Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="d4" data-source="post: 1067963" data-attributes="member: 12699">you are exactly right -- this is exactly why i have no intention of buying AU. it doesn't mesh with any homebrew D&D setting i've created since 3e came out. of course it doesn't -- i designed all those worlds using 3e's assumptions as the base, so it's no surprise.what i think i'm hearing on this thread, though i am probably reading too much into it, is people saying this is NOT a valid reason for disliking the book. i believe it is.there are literally dozens of other books i can buy that would slot seamlessy into my D&D campaigns. i'd much rather spend my money on them than on AU, because AU has much less utility for me.of course, i could ditch my standard D&D campaign world and design one using AU as the base assumption. i will not do that, however, because (as i've said before) i find i enjoy D&D's assumptions much more than i enjoy AU's.this is, of course, simply a matter of taste and a completely valid stance to take on the book.ok, here's some specifics based on the latest homebrew world i've developed for 3e (although it basically applies to every other homebrew i've done with this system):1) the races don't port over because they don't exist in this world and there's no room for them. i've already specifically defined which races exist and will not add new ones willy-nilly.2) Akashics are right out because their is no concept of a "racial memory" or "collective unconscious" in this world.3) Oathsworn are out because this world does not have the concept that people can gain power from oaths.4) Truenames do not exist in this world, so parts of the magic system would need to be altered.5) in my world, people do receive divine magical powers from gods and spirits. thus clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, etc. make sense in this world. since AU lacks a distinction between arcane and divine magic, i'd either have to add one myself, further mutating the magic system, or have only divine casters use the PHB system -- and using two so different magic systems IMO would make things overly complicated and be possibly unbalanced.6) in my world, arcane spellcasters do not focus their power through a staff, sword, or any other implement, thus crossing off the magister and mage blade classes.7) in my world, people do not gain abilities by devoting themselves to some abstract concept, thus champions most likely would not work. i could develop a system where i had defined abilities for champions of each diety, but i'd prefer not to have to do that much work. in core D&D, all i need to do is pick out a couple of domains for clerics of each god and i'm done.8) runes do not hold any magical power in my world (being simply a system of writing, and not the only one at that), thus runethanes are out.witches i'm intrigued about as a substitute for the "sorcerer" slot. however, i'm not willing to have witches mixed with the other PHB spellcasters for the complexity and balance reasons noted above.i don't know enough about greenbonds to make a decision on whether i'd like them better than druids or clerics, but again, i'm not willing to institute a change of magic system just to allow the one class.so that leaves warmains and unfettereds, which i could obviously port over without much difficulty at all, and would fit into the flavor of my campaign world fairly easily.am i willing to buy a $30 hardback for two new core classes?of course not.</blockquote>

Verification