[AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

[MaxKaladin]

I don't have AU yet, but these aren't rules questions. They're more along the lines of "how useful is this going to be to me" questions.

First of all, I get the impression that AU is pretty much incompatible with any of the D20 worlds out there what with different classes, races and, as I understand it, a different magic system. How true is this?

Second, I know there is a setting for AU. How dependant is AU on the Diamond Throne setting? Is it feasable to "homebrew" a setting and not use Diamond Throne? The little I know about it seems rather high-magic to me, which isn't exactly my style. I already have my own homebrew D&D world and I assume that AU won't mix with that and I'll need another world.

Third, how compatable will an AU campaign be with my existing collection of d20 books (magic, monsters, feats, PrCs, etc)?

I'm pretty much trying to figure out what I'd be getting into with this.

Thanks!

 

[johnsemlak]

I don't have AU, but since no one else has answered...

Monte Cook has stated that material from AU (classes, feats, races, etc) can be used with standard D&D pretty well. Whether or not this is really possible will surely depend on people's particular campaigns and DM/player adaptability. Also, the alternate spell/magic system is surely a point of difficulty.

Your second question is somethign I have wondered about myself. I suppose that existing adventures and campaign settings will be very difficult or impossible to use with AU, so you will have to use homebrewed stuff, or the very limited choice (so far) of AU adventures and the Diamond Throne setting.

 

[Monte At Home]

I don't have AU yet, but these aren't rules questions. They're more along the lines of "how useful is this going to be to me" questions.

Well, you might find my opinions biased, but I do have some experience with this.

First of all, I get the impression that AU is pretty much incompatible with any of the D20 worlds out there what with different classes, races and, as I understand it, a different magic system. How true is this?

I'd say it's not all that true, but it depends. If you want an all-AU game, using no standard PH material, and you play in say, the Forgotten Realms, you've got some real challenges ahead. (Mostly because you'll have to figure out what to do with all the elves and dwarves and druids and so forth.) If you just want to take a few race, or--even easier--a few classes and put them in FR, you can do this very easily. If you want to take most everything in AU and dump it into FR, which I'm only using as an example, there will be some decisions to make and some work to do, but it wouldn't be overwhelmingly difficult.

I myself am running a game that was a core D&D game, and basically added in about 95% of AU into it. It required some planning and forethought (such as reasons for where these new people came from), but it wasn't that hard.

There are people on the montecook.com boards talking about these same things right now, with all kinds of cool ideas for campaigns and conversions.

Second, I know there is a setting for AU. How dependant is AU on the Diamond Throne setting? Is it feasable to "homebrew" a setting and not use Diamond Throne? The little I know about it seems rather high-magic to me, which isn't exactly my style. I already have my own homebrew D&D world and I assume that AU won't mix with that and I'll need another world.

I wouldn't say that AU is any more high magic than straight up D&D. In fact, there was a real intentional shift on my part to back away from some of the things that magic can do that, in my opinion, sometimes louse up a good campaign--diseases, conditions, curses, etc. that are fixed too easily, divinations that ruin plots, and so forth. They're gone from the game.

There are also more classes that don't ever cast a spell in AU.
But it would be incorrect to say that this is a "low magic" game. The alternate magic system, while not wildly different, offers a lot of flexibility to spellcasters. Flexibility, as you might guess, leads to complexity. The AU spell system is more complex.

To really answer your question, there are lots of DMs out there right now developing (and posting the details of) homebrew AU campaigns. Diamond Throne is an Arcana Unearthed campaign, but not the Arcana Unearthed campaign.

Third, how compatable will an AU campaign be with my existing collection of d20 books (magic, monsters, feats, PrCs, etc)?
[/B]

To be honest, the answer is, it depends. Is every PrC, feat and monster going to fit? No, not really. But then, not every PrC, feat and monster fit into every D&D campaign, either. Frankly, I'd estimate about 1/2 to 2/3 of regular d20 material can be fit into an AU game without much of a thought, but the rest would require some work or possibly wouldn't work at all.

I should point out that Mystic Eye, Fiery Dragon, and Necromancer gave have or will put out material to support AU, and of course we will too. There will also be a line of miniatures, data sets for PCGen, and more.

Hope that helped.

 

[enworldatemylogin]

You can find my answers to your query at montecook.com in your other thread.

 

[Bagpuss]

Reading through AU, I would say it is prefectly possible to use elements of it with standard D&D, although as an Varient Players Handbook I would say thats not the ideal way to use it.

For example if I was going to use the Magistar class I would probably drop the Sorcerer and Wizard classes from the PHB. If I was going to use Greenbloods and Totem Warriors I would probably not have Druids and Rangers as well. Just a personal thing but I think it would help define the campaign setting better. You could use them all together but think you'ld be making more work for yourself with having an additional magic system, on top of the existing one, better to replace thing IMHO.

There are 3 PDF's coming out tomorrow "Way of the Sword" - Combat-oriented classes and races, plus battle-related feats, "Way of the Staff" - Spellcasting classes and races, plus magic-related feats and "Grimoire" - The entire Arcana Unearthed magic system and all spell descriptions. I figure picking one or two of these up might be the way to go if you just want to use AU stuff in an existing or traditional D&D campaign. I expect the "Way of Sword" classes to be the easiest ones to work in so I recommend get that and see if you like it, if you do consider buying the other PDF's or the book.

