Arcana Unearthed - what have you borrowed?

[GlassJaw]

This question is mostly directed at those that have just borrowed material from AU material and are not running a complete AU campaign.

I bought AU when it came out but wasn't really blown away by it like many were. After that, it kind of got put back on the shelf. I recently started flipping through it again and I'm thinking about adding a few things to my existing FR campaign.

So what I'm wondering is what are some of the things you would recommend for incorporating into a more "traditional" campaign?

One thing I really like are the faen and their metamorphosis. I really like faeries (with an "e"). I also revised the PHB sorc using some of the Magister concepts.

Anything else I should take a look at?

 

[HellHound]

I *want* to add the lesser and greater spell uses from the system. Where each spell can be cast at one of three levels, for lesser, standard or greater effect.

But the effort to add this to all the spells in my campaign... ouch.

===

I'm also considering switching to the templated spells concept, but am not sure about it overall... although I think they will be more used than the current metamagics at least.

===

Otherwise... not much. Painfully little for a book of so much hype.

 

[GlassJaw]

Otherwise... not much. Painfully little for a book of so much hype.

Hmm, I guess I'm not the only one in that boat anymore.

I like the idea of a nature caster class without wildshape but the Greenbond didn't do it for me. It seemed like a weak class to me.

I also liked the attempt at a roguish/skill-based class without sneak attack. The Akashic has some cool ideas but I'm not sure I like the supernatural feel it has. :\

On a slightly unrelated note, I still fail to understand why half of the book was a rehash of the PHB. I know that was Monte's intent all along but I had paid for most of it already in the PHB. Some people blew a gasket over this very fact with 3.5 but not with AU.

That said, I'm really looking forward to Beyond Countless Doorways so don't hate me Monte.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think that the point of replicating "PHB-style" rules in AU, GlassJaw, was to make the book a standalone. There have been a number of posters on these boards (no one I know personally) who run AU and don't own a PHB.

As for borrowing: I've mined AU extensively for my FR campaign, and probably will do so for my upcoming Midnight campaign. Things I use in FR:

1) Most of the magic system, including the simple/complex/exotic spell categories, the spell templates, diminished and heightened spell versions, and the system of lading spells to create effects rather than using the D&D metamagic feats. This has worked out spectacularly.

In general, I use AU versions of spells instead of D&D one wherever both exist, and ban several D&D spells that I feel are flat-out too good when compared with AU equivalents (magic missile, fireball, resurrection).

2) The magister class, which is called the "mage" (since FR has a very campaign-specific definition of "Magister") and replaces the sorc and wizard IMC. I find this class much more appealing than the D&D sorc and wizard classes. I've added many of the iconic D&D spells to the magister class list (divided into simple/complex/exotic categories based on power and assumed rarity, as suggested by Monte in the AU DM's Screen and Player's Guide), and as a compensating factor, I've lowered magister HD to d4 and limited them to gaining 10 new simple spells and 5 new complex spells (or exotic spells, if these are treated as complex spells due to possession of a template) every level. The flavor of FR is preserved by requiring magisters to keep spellbooks, except that they do not need to use those spellbooks to ready spells; instead, the spellbooks contain all their complex and exotic spells known.

3) The warmain and unfettered as "alt.fighters." Fighters can choose the heavy (warmain), light (unfettered), or skilful (D&D fighter) paths. These are treated as paths for the same class; warmain/fighter, unfettered/fighter, or warmain/unfettered multiclassing is prohibited just as invoker/enchanter multiclassing would be.

4) Truenames. There is already a precedent for these existing in FR, and I think they're cool to boot!

5) The item creation system, including the different feats and the spell-based multipliers; this is just how D&D should have done it from the get-go, IMHO!

Mind you, I think that all of the above are easily folded into a standard D&D (FR) campaign. The magister blows away the wiz and sorc as a spellcaster class concept, IMHO, the warmain and unfettered allow good modeling of the armored knight and swashbuckler concepts, and the magic system is full of the adaptability, flexibility, and variety that characterizes FR magic.

I find the races, the totem warriors, and the akashic a bit unusual to tie into a setting like FR, though I think the greenbond is an easy fit; the problem with this latter class, I think, is that it's flat-out inferior in power to either the cleric or the druid, which means it's just unusable in conjunction with those classes. I'm planning on using the greenbond (and NO druids, and only evil NPC clerics) in my upcoming Midnight game, though.

I'd really give the AU magic system another look, though; if I were writing a 4th edition, it's the one I'd go with.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

On a slightly unrelated note, I still fail to understand why half of the book was a rehash of the PHB. I know that was Monte's intent all along but I had paid for most of it already in the PHB. Some people blew a gasket over this very fact with 3.5 but not with AU.

As a previous poster said, the reason is quite simple - it is a variant player`s handbook designed to be used instead of the regular player`s handbook.
When you actually want to run a full AU campaign (as I do), it is quite handy if you can use one book instead of two for finding the important material.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I use Warmains and Unfettered alongside fighters. I use AU's item creation feats, and AU magic as another kind of magic (so there's divine magic, arcane magic, psionic magic, and AU magic). I use Devanian weapons, but they're very rare. I think I'll use totem warriors and some of the other classes, too. I use the bonus-to-Knowledge books in the equipment section and like 'em.

EDIT:

In general, I use AU versions of spells instead of D&D one wherever both exist, and ban several D&D spells that I feel are flat-out too good when compared with AU equivalents (magic missile, fireball, resurrection).

Sorcerous blast is signifigantly better than fireball. You can force one target to make 2 saves with a ranged touch attack, and can choose what kind of element you want to use.

 

[GlassJaw]

The item creation system, including the different feats and the spell-based multipliers; this is just how D&D should have done it from the get-go, IMHO!

Wow, I really didn't like the item creation feats.

the spell templates, diminished and heightened spell versions

I think most of these can already be done with either feats or actual spells.

Ehh, I don't know. I read over most of the stuff and it still didn't get me going. It just seemed like a lot of work to convert things over. I guess I just don't a system that's that much different. *shrugs*

Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Sorcerous blast is signifigantly better than fireball. You can force one target to make 2 saves with a ranged touch attack, and can choose what kind of element you want to use.

Y'know, that's what happens when one uses house rules and forgets that; I had bumped sorc blast up to 4th level and forgotten about it...

Wow, I really didn't like the item creation feats.

What didn't you like? They're far more consistent than the PHB ones in that they're divided by use method rather than ring vs. rod vs. wondrous item. Those divisions have always been problematic to me; essentially, Forge Ring and Craft Rod are practically worthless in the core rules because CWI duplicates them.

 

[GlassJaw]

What didn't you like? They're far more consistent than the PHB ones in that they're divided by use method rather than ring vs. rod vs. wondrous item. Those divisions have always been problematic to me; essentially, Forge Ring and Craft Rod are practically worthless in the core rules because CWI duplicates them.

I just didn't really like the generic groupings. What does creating a potion have to do with scribing a scroll? I can see a case be made for Craft Rod though. I've heard some people suggest combining it with Craft Staff (which I think is a very good idea).

 

[ruleslawyer]

I just didn't really like the generic groupings. What does creating a potion have to do with scribing a scroll?

Well, potions (Craft Single-Use Item) and scrolls (Craft Spell-Completion Item) use different feats. Moreover, why should creating a single-use wondrous item that I activate by touch be different than crafting a single-use potion that I activate by drinking it? It makes sense to have different feats for scrolls and wondrous items, because they use different activation methods. Wondrous items and rings? The only "difference" is in shape, and even then CWI would allow me to make an earring of x power. I just think that how an item looks shouldn't influence rules on how you make it.