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

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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

I think that I would allow AU feats to apply to a D&D character class and vice versa.

The thing is in the Mageblade/Wizard scenario I would welcome either class to use the others feats on that set of spells. The balance comes from the fact that one set of feats isn't totally optimized for the other.

Now, to add another opinion, the way I would be tempted to go would be to use the AU 'meta-magic' feats as the standard set of feats and throw in any additional meta-magic feats from outside the core books as additions from the setting.

I have the strong feeling that's how things would go naturally given my sense that AU has superior meta-magic feats save for weird things like shadow magic from FR or FRs upping saving DC feats.

 

[Elodan]

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.

Sorry for the hijack, but I've also been thinking of mixing AU and 3.5. I was especially thinking of porting the AU magic system into my 3.5 game and I find what ruleslawyer Word document very useful. I'm curious if you created lesser and heightened effects for the D&D spells you're using.

Thanks.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Sorry for the hijack, but I've also been thinking of mixing AU and 3.5. I was especially thinking of porting the AU magic system into my 3.5 game and I find what ruleslawyer Word document very useful. I'm curious if you created lesser and heightened effects for the D&D spells you're using.

Thanks.

Glad you like the Word doc, Elodan! As for diminished/ heightened versions: There are a few in there. Basically, wherever a spell has a lesser or greater variation (e.g. lesser ironguard and greater ironguard, or Bigby's interposing hand / forceful hand), I make the better spell a heightened version of the lesser. Likewise, if there's an extra effect that can be subtracted from a spell, or an effect easy to add onto a spell, I create diminished and heightened versions on the fly. However, it's a strongly ad hoc process, and I don't have diminished/heightened versions for the vast majority of the D&D spells in the list. Note, however, that I actually like this development in certain ways, because it encourages people to use the AU spells and thus further tilts any balance concerns away from D&D spells.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

There are a number of clerical spell conversions in these articles, Miracle Worker Part I, Part II and Part III . The article moves a few around in levels from core D&D. But you could certainly change them back and just use the heightened/diminished versions.

 

[Style]

When multiclassing between 3.5 and AU classes, what would be the best way to handle the differing XP tables for the two systems? AU characters require a little more XP to advance than 3.5 characters, after all. Say you have a level 4 Rogue with 5000 XP who wants to multiclass into Mage Blade (or whatever). How much XP does he need? 10000? 11001? Should you ignore the AU chart and use 3.5 for all classes? Or use the 3.5 chart but just give AU classes a 10% XP penalty? Or swap back and forth between the charts, calculating the amount needed on a level-by level basis? Clunky-wunky.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

When multiclassing between 3.5 and AU classes, what would be the best way to handle the differing XP tables for the two systems? AU characters require a little more XP to advance than 3.5 characters, after all. Say you have a level 4 Rogue with 5000 XP who wants to multiclass into Mage Blade (or whatever). How much XP does he need? 10000? 11001? Should you ignore the AU chart and use 3.5 for all classes? Or use the 3.5 chart but just give AU classes a 10% XP penalty? Or swap back and forth between the charts, calculating the amount needed on a level-by level basis? Clunky-wunky.

Just pick _a_ chart and stick with it. Otherwise it will get wonky quickly.

 

[Destil]

I believe the new chart isn't there for any real balance reason, but simply because the original 3E XP chart isn't OGL, so something original had to be made.

 

[Style]

I believe the new chart isn't there for any real balance reason, but simply because the original 3E XP chart isn't OGL, so something original had to be made.

It's OGL - check out the Pocket Players Handbook from Mongoose - that has the 3.5 xp chart in it.

I figure it's best to go with one chart (3.5 makes sense as there are more classes that use that) and then just keep the AU characters balanced by having the monsters pick on them, killing their cohorts and companions, stealing their magical items and devising spells and powers that specifically target characters nancy enough to take truenames or other tosh like that. Cool, sorted. Thanks for the advice, guys!

 

[William Ronald]

If I recall correctly, didn't Monte Cook say that the chart was not OGL at the time he wrote Arcana Unearthed? I can check on it. Sorry that I have been away from this thread, but I have been busy. Very interesting responses.

Here are some issues to ponder:

Characters can develop new spells. How should this be handled if an AU character or D&D character, assuming different magic systems, wants to develop a spell from a D&D or AU caster? For example, a D&D caster may want to develop Immortality (why is it that Monte Cook realized longevity magics are something spell casters would be interested in, but there are none in the core rules books?) and an AU caster may wish to develop meteor swarm.

What do you imagine relations would be like between the core AU and core D&D races?

Any concerns about different weapon types? I have to say that I like the dire weapon template in AU, as it gives a reason why some of the weapons are spikey and the effects of such additions.

Alignment: AU does not use it, D&D does. Should certain AU spells be considered to have an evil or good descriptor? Also, how would an AU character register with a detect good or detect evil spell? In a D&D 3.5 campaign, should an AU character have an alignment.

ruleslawyer posted:
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.

Any other thoughts on laden spells vs. metamagic? Have others noted a difference in play? Also, can someone describe the feel of a campaign once AU elements have been introduced? How is it similar or different from a standard D&D 3.5 rules campaign.?

Thanks again for your replies.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If I recall correctly, didn't Monte Cook say that the chart was not OGL at the time he wrote Arcana Unearthed? I can check on it. Sorry that I have been away from this thread, but I have been busy. Very interesting responses.

Here are some issues to ponder:

Characters can develop new spells. How should this be handled if an AU character or D&D character, assuming different magic systems, wants to develop a spell from a D&D or AU caster? For example, a D&D caster may want to develop Immortality (why is it that Monte Cook realized longevity magics are something spell casters would be interested in, but there are none in the core rules books?) and an AU caster may wish to develop meteor swarm.

What do you imagine relations would be like between the core AU and core D&D races?

Any concerns about different weapon types? I have to say that I like the dire weapon template in AU, as it gives a reason why some of the weapons are spikey and the effects of such additions.

Alignment: AU does not use it, D&D does. Should certain AU spells be considered to have an evil or good descriptor? Also, how would an AU character register with a detect good or detect evil spell? In a D&D 3.5 campaign, should an AU character have an alignment.

Any other thoughts on laden spells vs. metamagic? Have others noted a difference in play? Also, can someone describe the feel of a campaign once AU elements have been introduced? How is it similar or different from a standard D&D 3.5 rules campaign.?

Thanks again for your replies.

I'd suggest breaking some of these into separate threads. That's a lot of questions.

Briefly, the XP chart was not OGL at the time of publication. That's correct.

For spell development, D&D casters use their rules, and AU casters should take exotic/signature spell/unique spell feats. AU casters are much more flexible, so there's a tradeoff. If you want to allow more spells to research, that's certainly DMs option. I'd buy the AU DM's screen pdf which includes some spell guidelines to get a feel for how to judge power differences when converting one game to another.

Alignment? Sure. If you want it. I like removing alignment from the D&D game.

Ladening works much better than metamagic, I have to say. I can't honestly say what happens when elements are introduced to a combo game other than to comment that it broadens options.