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="volcivar" data-source="post: 1065163" data-attributes="member: 7922">how compatible is compatible I don't think anyone ever stated anywhere that AU was 100% compatible.In fact, there were several statements that there would need to be some level of work to port parts of AU to any particular home campaign.The whole compatability question is extremely subjective.  What does compatible mean to YOU.  To me it means it has most (if not all) the same pieces.  It might be presented a bit differently, but that's about it.In my opinion, this is what AU accomplishes.  We have the d20 resolution mechanic.  Weapons with differing damage dice.  Class-based advancement (as opposed to skill-based).  The list goes on.New elements?Truenames.  This element is very modular.  And can be largely ignored if it doesn't suit you.  Does that mean the ceremonial feats can be ported directly without the truename mechanic?  Not really.  You MAY want to assign another control mechanic that better suits your campaign.Magic system.  This seems new, but if examined carefully, it contains all the familiar D20 elements you'd expect in a magic system.  It DOES introduce new things.  Heightened and diminished spell effects.  Weaving spell slots.  Spell templates. But again if one examines these elements and the spells themselves, one will see clearly that these represent a different presentation of familiar elements.  The flexibility that this combination of elements provides can cause a character to seem more powerful.  So the spells, in general, are less potent when regarded alone.But again, the magic system doesn't need to be ported to a 3.x game.  If it doesn't float you boat, you can use the slots per day tables in the classes like you would spells per day.Overall, I really don't get the "AU is not compatible argument".  It really doesn't show any particular DESIRE to actually WANT to do a miniscule amount of tinkering.  If the perception is that AU is a "power creep", then that is merely a perception, it is not reality.  I have seen numerous "proofs'.  All fall short of truely showing any unbalancing (itself a nebulous concept) factors in AU.I am not sure from what point of view the originator of this thread gets this "compatability" issue.  It has been stated that he doesn't like Monte's work.  That's his opinion.  But I think that his bias is clouding any real analysis that he may be able to give.</blockquote>

Verification