• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Mearls on other settings

Yaarel

🇮🇱He-Mage
Lets figure out a simple but realistic way to quantify obsidian weapons.



Crystalline blades, such as obsidian or quartz, are extremely sharp, but brittle.

A fresh crystalline blade deals an additional 1d6 slashing damage to the damage total. However, each natural 1 fumble on a d20 attack, dulls the blade and penalizes this damage by one more −1d6 from the damage total. If the minimum damage of the penalty, exceeds the maximum damage of the weapon type, the weapon is considered to be effectively destroyed.

You can spend a 1 hour short rest to attempt to repair a dull obsidian blade. You sharpen a crystalline rock by hitting it with a strong sharp rock that you can handle easily. Each impact at an angle typically causes a razor-sharp coin-sized clam-shaped chip to fly off. You can chip away to sculpt a serrated edge. Rudimentary tools are sufficient, essentially a suitable rock and a solid work area.

To repair a blade, each successful skill check removes a −1d6 penalty, until the +1d6 bonus returns. But each failed skill check inflicts a −1d6 penalty, until the weapon is destroyed.

Note, it is still possible to salvage fragments of a broken weapon to create a different kind of weapon that can make use of the smaller pieces. Even the small chips that fly off can be useful, such as small blades to cut or perforate hides for sewing, or so on.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
I can go either way its more work. Basically on Athas the heavier armors do not exist.

I changed that to help match the 5E mechanics as armor functions a bit differently in 5E. In AD&D losing the heavy armor is kinda fair as it effects the warriors equally, 5E not so much and its why I added the -1 AC/+1 dex thing to Athasian armor. Its lighter and not as good, but a bit more flexible. Its probably not balanced as such but its better than no heavy armor being available in a 5E context + pays tribute to the Athasian theme/vibe.

That is probably badwrongfun for some people who think that the game needs full plate equivalent made out of feathers leather with a few bits on bone on it for balance reasons.
This makes me wonder; wouldn't the barbarian class be OP in DS? I mean he could have a better AC naked than most PC's due to the inferior armor, and his Rage boost negates the penalty to using inferior weapons. Add on reckless attack to avoid attack penalties and you have a strictly better version of the fighter.

It might be thematically appropriate, but bbn breaks the weapon and armor rules of DS. Needs to go.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
This makes me wonder; wouldn't the barbarian class be OP in DS? I mean he could have a better AC naked than most PC's due to the inferior armor, and his Rage boost negates the penalty to using inferior weapons. Add on reckless attack to avoid attack penalties and you have a strictly better version of the fighter.

It might be thematically appropriate, but bbn breaks the weapon and armor rules of DS. Needs to go.

Totem one I removed Berzerker is ok.
2E Barbarian was fine on DS.

I also overhauled the armor due to mechanical changes fron 2E to 5E.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
About Eberron magic itens, Keith Baker has mentioned some time ago that much change wouldn't be needed to adapt to 5e, because yes there are more magic itens in Eberron, but they are the low level ones, Eberron is not necessarily High magic, its WIDE magic, there is a lot of it, but most is low level, and that should be the case for magic itens also. Make weak magic itens more comom (maybe changing uncommom itens to commom) but leave the high level ones as it is...
There is a website that has a generator for low level magic item, things like an amulet of fortitude (+1 constitution saved). I'd imagine minor magical items like these would be perfect for an Eberron campaign.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
If made, it's going to be a D&D 5e setting, not an AD&D 2e setting. If monks had been in AD&D 2e, they absolutely would have fit right into the setting. Having one character who can ignore weapons a few levels before everyone else can is just not going to break anything.

(Also, I think it's a lot cleaner and easier for everyone to make bone/stone/etc. the 'default' weapon, and give metal weapons bonuses. But that's neither here nor there.)

I agree that sorcerers and warlocks and anything else with - let's call it - implied setting flavor - would need to be adapted, with perhaps a new subclass specific to Athas. I agree that Wild isn't setting-appropriate, but Athas has its Elemental Drakes which could serve as a 'totem' of sorts for dragon-style sorcery with just minor tweaks.
I recall in one of the dark sun books there was a psionicist kit called the sensei. These were essentially psionic monks. It might be better done with the mystic class but a monk subclass that can choose a psionic discipline each time they gain a level with a subclass ability would also be cool.
 

Remathilis

Legend
any additions or changes should be in keeping with the tone, themes, character and feel of the setting.

I've never said otherwise. I think we're coming at it through from opposite ends.

