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

[MarauderX]

Some choices I made for incorporating AU & 3.5 in my game:

XP: 3.5
Alignment: Per 3.5, but loose
Feats: Earned per 3.5, Use is split...see below.
Spells: Split...see below.
Leveling: Swap or earn, see below.


For my game, the only way a character can use the AU system is to take a level in it. Once that happens, he/she levels as if starting a new class or prestige class.

Feats: 3.5 feats can be swapped out for AU feats, and feats are earned per 3.5 rules, with all levels stacking. All 3.5 feats can be swapped for any AU feat as long as the prereqs for the AU feat are met while maintaining the prereqs for the remaining 3.5 feats. The maximum number of AU feats to be exchanged is 2 feats + AU level.

Spells: To use AU spells, a character must have levels of a spell-using AU class. The character has access to the AU spells as per the AU rules.

Leveling: A character can swap out levels of 3.5 for levels in AU. The character needs to find an AU contact with which to train and become initiated, and once complete the character can swap up to 2 levels of 3.5 for up to 2 levels of AU (1-for-1). A character can trade up to 2 levels initially; then he/she must achieve another level before being able to swap another 2 levels. All abilities, spells and automatic feats from the 3.5 class are lost once traded. Swapping cannot be reversed once complete.


Other rules to be held on a case-by-case basis.

Thoughts?

 

[William Ronald]

Some choices I made for incorporating AU & 3.5 in my game:

XP: 3.5
Alignment: Per 3.5, but loose
Feats: Earned per 3.5, Use is split...see below.
Spells: Split...see below.
Leveling: Swap or earn, see below.


For my game, the only way a character can use the AU system is to take a level in it. Once that happens, he/she levels as if starting a new class or prestige class.

Feats: 3.5 feats can be swapped out for AU feats, and feats are earned per 3.5 rules, with all levels stacking. All 3.5 feats can be swapped for any AU feat as long as the prereqs for the AU feat are met while maintaining the prereqs for the remaining 3.5 feats. The maximum number of AU feats to be exchanged is 2 feats + AU level.

Spells: To use AU spells, a character must have levels of a spell-using AU class. The character has access to the AU spells as per the AU rules.

Leveling: A character can swap out levels of 3.5 for levels in AU. The character needs to find an AU contact with which to train and become initiated, and once complete the character can swap up to 2 levels of 3.5 for up to 2 levels of AU (1-for-1). A character can trade up to 2 levels initially; then he/she must achieve another level before being able to swap another 2 levels. All abilities, spells and automatic feats from the 3.5 class are lost once traded. Swapping cannot be reversed once complete.


Other rules to be held on a case-by-case basis.

Thoughts?

Interesting. What did you do about two similar feats? Is one version allowed or both?

I do like your options for letting people switch classes, but it might make sense to allow it both ways.

Varianor Abroad: Good suggestion on the DM screen. Players may want to create new spells, or an inventive DM may like to do so.

As for alignment, it does seem to be built in to the system. However, I may take a more shades of gray approach. Sometimes people's agendas can coincide even if they are ethically very different. Politics can make very strange bedfellows.

Thanks, everyone.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

As for alignment, it does seem to be built in to the system. However, I may take a more shades of gray approach. Sometimes people's agendas can coincide even if they are ethically very different. Politics can make very strange bedfellows.

You can probably cheat and get away with keeping alignment. Look at Eberron: even clerics don't follow the one-step rules of their gods, and can cast any spell on the clerical list. That's prime material for corrupt clergy in the churches.

If you'd like, you could encourage everyone take an alignment, but to completely disregard it from a flavor standpoint. Tell them to play their characters as they see fit. The only thing alignment would then affect is mechanics (i.e., how certain spells, weapon enhancements, etc. interact with a character).

