AU - first impressions?

[Nine Hands]

How difficult would it be to incorporate this into a current Forgotten Realms campaign? It looks really cool, but I don't want to spend the money on something I will never get a chance to use.

I have been using AU in my Forgotten Realms game for several months now (I was a playtester and had access to a pre release version). I have used the classes in FR without any problems and some of the feats have been also added.

The spell system is cool but is just not in the style my group is used to. I personally would convert all of the core D&D spellcasting classes to AU spellcasting.

Since I'm using the standard D&D spellcasting, I have given each AU spellcasting class a core class spell list (cleric, druid, wizard, etc). The only other change I made was to change the Exotic Weapon Proficiency so that it works the way Monte has it (which I like more anyway).

 

[Bluemoon]

So far, so cool. I like the racial classes, and was surprised how similar his approach seemed to the one in the second world sourcebook.

Still have much reading to do...

Uhmm...What's the second world sourcebook?

 

[Psion]

Uhmm...What's the second world sourcebook?

It's a product that came out last year that basically describes how to run a twin world situation with a fantasy earth parallel to our own. See:

http://www.second-world-simulations.com/Second World Sourcebook.htm

or my review:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Psion&product=TSWS

 

[RobNJ]

Magic looks cool, but sometimes seems ill-defined. For example, do all spellcasters know all spells they could theoretically know? Do Mageblades know all the spells they have access, should they be of sufficient level? Or do they have to go out and learn them?

It's pretty clear. I'll use the Mageblade, since you do in your question. Page 40:

Mage blades have access to simple spells. A mage blade may choose to ready any simple spell provided she can cast psells of that level.

Emphasis mine. How more clearly could it have been put? I don't mean to sound overly antagonistic here; I'm genuinely confused as to how that is not clear.

What about the others?

From Magister, p. 43: A magister may choose to ready any simple or complex spell, provided he can cast spells of that level.

Magic, out of all the new stuff, seems to be the most problematic when it comes to integrating with D&D.

Perhaps, but I don't know why anyone would want to pollute this game with standard D&D. Most of the charm, to me, is that it is free of all of that baggage.

For the record, I'd agree that the intercompatability has been overstated (at least, stated beyond the expectations of the highly gameist D&D playing population).

 

[Malacoda]

It's pretty clear. I'll use the Mageblade, since you do in your question. Page 40:

Mage blades have access to simple spells. A mage blade may choose to ready any simple spell provided she can cast psells of that level.

Emphasis mine. How more clearly could it have been put? I don't mean to sound overly antagonistic here; I'm genuinely confused as to how that is not clear.

Your definition of clarity when it comes to rules appearently differs from mine. Given the background as a D&D player (which is what the vast majority of AU players will have), I would expect the rules to be more specific. The above certainly implies that they can simply choose any spell, but it does not seem a given.

Plus, that seems to be overly generous. Not saying it is overly generous, but by D&D standards it seems to be, and most people will come to the game with D&D standards in mind. Magisters come across as the AU version of wizards, and wizards certainly don't get all spells, in the same way as a cleric does.

There are sections in the book it talks about masters teaching their students spells. The implication of the passage is that they must learn spells. But, in truth, it doesn't work that way mechanically. When a caster gets to a level where they get new spells, they just instantly get access to all spells they can cast.

Perhaps, but I don't know why anyone would want to pollute this game with standard D&D. Most of the charm, to me, is that it is free of all of that baggage.

Because I don't find AU to stand well on its own, nor do I find it so compelling to want to run it on its own.

Besides, I bought AU so I could flesh out cultures and races across the the expanse of Arcane Space for Spelljammer, so I want it to mesh with D&D. I buy a lot of d20 stuff for that reason.

 

[RobNJ]

Your definition of clarity when it comes to rules appearently differs from mine. Given the background as a D&D player (which is what the vast majority of AU players will have), I would expect the rules to be more specific. The above certainly implies that they can simply choose any spell, but it does not seem a given.

???

You're kidding, right? It says in every Spells section, the word any. Can prepare any (complex, simple, whatever) spell. How much more clear can it be. Should it say, "He can prepare any simple spell. No, really. Honest. Any one. I mean it. I promise. Any simple spell."?