I've never advocated that an element from the PHB shouldn't be adapted to the setting, I'm all for re-flavoring tieflings from "scions of Asmodeus" to "powerful beings who dealt with fiends of the Wastes". I'm not against Dark Sun have a specific "Athasian" subrace for dwarves, elves, and halflings and not allowing the PHB subraces). I'm also fine with minor edits AS LONG AS SOMETHING IS GIVEN IN RETURN (The eldritch knight is unavailable, but here is the new Gladiator subclass to replace it).

And yes, that means bending the setting some to fit the rules; Calibans are completely a way to replace half-orcs in Ravenloft; it had no basis in the lore of the setting in 2e, no hint such things existed prior. It serves a specific need; we took an option that would not fit well with the setting and reworked it so that it did. How easy would it have been to just say "no half-orcs in Ravenloft?" I lot less words than coming up with a replacement race, complete with culture and history.

And sometimes, rarely, it just doesn't fit. You can't play a Triton in Athas; no matter how much refluffing you do. Those should be the rare exceptions staked out ONLY when refluffing and reworking have no viable alternative.

If it were up to me and I had to set the rules for any 5e conversions, These would be my guiding principles.

1.) Find a way to incorporate every PHB race. If a race cannot be incorporated (gnomes in DS, half-orcs in RL) than a replacement race should be added (muls, calibans). Its fine to limit subraces (all halflings in DL must take the kender subrace).

2.) Fit all PHB classes into the setting. This will require judicious use of re-fluffing and new/changed subclasses to make work. Not every subrace need be allowed (and in fact, more than few might not be) but the idea is to design as few new classes as possible and remove as few options as possible. If there is absolutely no way to incorporate a class (paladin in DS) add a sidebar explaining and give DMs option if they want to add it back). That will mean a few options get redone in ways that might not sit initially well (Oath of Solomnia for paladins vs a proper knight class) and new options/tweaks for classes might need to go on (giving all arcane casters the option to defile).

3.) Try to use as much of the PHB/DMG/MM material as possible in regards to spells, magic items, monsters, etc. Liberal use of re-fluffing is acceptable here.

4.) Optional Books (Volo, SCAG, Xanthar) are not bound to the above design aesthetics; the default for such options in new settings is "off" unless the DM wants to include it. A few exceptions (artificer in Eberron, mystic in DS) where the option is assumed are spelled out clearly.

5.) The design goal is always "how does this option fit in a gothic-horror/post-apocalyptic/high-romance/sword-n-sorcery/non-western world?" Just because it wasn't allowed before doesn't mean it automatically shouldn't be allowed now. Guidelines for making it fit rather than prescriptions of what does/doesn't.

6.) Its still D&D. In a fight between the core principles of D&D and the implied flavor, D&D should get the nod. For example, there should be no outright banning of arcane or divine magic, no mono-racial/human only settings, no magic items, etc. You are changing the SETTING of a D&D game, not D&D itself. Its to change how D&D is played, not give them a new game using the D&D base mechanics.

7.) Try to limit new over-arching mechanics when possible. DM should not need to remember more than TWO new mechanical subsystems to run a setting on top of the Core D&D rules. When possible, use the DMG options and base rules instead of inventing/reinventing new ones (RL should use the DMG fear/horror/madness rules; DS the existing heat/survival rules). The more rules you pile on the setting, the harder it is for the DM.

8.) The ideal Setup: Core Books + Setting Book. A setting should be playable with the Core Rules plus a copy of the supplemental stuff. A Player should also still have some options if he doesn't own the setting book; it shouldn't be a barrier for entry to the world.

9.) Together, but not the Same. Each setting is part of the D&D Universe. That means more than just sharing mechanics, but sharing some assumptions. That doesn't mean each setting adheres slavishly to the lore, but the concept that Athas exists in the same multiverse as Kyrnn or Faerun should at least be left open.

10.) Keep power-levels consistent. Ideally, A PC from another world should be about as powerful as one from another world. Dark Sun PCs don't need to have natural ability score caps of 24, Dragonlance PCs shouldn't be limited to 18th level max. An Athasian fighter shouldn't overpower a fighter from Faerun or Ravenloft. A cleric in Ravenloft shouldn't have all his spells and powers nerfed by the Dark Powers either. Some limits of course are needed for flavor (some form of rule for Athasian non-metal gear; or Ravenloft banning planar travel to stop PCs from teleporting out at earliest convenience). The biggest goal would be that all options are equal to allow a DM to pick an option or character from Ravenloft or Dark Sun and use it in his homebrewed or Faerun game without worrying its too powerful/weak.