To paraphrase Monte Cook, sometimes it's just too easy to use the old alignment crutch, when you need a new effect. I've found it very difficult to break away from those habits, and while part of me screams for "+2d6 damage against Evil creatures," I know that in the long run the game's better without it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Good ideas there, MarauderX! I prefer a seamless blend of D&D and AU, but it is a lot more work and requires seriously rebalancing the system. If I wanted to use 3.5 and AU "out of the box" without modification, I would use your system in a heartbeat. That said, I tend to feel that there are some things (spell readying, spell list divisions, spell templates, "metamagic" feats) that AU handles just plain better than D&D, and I for one would prefer not to have two systems to handle the same activity sets. So I prefer a blend, but that's me.

If I recall correctly, didn't Monte Cook say that the chart was not OGL at the time he wrote Arcana Unearthed?

Yup. What Varianor said; the chart was not OGL until quite recently, and never the 3.0 chart.

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.

This one's easy. If you're actually using the classes side by side, then any D&D spell not in the AU books would be exotic or unique, and require a feat. Sure, that sucks for AU casters, but as Varianor said, that's the price they pay for their flexibility. You could also do what I've done and break the non-AU D&D spells into simple/complex/exotic lists, and then assume that an AU spellcaster can automatically acquire any such spell once he's encountered it, provided he has access to the pertinent category, but that will make AU spellcasters (especially magisters) very powerful.

As for D&D spellcasters acquiring AU spells: Use the D&D spell development rules. D&D spellcasters are generally privileged in their spell selection over AU casters anyway, so it won't be unbalancing for a wizard, say, to get hold of an AU spell.

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

Highly campaign-specific. Using the "stereotypical" race definitions, I'd say elves would have a strong affinity with faen and verrik. Dwarves would get along well with giants, and perhaps with sibeccai, and halflings and gnomes would get along well with the faen. Litorians would be an exotic race to most, kinda like centaurs, while mojh... well, no one seems to like mojh very much.

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.

I'd say this is one area in which you DO need to pick a rule; IMHO, it doesn't make sense to keep AU exotic weapon rules and weapon/armor templates side by side with D&D ones. In this case, I'd just go with the AU rules; they're really not going to create an imbalance when meshed with D&D classes. AU exotic weapons are sufficiently non-cheesy that the agile/heavy exotic weapon division is balanced when applied to D&D classes, and the dire weapons aren't bad when compared to the D&D alternatives, like the dwarven waraxe and Monkey Grip.

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.

Again, this is one area where you just have to pick one and go with it. Either everyone has an alignment (i.e., "alignment" is a concept in the campaign) or no one does. If you go with alignment, then I still wouldn't give AU spells alignment descriptors; none of them are really particularly "good," "evil," "lawful," or "chaotic." (Arguably, for consistency with the D&D spell list, it might make sense to give the AU call creature and call outsider spells alignment descriptors.)

If you use no alignment, then I'd suggest some or all of the following:

1) Alignment still exists for purposes of subtype. This allows spells that affect outsiders of a particular type to still function, and allows detect spells and protection from [alignment] spells to target evil or good outsiders. In effect, alignment becomes a special quality of some creatures rather than a constant for PCs/NPCs.

2) (D&D) effects based on alignment become targeted toward outsiders, either generally (as in the case of the AU magic circle) or toward outsiders of a specific alignment subtype, as desired.

3) In the case of divine spells or class abilities (e.g., smite evil), the target becomes "opposing faith" instead of [alignment].

 

[MarauderX]

Interesting. What did you do about two similar feats? Is one version allowed or both?

Both, for now, which is why it makes more sense for melee types to stick with either 3.5 or AU and not both.

I do like your options for letting people switch classes, but it might make sense to allow it both ways.

That was my initial thought too, until I realized a character could eventually switch to any class she wished. A druid switches into AU then back into 3.5 to become a monk. Not cool. On top of that, I have the stipulation that the character needs to find a mentor to take an AU class - it wouldn't be quite the same to go back again, and doesn't sit well in my setting.