Plus, that seems to be overly generous. Not saying it is overly generous, but by D&D standards it seems to be,

I think that Malhavoc shot itself in the foot (or at least dropped a heavy rock on its foot) by trying so much to argue that it's perfectly compatable with 3E. That said, it's not overly generous in context with everything else. If everyone is getting that ability, it doesn't matter if you do too.

and most people will come to the game with D&D standards in mind. Magisters come across as the AU version of wizards, and wizards certainly don't get all spells, in the same way as a cleric does.

You're right. My bad. Given this, he probably should've done something clear, like state that magisters can prepare any spell. You know, a simple, declarative sentence that says something like, "A magister may choose to ready any simple or complex spell, provided he can cast spells of that level." I'll be sure to lobby hard for them to include this sort of clarity in the next edition of the book. Because what they have in there, man, it's way too vague.

There are sections in the book it talks about masters teaching their students spells. The implication of the passage is that they must learn spells.

I haven't read this passage yet, but it sounds to me like they're talking pre-1st-level stuff.

And you may want to include a rule where people have to learn new spells. I may do this myself, require someone to make a spellcraft check on seeing a spell with which they're unfamiliar cast. I may do this for supplimentary spells found in additional AU source material, as well.

 

[drquestion]

RobNJ: Your group doesn't happen to be taking new players, does it? I live in the Princeton area, and I'm currently groupless.

Originally posted by Malacoda:
Given the background as a D&D player (which is what the vast majority of AU players will have), I would expect the rules to be more specific.

I agree that there are some places where the rules aren't as clear as they should be (for example, the Akashic list of class abilities doesn't specify which version of learn secret they get), but I don't think it's a major problem, and it's not any more prevalent than I would expect from the first printing of a book with this many rules.

However, I think that the question of whether casters automatically know all of their spells was probably left vague intentionally. Most DM's will likely decide that it's simpler just to let everyone know their entire list, but this way a DM can also decide that he wants to have players learn some of their spells in-game.

Note that on p. 4, ("Giving Power Back to DMs"), Monte specifically says that more things will be left up to DM's interpretation in AU than in standard D&D.

drquestion

 

[Henry]

Let's please be a little more friendly in this: We're all gamers, here, some of us digging AU a little more than others.



---------------------------------


In my opinion, the AU rules are pretty clear about spell acquisition: It's powerful, but not too much so for the context of Arcana Unearthed.

The biggest problem seems to be the taking of these "analogs" too literally. Taking the Magister as a wizard or sorcerer analog is reading TOO much into it, in my opinion.

As is equating Greenbonds with druids; if anything, they are Druids, with elements of clerics and mages thrown in. Warmains may be fighter-types, but they weild some abilities that Fighters just could not take advantage of in 3.5 without special prestige classes. Calling Akashics rogues are being too limiting; if anything, the Rogue should be more like the Akashic, than vice-versa. If you take a 1st Akashic expecting to get sneak attack, you will be disappointed.

It is more helpful to UNlearn the D&D conventions while dealing with AU; understand that many D&D conventional thoughts (Alignments, known spells, spell components, etc.) are quite different, or removed entirely. It's almost better to assume it's balanced, play a few games, and go from there.

It will be the rare group who has played more than one or two games of AU since having picked up the book on Thursday. It needs more than one or two sessions to properly get a feel of all elements of a new game system.

 

[RobNJ]

RobNJ: Your group doesn't happen to be taking new players, does it? I live in the Princeton area, and I'm currently groupless.

Actually, we just lost two players, however the one I normally play in is down in Monmouth County. I don't know if you want to go that far. But if you do, we have a game on Saturday, and you can email me privately if you're interested (bowell@rci.rutgers.edu).

Also, we're not yet playing AU, though I intend to run a game as soon as there's an opening.

Finally, I'm considering restarting a group up in Middlesex county like I had last year but at this point I don't have any candidates.

Incidentally, I still honestly don't see this vagary in spell choice. It is really, really clear.

 

[Fedifensor]

Since I'm using the standard D&D spellcasting, I have given each AU spellcasting class a core class spell list (cleric, druid, wizard, etc). The only other change I made was to change the Exotic Weapon Proficiency so that it works the way Monte has it (which I like more anyway).

I've been looking to bring in some of the AU classes (particularly Mage Blade) into my FR campaign. What spell list do you use for Mage Blades, and do they seem balanced compared to the D&D classes?