That's how I'd do it. My goal is for a setting to change the theme of the game, not the game itself. It should be accessible, require minimum fuss, and still "feel like D&D" when played.
 

MechaPilot

Explorer
I've never said otherwise. I think we're coming at it through from opposite ends.

I've never advocated that an element from the PHB shouldn't be adapted to the setting, I'm all for re-flavoring tieflings from "scions of Asmodeus" to "powerful beings who dealt with fiends of the Wastes". I'm not against Dark Sun have a specific "Athasian" subrace for dwarves, elves, and halflings and not allowing the PHB subraces). I'm also fine with minor edits AS LONG AS SOMETHING IS GIVEN IN RETURN (The eldritch knight is unavailable, but here is the new Gladiator subclass to replace it).

And yes, that means bending the setting some to fit the rules; Calibans are completely a way to replace half-orcs in Ravenloft; it had no basis in the lore of the setting in 2e, no hint such things existed prior. It serves a specific need; we took an option that would not fit well with the setting and reworked it so that it did. How easy would it have been to just say "no half-orcs in Ravenloft?" I lot less words than coming up with a replacement race, complete with culture and history.

And sometimes, rarely, it just doesn't fit. You can't play a Triton in Athas; no matter how much refluffing you do. Those should be the rare exceptions staked out ONLY when refluffing and reworking have no viable alternative.

If it were up to me and I had to set the rules for any 5e conversions, These would be my guiding principles.

1.) Find a way to incorporate every PHB race. If a race cannot be incorporated (gnomes in DS, half-orcs in RL) than a replacement race should be added (muls, calibans). Its fine to limit subraces (all halflings in DL must take the kender subrace).

2.) Fit all PHB classes into the setting. This will require judicious use of re-fluffing and new/changed subclasses to make work. Not every subrace need be allowed (and in fact, more than few might not be) but the idea is to design as few new classes as possible and remove as few options as possible. If there is absolutely no way to incorporate a class (paladin in DS) add a sidebar explaining and give DMs option if they want to add it back). That will mean a few options get redone in ways that might not sit initially well (Oath of Solomnia for paladins vs a proper knight class) and new options/tweaks for classes might need to go on (giving all arcane casters the option to defile).

3.) Try to use as much of the PHB/DMG/MM material as possible in regards to spells, magic items, monsters, etc. Liberal use of re-fluffing is acceptable here.

4.) Optional Books (Volo, SCAG, Xanthar) are not bound to the above design aesthetics; the default for such options in new settings is "off" unless the DM wants to include it. A few exceptions (artificer in Eberron, mystic in DS) where the option is assumed are spelled out clearly.

5.) The design goal is always "how does this option fit in a gothic-horror/post-apocalyptic/high-romance/sword-n-sorcery/non-western world?" Just because it wasn't allowed before doesn't mean it automatically shouldn't be allowed now. Guidelines for making it fit rather than prescriptions of what does/doesn't.

6.) Its still D&D. In a fight between the core principles of D&D and the implied flavor, D&D should get the nod. For example, there should be no outright banning of arcane or divine magic, no mono-racial/human only settings, no magic items, etc. You are changing the SETTING of a D&D game, not D&D itself. Its to change how D&D is played, not give them a new game using the D&D base mechanics.

7.) Try to limit new over-arching mechanics when possible. DM should not need to remember more than TWO new mechanical subsystems to run a setting on top of the Core D&D rules. When possible, use the DMG options and base rules instead of inventing/reinventing new ones (RL should use the DMG fear/horror/madness rules; DS the existing heat/survival rules). The more rules you pile on the setting, the harder it is for the DM.

8.) The ideal Setup: Core Books + Setting Book. A setting should be playable with the Core Rules plus a copy of the supplemental stuff. A Player should also still have some options if he doesn't own the setting book; it shouldn't be a barrier for entry to the world.

9.) Together, but not the Same. Each setting is part of the D&D Universe. That means more than just sharing mechanics, but sharing some assumptions. That doesn't mean each setting adheres slavishly to the lore, but the concept that Athas exists in the same multiverse as Kyrnn or Faerun should at least be left open.