As for D&D spellcasters acquiring AU spells: Use the D&D spell development rules. D&D spellcasters are generally privileged in their spell selection over AU casters anyway, so it won't be unbalancing for a wizard, say, to get hold of an AU spell.

Forgot to mention this part. For a wizard making the conversion to AU, I will be using the same conventions as 3.5 for new spells, as for my campaign a different 'type' of magic is being used.

They may surprise me but I don't think any of my players are willing to take any levels of AU until higher level; my NPCs have no such reservations...

 

[William Ronald]

I am leaning more towards running separate magic systems for AU and D&D 3.5 characters, and having a common item creation system. (I think the AU system may be a bit more flexible.)

ruleslawyer posted:
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.

I'd say this is one area in which you DO need to pick a rule; IMHO, it doesn't make sense to keep AU exotic weapon rules and weapon/armor templates side by side with D&D ones. In this case, I'd just go with the AU rules; they're really not going to create an imbalance when meshed with D&D classes. AU exotic weapons are sufficiently non-cheesy that the agile/heavy exotic weapon division is balanced when applied to D&D classes, and the dire weapons aren't bad when compared to the D&D alternatives, like the dwarven waraxe and Monkey Grip.

Has anyone used the AU weapon rules? How do they compare in practice with the D&D 3.5 rules? Also, some of the weapons in D&D 3.5 and AU are associated with different races? Any thoughts on how these weapons compare with each other?

Also, what do you see as some of the balance issues in running AU and D&D 3.5 characters together in a campaign? Thanks for your advice, everyone. It is a great help, and have helped me to work on some of my concerns.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Has anyone used the AU weapon rules? How do they compare in practice with the D&D 3.5 rules? Also, some of the weapons in D&D 3.5 and AU are associated with different races? Any thoughts on how these weapons compare with each other?

Meaning the weapon templates? They work fine. I nerfed out dire weapons from my f2f game. Too many players are SCAdians who laughed at the idea. Were it just regular gamers, I would have left them in. They work fine since you need proficiencies for them.

Other than that, there are templates which are different versions of ones found in D&D. The only suggestion I would make is not allowing mithril to stack with an AU template and Devanian to stack with a D&D weapon.

The AU "racial weapons" are basically exotic weapons. Pay for the feat, and you can use them. I'd still make D&D characters pay feat by feat and AU PCs get theirs via the two feats (exotic agile and exotic heavy).

Also, what do you see as some of the balance issues in running AU and D&D 3.5 characters together in a campaign? Thanks for your advice, everyone. It is a great help, and have helped me to work on some of my concerns.

Munchkins!

(Just kidding.)

Basically spells as noted above. Also as noted, watch elemental damage. If you have no D&D casters, level drain and ability drain will be a bit of a problem for your PCs. Fixes for those aren't in AU.

 

[William Ronald]

Variannor aborad,

Thanks for the advice. The weapons advice is particularly helpful.

Any other tips, anyone?

 

[Desdichado]

We were in a D&D campaign when AU came out, but only about 2nd level or so, and the wizard player just flat out converted his character into a magister and used the AU system instead. It worked pretty well that way; I'd be leery of anything hybridized unless it was a pretty substantial reworking of the things to get any glitches out.

I'm also using a few of the non-magical classes in my homebrew, and I have a guy playing a rogue/unfettered, but I guess that's not really you're question, is it?

 

[MDSnowman]

I love AU and am planning a campaign around it. Heh some would say I went overboard creating about five new races and using a bunch of varient AU classes from Diamondthrone.com. Despite all of this I use use a smattering of Core D&D races, mostly Elves, but I also use Orcs from the Warcraft RPG. I find that one or two familiar races seem to help the players adjust to the stranger things in the setting better, people may be unable to tell the difference between an Oathsworn and a Mageblade, but they will certainly understand Human vs. Orcs.

As a shameless plug I'm attaching the two word documents for my setting, the player handout, and the file with all the races stated out. I absed this loosely on an entry I saw for the setting search.

I'd apperciate feedback.