Ask Monte Cook some questions! Answers in this thread, next chat to be announced

[Mark]

This is not a d20 product, it's an OGL product.

That was my main point of confusion. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

[Gez]

A little question, born from this excerpt of the chat:

thatdarncat> Dr. Strangemonkey> There has been a lot of talk lately about multi-classing with spellcasters would you care to elaborate on Arcana Unearthed's response to this issue? Particularly on AU's take on minor spell casting classes versus the ranger and paladin of DnD?

Monte > Well, very briefly, spells in AU have a single list, rather than multiple ones. Different casters have different access to the list, but it's still one list. That means that spellcasting levels can stack in ways that they can't in D&D. If you are a spellcaster with spell slots of 4/2 and you take on a new class that gives you new slots of 3/1, you simply have 7/3 slots.

I'm a bit disappointed there. I kinda hoped something more universal, like BAB. If I may illustrate an example of what I had in mind, one (1) table of spells readied and spell per day according to caster level, and then each spellcasting class with a caster level that increase more or less slowly.

Applied to D&D class, that could looks like that:

One universal table:

CL  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9
 1  3  1  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
 2  4  2  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
 3  4  2  1  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
 4  4  3  2  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
 5  4  3  2  1  -  -  -  -  -  -
 6  4  4  3  2  -  -  -  -  -  -
 7  4  4  3  2  1  -  -  -  -  -
 8  4  4  3  3  2  -  -  -  -  -
 9  4  4  4  3  2  1  -  -  -  -
10  4  4  4  3  3  2  -  -  -  -
11  4  4  4  4  3  2  1  -  -  -
12  4  4  4  4  3  3  2  -  -  -
13  4  4  4  4  4  3  2  1  -  -
14  4  4  4  4  4  3  3  2  -  -
15  4  4  4  4  4  4  3  2  1  -
16  4  4  4  4  4  4  3  3  2  -
17  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  3  2  1
18  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  3  3  2
19  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  3  3
20  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4

Then:
Bards: CL +1 at level 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, etc. Roughy +2/3 per level. End up with CL 13 (spells of up to level 7).
Clerics: CL +1 at each level, get one bonus spell from domain for each spell level they may cast.
Druids: CL +1 at each level.
Paladin & Ranger: CL +1 at level 1 and every three levels thereafter (4, 7, 10, etc.). End up CL 7 (spells of up to level 4).
Wizards: CL +1 at each level.
Sorcerers: CL +1 at each level save the second, get two bonus spellcasting at each spell level they may cast.

That way, multiclassing spellcasters is just like multiclassing fighters. You add numbers together, and that number determine your number of spell per day, or your number of attacks in a full attack.

It would be hard to put in D&D given the important differences in spelllists, but I think it would be doable for UA. That solution also solve some balance problems with continuing PrCs (+1 caster level don't give the same benefits to a ranger than to a clerics, and may make some PrCs unbalanced for the stronger spellcasting classes, but by giving CL that behaves like BAB, balance issues are simplified).

 

[Darius101]

I like Monte's idea because it is very simple and to me it makes more sense than having to add all that stuff you put in there Gez.

The more stuff you need to add to come out with a number the more confusing it can get when you make higher level character and from a DM standpoint I would rather have something more universal than more confusing. The current state of figuring out Multiclass is ok but it is easy to make a mistake at times especially with spell casters. With the UA system it will cut the making of Multiclassed NPC's down quite a bit from what Monte has shown so far.

Good thinking though Gez...just too clunky for me in comparrison.

Darius

 

[Gez]

I like Monte's idea because it is very simple and to me it makes more sense than having to add all that stuff you put in there Gez.

Actually, it would solve all the problems of multiclassing spellcasters. Remember all the debates about the mystic theurge.

The more stuff you need to add to come out with a number the more confusing it can get when you make higher level character and from a DM standpoint I would rather have something more universal than more confusing. The current state of figuring out Multiclass is ok but it is easy to make a mistake at times especially with spell casters. With the UA system it will cut the making of Multiclassed NPC's down quite a bit from what Monte has shown so far.

It's no more confusing than BAB or saves, and it's more universal than having one spellcasting table by class.

Sorry, I don't want to hijack the thread, but I had to defend my baby

 

[Merlion]

I hate to disagree Gez as we're often in agreement on things but it IS a little more confusing than BAB and saves. Also I dont care for the fact that for certain casters you end up with certain levels where your spellcasting doesnt increase at all. And more minorly I fear that if it was that easy a lot of people would be tempted to take a handful of levels in many different spellcasting classes just to gain the class abilities.
It IS a good concept overall though. Very interesting.

 

[cthuluftaghn]

AU Event Book?

Monte,

I have a question and suggestion:

First, the question... are there any event books planned for the AU rules and/or "implied setting" ?

Second, the suggestion... Since you started your diaries, I've been trying to figure out how to introduce AU into my current Forgotten Realms campaign. How about an event book specifically designed to bring AU into an existing campaign?... something to explain the insurgence of new races, new lifestyles, ceremonies and rituals, etc., and how to DM such a thing.

Just my two cents worth.

bd

 

[Lalato]

E.N. Publishing's Elements of Magic uses a similar system to Gez's. However, it uses half levels. So a 1st level Bard has 1/2 level Caster Level. It's an interesting concept.

--sam

 

[Michael Tree]

I'm a bit disappointed there. I kinda hoped something more universal, like BAB.

I agree. In fact, I wrote a very similar proposal on Monte's boards a little over a week ago.

The most significant difference was that I seperated the "caster level" progression from "spells/day," so a class like the bard has a caster level equal to his class level, but a spells/day progression equal to 3/4 his class level.

I also gave nonspellcasting classes a minor "caster level" progression (1/3 levels) so casters multiclassed with skill or fighting classes aren't completely shafted when it comes to DR, dispelling, and spell effects.

That solution also solve some balance problems with continuing PrCs (+1 caster level don't give the same benefits to a ranger than to a clerics, and may make some PrCs unbalanced for the stronger spellcasting classes, but by giving CL that behaves like BAB, balance issues are simplified).

Indeed, but I don't think it's more simple. Nevertheless its elegance and inherent game balance more than makes up for the extra complexity IMO.

 

[Pevishan]

EventBooks in AU

There would be no reason to make AU specific eventbooks. Why would there be? A meteroite falling onto a world is the same wherever you go (BTW, is greatWhen the Sky Falls )

I could see some tweaking here and there to adapt some spells to the H/D thing, but really there is no need. Anything that really could be consided a "AU-specific Event Book" would really just be a adventure.

 

[Lalato]

Pevishan... I don't think he meant that...

Correct me if I'm wrong cthuluftaghn... but I think you meant...

Will there be a new "event" book that might introduce the AU races and stuff into an existing campaign? Not if the already published Malhavoc event books would be "translated" to AU.

--sam