10.) Keep power-levels consistent. Ideally, A PC from another world should be about as powerful as one from another world. Dark Sun PCs don't need to have natural ability score caps of 24, Dragonlance PCs shouldn't be limited to 18th level max. An Athasian fighter shouldn't overpower a fighter from Faerun or Ravenloft. A cleric in Ravenloft shouldn't have all his spells and powers nerfed by the Dark Powers either. Some limits of course are needed for flavor (some form of rule for Athasian non-metal gear; or Ravenloft banning planar travel to stop PCs from teleporting out at earliest convenience). The biggest goal would be that all options are equal to allow a DM to pick an option or character from Ravenloft or Dark Sun and use it in his homebrewed or Faerun game without worrying its too powerful/weak.

That's how I'd do it. My goal is for a setting to change the theme of the game, not the game itself. It should be accessible, require minimum fuss, and still "feel like D&D" when played.

That is too long and I am too depressed to dig into that today. Maybe we have been arguing past each other. IDK. Today, IDC either. Maybe another day I'll actually read that and get back to you on it.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I've never said otherwise. I think we're coming at it through from opposite ends.

I've never advocated that an element from the PHB shouldn't be adapted to the setting, I'm all for re-flavoring tieflings from "scions of Asmodeus" to "powerful beings who dealt with fiends of the Wastes". I'm not against Dark Sun have a specific "Athasian" subrace for dwarves, elves, and halflings and not allowing the PHB subraces). I'm also fine with minor edits AS LONG AS SOMETHING IS GIVEN IN RETURN (The eldritch knight is unavailable, but here is the new Gladiator subclass to replace it).

And yes, that means bending the setting some to fit the rules; Calibans are completely a way to replace half-orcs in Ravenloft; it had no basis in the lore of the setting in 2e, no hint such things existed prior. It serves a specific need; we took an option that would not fit well with the setting and reworked it so that it did. How easy would it have been to just say "no half-orcs in Ravenloft?" I lot less words than coming up with a replacement race, complete with culture and history.

And sometimes, rarely, it just doesn't fit. You can't play a Triton in Athas; no matter how much refluffing you do. Those should be the rare exceptions staked out ONLY when refluffing and reworking have no viable alternative.

If it were up to me and I had to set the rules for any 5e conversions, These would be my guiding principles.

1.) Find a way to incorporate every PHB race. If a race cannot be incorporated (gnomes in DS, half-orcs in RL) than a replacement race should be added (muls, calibans). Its fine to limit subraces (all halflings in DL must take the kender subrace).

2.) Fit all PHB classes into the setting. This will require judicious use of re-fluffing and new/changed subclasses to make work. Not every subrace need be allowed (and in fact, more than few might not be) but the idea is to design as few new classes as possible and remove as few options as possible. If there is absolutely no way to incorporate a class (paladin in DS) add a sidebar explaining and give DMs option if they want to add it back). That will mean a few options get redone in ways that might not sit initially well (Oath of Solomnia for paladins vs a proper knight class) and new options/tweaks for classes might need to go on (giving all arcane casters the option to defile).

3.) Try to use as much of the PHB/DMG/MM material as possible in regards to spells, magic items, monsters, etc. Liberal use of re-fluffing is acceptable here.

4.) Optional Books (Volo, SCAG, Xanthar) are not bound to the above design aesthetics; the default for such options in new settings is "off" unless the DM wants to include it. A few exceptions (artificer in Eberron, mystic in DS) where the option is assumed are spelled out clearly.

5.) The design goal is always "how does this option fit in a gothic-horror/post-apocalyptic/high-romance/sword-n-sorcery/non-western world?" Just because it wasn't allowed before doesn't mean it automatically shouldn't be allowed now. Guidelines for making it fit rather than prescriptions of what does/doesn't.

6.) Its still D&D. In a fight between the core principles of D&D and the implied flavor, D&D should get the nod. For example, there should be no outright banning of arcane or divine magic, no mono-racial/human only settings, no magic items, etc. You are changing the SETTING of a D&D game, not D&D itself. Its to change how D&D is played, not give them a new game using the D&D base mechanics.

7.) Try to limit new over-arching mechanics when possible. DM should not need to remember more than TWO new mechanical subsystems to run a setting on top of the Core D&D rules. When possible, use the DMG options and base rules instead of inventing/reinventing new ones (RL should use the DMG fear/horror/madness rules; DS the existing heat/survival rules). The more rules you pile on the setting, the harder it is for the DM.

8.) The ideal Setup: Core Books + Setting Book. A setting should be playable with the Core Rules plus a copy of the supplemental stuff. A Player should also still have some options if he doesn't own the setting book; it shouldn't be a barrier for entry to the world.

