Putting it together -- Using Arcana Unearthed and other D20 products

[William Ronald]

Here's some quick and dirty elemental resistance rules I've been mulling over:
(Note that I'm going to refer to Fire as an energy type as "heat" instead of fire for the sake of clarity.)

Creatures have Fire resistance equal to the greater of their Heat or Electricity resistance.
Creatures have Earth resistance equal to the greater of their Acid resistance or their non alignment-based Damage Reduction doubled.
Creatures have Water resistance equal to the greater of their Cold or Acid resistance.
Creatures have Air resistance equal to the greater of their Sonic or Electricity resistance.

Creatures with a elemental subtype have resistance 20 to that element (added to resistance from the above).

Elementals are immune to their own elemental type spells unless their description states otherwise. Against opposed elements (Using an air spell vs. a fire creature) they suffer double damage unless it allows a saving, in which case they take normal damage on a successful save (partial, half or none depending on the effect).

Sounds good, and easy to use. However, I am not too sure about the last part -- it might make it a little too easy against some opponents. Maybe change the damage to +1 per die of damage?

 

[Destil]

Sounds good, and easy to use. However, I am not too sure about the last part -- it might make it a little too easy against some opponents. Maybe change the damage to +1 per die of damage?

That's so second edition.

This matches up with things like fire and cold subtype in 3.X better.

Though I liked the playtest 3.5 "-10 to saving throws and double damage if an attack dosn't allow a save" a lot better, myself.

 

[MarauderX]

So if you were to keep the two systems separate, would you only allow multiclassing across the one you started? The same issues come up with other settings too, like OA; does anyone have a link of how similar issues were dealt with?

I am integrating right now, and have been running into some of the same problems so far, but the overall class structure for multiclassing might be too much of a headache between the various systems. I don't want to add such a system setting for the PCs to explore and tell the players that all of the classes are restricted to NPCs only. I would still want to give the players the option to add a new class without having to take completely new characters.

Between AU and 3.5 I am having to make choices between which rule to use on XP, spells and abilities, but I have been siding with 3.5 more often for the sake of simplicity. With OA it was a little easier, as the feats, spells and such were a breeze to swing over even though classes, like shaman, was harder. How would you handle a 3.5 sorcerer taking a level in mageblade? Any blend of abilities at all, especially with meta-magic feats?

I'll try to make up a list of items I have decided for each setting, and try to post it here for some comments.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

So if you were to keep the two systems separate, would you only allow multiclassing across the one you started? The same issues come up with other settings too, like OA; does anyone have a link of how similar issues were dealt with?

Good question. Don't think I've run across that yet. I'd allow racial levels to be multiclassed from D&D to AU and vice versa without hesitation. (The racial paragons in Unearthed Arcana are basically 3.5 racial level equivalents.) Probably I'd allow non-spellcaster multiclassing from one to the other, with the restriction that you had to stick with feats from the appropriate book while taking a class. In other words, if you pick up a level of Unfettered, with a bonus feat, you're limited to the Unfettered's bonus list. I think to keep it easy I'd prohibit 3.5 PCs taking spellcaster levels from AU and vice versa.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Multiclassing across the spellcaster groups would be weird. A Magister/Wizard may or may not be unbalancing, but it sure feels weird. If anything says "different schools of thought," its the magic systems of AU and DnD. I've repeated myself enough that I probably don't need to blather on about this.

But an Unfettered/Rogue, Paladin/Champion, or Akashic/Fighter? Why the heck not? Give it a whirl, I say.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Multiclassing across the spellcaster groups would be weird. A Magister/Wizard may or may not be unbalancing, but it sure feels weird. If anything says "different schools of thought," its the magic systems of AU and DnD.

That's one of the reasons I didn't go with separate magister and wizard/sorc classes, but made a single primary arcane spellcaster.

But an Unfettered/Rogue, Paladin/Champion, or Akashic/Fighter? Why the heck not? Give it a whirl, I say.

