Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

Piratecat said:

I'm finding that your frothing is getting in the way of the point you're trying to make.

Click to expand...

WotC_Dave


Registered: Apr 2004
Location:


I’m the guy who wrote the Dark Sun rules. I was as surprised as anyone by some of what I read in Dragon #319. And I strongly disagree with some of the decisions the Dragon editors made.
It’s their right to make those decisions—they bought my work fair and square. But if you’re starting a Dark Sun game, you might find my perspective useful. I’ve run 3E Dark Sun since late 1999, playing out of three-ring binders, and it’s far and away my favorite setting. Along the way I’ve had plenty of opportunities to goof up as DM—and in the process learn how the core rules and the Dark Sun setting interact.

Characters
My original manuscript said this: “There are no bards, monks, paladins, or sorcerers in Dark Sun.” I stand by that 100%.

• Paladins simply have no place in the setting, as any longtime fan of Dark Sun knows. If I had a player at my Dark Sun table who really wanted to play a paladin, I’d write an elemental crusader prestige class or adapt the holy liberator, maybe in an antislavery direction.
• Monks pose serious balance problems that aren’t immediately apparent but emerge once your Dark Sun campaign has been going a while. In short, they’re way too good in a campaign that places significant limits on armor (which the monk doesn’t have to worry about) and weapons (which the monk also doesn’t have to worry about). Removing monks also creates more design space for psychic warriors.
• Rather than a bard base class, I wrote an “athasian bard” prestige class full of mysterious, assassin-like goodness. It didn’t see print.
• Sorcerers crowd the psion’s design space too much. If there’s one thing that playtesting taught me, it’s that Dark Sun works best when psions are the best spontaneous casters in the game. (And I’m baffled why sorcerers would pretend to be wizards.)

Weapons
My original manuscript had a weapon breakage rule that didn’t see print. Without it, I’m not sure that there’s much point to the different weapon materials, because character wealth will quickly ascend beyond the point where inferior weapons matter. With the rules as published, I imagine everyone will buy metal or blood obsidian weapons right away and ignore the other choices. After all, a metal longsword is still only 150 cp in the published rules, and it’ll last indefinitely.

In my playtests and my ongoing campaign, I got satisfying results if PCs start with obsidian/stone, bone, or bronze weapons and have to contend with inferior weapons and breakage for the first few levels of the campaign. Then the PCs earn their metal weapons, but they still have to worry about breakage when they’re unlucky or facing sundering enemies. If your Dark Sun game derives a similar result, I think you’ll enjoy it immensely.

I also think it’s worthwhile to distinguish costwise between all-metal weapons (like swords) and hafted metal weapons (like axes). And if you use blood obsidian in your own game, here's a tip: it might make an interesting component in some monsters' DR.

Armor
The published armor rules are also much different than the ones in my manuscript. I wrote some detailed “hot weather”rules that were punishing to PCs who wore heavy armor. The published rules don’t provide a disincentive for wearing heavy armor; a typical PC will be able to afford iron full plate easily by 7th or 8th level. If you want a traditional Dark Sun game where most PCs are lightly armored, consider adding some teeth to the Heat Dangers section on page 303 of the DMG and send the metal armor prices through the roof.

As an aside, people who really like tinkering with their game could ramp down the character wealth by level (DMG table 5-1) in their Dark Sun game. It’d further emphasize the harsh, metal-poor nature of the world. But character wealth by level touches many other aspects of the game, from class-by-class balance to challenge ratings, so tread carefully. You’ll probably have to refigure CR for monsters based on your own playtesting, which is time-consuming (but kind of fun). I left character wealth unchanged because I wanted DMs to be able to port new monsters and other game elements into their Dark Sun game without extensive playtesting. But if you’re interested in tinkering, I think it’s an idea worth exploring.

While I don’t agree with some of the decisions the Dragon editors made, it’s absolutely their right to make those decisions. And fundamentally, you’re in charge of what goes on at your game table, so do what you want. No matter what rules set you use, I’ll just be glad if you’re playing Dark Sun.

Click to expand...

Piratecat said:

Well, it's nice to start the day by reading an over-reaction. I'd be a lot more impressed with your rant if you were able to do it without cheap shots and snide insults. I'm finding that your frothing is getting in the way of the point you're trying to make.

Click to expand...