9.) Together, but not the Same. Each setting is part of the D&D Universe. That means more than just sharing mechanics, but sharing some assumptions. That doesn't mean each setting adheres slavishly to the lore, but the concept that Athas exists in the same multiverse as Kyrnn or Faerun should at least be left open.

10.) Keep power-levels consistent. Ideally, A PC from another world should be about as powerful as one from another world. Dark Sun PCs don't need to have natural ability score caps of 24, Dragonlance PCs shouldn't be limited to 18th level max. An Athasian fighter shouldn't overpower a fighter from Faerun or Ravenloft. A cleric in Ravenloft shouldn't have all his spells and powers nerfed by the Dark Powers either. Some limits of course are needed for flavor (some form of rule for Athasian non-metal gear; or Ravenloft banning planar travel to stop PCs from teleporting out at earliest convenience). The biggest goal would be that all options are equal to allow a DM to pick an option or character from Ravenloft or Dark Sun and use it in his homebrewed or Faerun game without worrying its too powerful/weak.

That's how I'd do it. My goal is for a setting to change the theme of the game, not the game itself. It should be accessible, require minimum fuss, and still "feel like D&D" when played.

So you just want tobplay the phb lol. The whole oint of some of those settings was to get away from that.

Some things can be changed to bring to into line with a new edition. Dragonlance for example 2E AD&D the classes went to level 20 instead of 18.

We don't need level limits anymore. Class and race limits can go but I would like to see them retained on Greyhawk for example just so GH is different than the Realms mechanically.

Darksun was not the only world that rewrote the phb.

A setting needs to be compatible with the phb which darksun was. Darksun PCs were also more powerful than other worlds PCs but you can replicate that with an extra ASI at level 1 which is a popular houserule in 5E anyway (well a bonus feat).

You just want to standardise all the worlds to fit your one true wayism which defeats the purpose of some of those worlds .

And it doesn't cater to everyone or make those worlds more popular. They tried that tor 4E FR did not work out so well.
 

Remathilis

Legend
So you just want tobplay the phb lol. The whole oint of some of those settings was to get away from that.

Some things can be changed to bring to into line with a new edition. Dragonlance for example 2E AD&D the classes went to level 20 instead of 18.

We don't need level limits anymore. Class and race limits can go but I would like to see them retained on Greyhawk for example just so GH is different than the Realms mechanically.

Darksun was not the only world that rewrote the phb.

A setting needs to be compatible with the phb which darksun was. Darksun PCs were also more powerful than other worlds PCs but you can replicate that with an extra ASI at level 1 which is a popular houserule in 5E anyway (well a bonus feat).

You just want to standardise all the worlds to fit your one true wayism which defeats the purpose of some of those worlds .

And it doesn't cater to everyone or make those worlds more popular. They tried that tor 4E FR did not work out so well.

You completely have missed my point, and at this point there is no further need in arguing it. I want a Dungeons & Dragons setting called Dark Sun, you want Dark Sun, the RPG. Going by how Wizards and its partners had Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, and Dark Sun updated in the 3e era and how Dark Sun and Eberron were updated in 4e, I think inclusive adaptions are a far better marketing strategy than trying to cater to grognards who still can't let go of 2nd edition.

When the eventual updates to those other D&D settings come, I fully expect you'll be disappointed.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
You completely have missed my point, and at this point there is no further need in arguing it. I want a Dungeons & Dragons setting called Dark Sun, you want Dark Sun, the RPG. Going by how Wizards and its partners had Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, and Dark Sun updated in the 3e era and how Dark Sun and Eberron were updated in 4e, I think inclusive adaptions are a far better marketing strategy than trying to cater to grognards who still can't let go of 2nd edition.

When the eventual updates to those other D&D settings come, I fully expect you'll be disappointed.

They tried inclusive and it tanked. Also inclusive doesn't mean make everything the same, if you want sandbox you have FR 9or Nerth or Eberron or Spelljammer etc etc etc).

You make the wrong assumption that D&D is the same for all people, hell in 5E they explcity say there are only 4 classes and race and Darksun has those.

Its like movies, f every moive had the same plot or genre it would be a boring world. I do not like Ravenloft or Dragonloance that much but I do not expect them to rewrite or mutilate thase settings to cater to my tastes as there is nothing they can do to those setting that will make them appeal to me or at least that will not cost them their existing fans. I suspect if they redid Dragonlance they would go back to the wWar of the Lance period but they should probably run a poll on it listening to fans of Dragonlance for what they want.

I did not buy Curse of Strahd for this reason even if its a "generic" version of RL.
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top