I agree except that I'm uncomfortable with fighter/warmain/unfettered multiclasses; I feel like these could get slightly abusive. IMC, fighter, warmain, and unfettered are distinct "paths" to the core fighter class; thus, you can't multiclass them any more than an invoker can multiclass with a necromancer.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Multi-classing across magic user types works without too much complication.

It's just that it works like multi-classing between a paladin, as a spell caster, and a wizard would work.

They have practically nothing in common spell list wise and you have to work pretty hard to keep the different sources of spells secret.

The only really sticky wicket is how you move spellcasting feats across the classes, but even there the feats are mostly optimized for one system or the other.

The one exception being modify spell and even there you're looking at a higher cost, one spell of the same level, for greater flexibility, a lot more options for one feat, it might have some advantage for a sorceror but nothing that has struck me as immediately game breaking.

I would go with one set of item creation feats over the other. And decide whether or not you want to use Monte's rules for multi-classing or the main books'.

I've done a full meld, but I have loved havinig AU characters in 3.5 games.

 

[MarauderX]

The only really sticky wicket is how you move spellcasting feats across the classes, but even there the feats are mostly optimized for one system or the other.

The one exception being modify spell and even there you're looking at a higher cost, one spell of the same level, for greater flexibility, a lot more options for one feat, it might have some advantage for a sorceror but nothing that has struck me as immediately game breaking.

I would go with one set of item creation feats over the other. And decide whether or not you want to use Monte's rules for multi-classing or the main books'.

Right. I am kinda viewing AU magic as a separate entity, separate from divine and arcane magic. I was looking at swapping metamagic feats/abilities out on a 1-for-1 basis (similar to OA monk system) since the number and applicability of the 3.5 metamagic abilities are fewer and more restrictive than AU.

Having a Wizard 6/Mageblade 3 would be a hassle for the player to keep track of the feats used for each class, and why they wouldn't apply to one another. How about treating the AU classes as PrC levels instead, and use a swap system similar to that for a Blackguard? If you want to be a certain AU class you have to give up your other wizard/sorcerer class to do it. Would anyone want to do an exchange like that?

 

[William Ronald]

Interesting thoughts, everyone. To me, one of the problematic areas is combining spellcasting classes. I tend to think of AU spellcasters as drawing from a universal source of magic, although there are some elements of divine and arcane tradition in AU. (Greenbonds, for example, are connected with nature and Champions to a cause, while Magisters have a much more studied feel. At least this is one way of looking at them.)

Should AU feats apply to a D&D character class, or do you think that the approach Marauder X suggests is more reasonable?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Not to keep trumpeting what I was several days ago, but I think the best way to go is to just ditch the D&D spellcasting system altogether and go with the AU system while preserving whichever aspects of D&D you want to (clerics, for instance, are pretty much dependent on the whole arcane/divine split, so you could keep their spellcasting method). The Word doc I put together is just one example of how you could develop a hybrid D&D/AU arcane spell list. The magister, sorcerer, and wizard occupy pretty much exactly the same functional niche in any campaign, so unless you relish a multiplicity of spellcasting concepts, you're probably better off just paring down to one primary "arcane" spellcasting class, a couple of secondary "arcane" classes (e.g. mageblade, runethane, bard, witch), a "nature" spellcasting class (druid, greenbond), and maybe a "divine" class (cleric), depending on whether you keep the arcane-divine split.

Incidentally, I disagree that metamagic is more costly or limited in AU than in D&D. Level adjustments are a MUCH harder hit than lading spells, to the point that I've seen far more use of spell modifications post-AU than I ever did in my core D&D campaign, even when I provided some house-rule incentives to make the feats easier to use. Modify Spell in particular is very, very good, and the Psionic template provides the benefits of Still AND Silent Spell, for those of you worried about the one-effect-only limitation of Modify.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to take Monte's (and Varianor's, and... well, just about all the AU regulars') guidance, I'd say keep the books separate, although MarauderX's suggestion on trading levels is an excellent one!