The races, and a lot of the feats in AU could be used without too much trouble at all really.

As to how dependent on the Diamond Throne AU is... I would say if you are going to use AU instead of the PHB as it is intended, then the Diamond Throne or Homebrew are the best two options. I don't think AU could be used as the PHB for say a Ravenloft campaign, or Iron Kingdoms game without a lot of work. If you used Diamond Throne then no problems what so ever as thats designed for it, and also if you design your own homebrew based on info in AU then you won't have a problem.

If you already have your own homebrew setting and it depends heavily on the PHB races, classes and magic then obviously AU which changes all the races, classes and magic system will cause a headache.

If your designing a homebrew setting around AU then there are certain things in the book that are perscriptive. Like in the PHB it goes on about typical dwarves being miners and elves forest dwellers in AU, Giants are caretakers and freed the other races from slavery so tend to be respected and looked up to (not just in the literal sense).

 

[drnuncheon]

First of all, I get the impression that AU is pretty much incompatible with any of the D20 worlds out there what with different classes, races and, as I understand it, a different magic system. How true is this?

Well, like people have said, it's fairly easy to add some of these things. Races aren't hard, especially if it's a new campaign. As for classes:

Akashics should fit in easily, and provide a sort of 'super-expert' that won't have long-time players assuming 'thief'. (Boy, do I hate that.)

Champions aren't too bad - they have a few spell-like abilities though, and you might want to convert them to their nearest D&D counterparts if you don't plan on using the AU magic system.

Greenbonds depend heavily on the new magic system, and if you're not using that they probably overlap too much with druids conceptually.

Mage Blades are possibly one of the best reasons to use the new magic - they'd be a lot of work if you didn't (essentially making a new spell list for them.)

The Magister out-wizards the wizard. Like the greenbond, I wouldn't try to overlap them and standad wizards/sorcerers.

Oathsworn could fit in without a problem.

Runethanes - see magister and greenbond. If you were willing to make a standard D&D spell list for them they'd definitely have a different flavor than the stock casters.

Totem Warriors would fit well - but there would be some overlap with the ranger and/or barbarian, giving you three 'wilderness warrior' types.

Unfettered would be excellent - no longer would you have to shoehorn swashbucklers into fighters or multiclass fighter/rogues. Monte realized that 'swashbuckler' was a different archetype from 'armored knight' and split the two.

Warmains vs fighters are like magisters vs. wizards. I would only use one or the other, not both.

Witches have the same issues as any other magic-using class in AU: a lot of work if you're not using the AU magic system.

If you're bringing over the feats, be sure to consider what kind of AU feat it is - AU lets people get stuff through ceremonial feats that they could only get by high-level class abilities in regular D&D. Just something to watch.

J

 

[Negative Zero]

Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

for the most part i think drnuncheon is dead on with his assasement. basically the "fighting" type classes are easier to drop in, plug-n-play style. the "csating" classes are a lil to a lot tricker.

one caveat tho...

... Warmains vs fighters are like magisters vs. wizards. I would only use one or the other, not both. ...

not sure i agree with this statement. my initial feeling after reading the warmain class was that this would make an excellent elite fighter class. the sort of thing that only a select few can choose. they are the ones who go on to become generals, whereas the stock DnD fighter will likely have to contend himself with sergeant. this however is just opinion based on an initial read.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

not sure i agree with this statement. my initial feeling after reading the warmain class was that this would make an excellent elite fighter class. the sort of thing that only a select few can choose. they are the ones who go on to become generals, whereas the stock DnD fighter will likely have to contend himself with sergeant. this however is just opinion based on an initial read.

Sort of like fighters vs. warriors eh?

The reason I said that was that if you have both warmains and fighters, there's really no reason to play a fighter.

Well, that's not true. If you wanted to be an archer, fighter would still be the choice for you (aside from cleric), since warmains don't have the archery feats on their bonus list.

J

 

[Negative Zero]

true,

but i think the warmain mostly assumes heavy armour, which makes it prohibitive for the average starting character. in my mind this is the kind of distinction that would naturally seperate the noble or wealthy merchant born from the average peasant masses. also, the fighter still gets access to more feats and could conceivably be more versatile.

~NegZ

 

[Fedifensor]

About mage blades - I compared them to Eldritch Knights in another thread (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58039&pagenumber=4) and they seem to be fairly balanced. It wouldn't be hard to pop them into a standard D&D campaign, using D&D spells. They're especially appropriate for Forgotten Realms campaigns.

Basically, treat them as variant wizards. Have them use spellbooks, in order to limit their spell selection. However, give them the ability to have spells readied (as per their chart in AU), giving them greater flexibility in their casting. Note that spells readied should be specific. If the mage blade wants to cast an empowered Fireball, that should be readied as a slot - no metamagic on the fly.

If you don't like the wizard option, just use the spells readied chart as spells known (though you should either add one to each spell level or allow them to add bonus spells from a high stat) and treat them as sorcerers.