbonds, mage blades, magisters, runethanes, and witches

2) D&D spells, metamagic feats, alt. spell templates (see Dragon 318?), bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, wizards.

3) Something different. IMC, for example, all spellcasting classes use the AU ready rules, magic-affecting feats (Quicken, Modify, etc.) and spell templates. The primary spellcasting classes are the cleric, druid, and magister; the secondary spellcasting classes are the bard and ranger. (Paladin is a PrC.)

Clerics and druids use the greenbond spell progression, and the cleric gets a restricted spell selection, only medium armor (no shields), and has a few key spells removed.

Neither clerics nor druids use the simple/complex/exotic system, instead having their own (limited) class spell selection. [I'd considered giving clerics access to simple spells, spells with the positive energy descriptor, domain spells, and spells with a special [miracle] category, but I decided that was too complicated.) The magister is as in AU, but with d4 Hit Dice and some of the D&D spells ported over into simple, exotic, or complex categories. A magister also can choose a different focus from a staff; some choose a familiar, others can use spellbooks.

The bard uses the mageblade spell progression, and gains access to all simple spells and spells with the Music descriptor; these include a selection of sound-based and other spells appropriate to the bard class. The ranger has its usual class spell list.

I don't use the witch or sorcerer classes, but would allow the mageblade and runethane as is. I'd be happy to post my spell lists, which are attached to another thread referenced here.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I already give all PCs a bonus regional feat. I think another first level feat would be unbalancing.