D&D 5E Mearls on other settings

Mouseferatu said:

I think it's fine to look for places where a mechanic can find a home in a setting, as long as it's not forced to a point where it violates the theme and aesthetics of said setting.

Again, using Athas as an example... I said before that I could see adding dragonborn (as dray or related), but not tieflings. I can see allowing clerics if limited to elemental domains, but paladins--while actually easier to add, since they don't require gods, only oaths--don't really fit the aesthetic of Dark Sun. Well, maybe the Oath of Vengeance, but not the other two. I wouldn't want to see the other two shoehorned in.

No gnomes. It's already been established that they're extinct. Halflings and elves exist, but need to change mechanically from their core expression, because they're different both culturally and mechanically.

Warlocks? Maybe, but they'd also have to change. The standard pacts really don't fit Dark Sun as written, due to Athas's planar isolation. So maybe Templars, and maybe some other new pacts, but not Fiend or Great Old One.

And yes, some of those omissions are necessary, in my eyes. As I said, it's fine to look for places where the mechanics can be inserted, but it's not fine to insist that all of them find a place. Sometimes, what's not permitted is as important to the feel of a setting as what is.

IOW, I'm not a canon or history purist. I don't think that, just because something wasn't in the setting in 2E, it can't be in 5E. But I am a thematic purist. If something doesn't fit the general theme of the world as written, it must not be shoehorned in, no matter how popular or how core.

Click to expand...

Ding ding ding.

I don't mind Barbarians for example added to Athas, I don't think Sorcerers should be as Dragon and Wild magic doesn't fit and Warlocks do not fit either. Sure you could make Athasian specific pacts but arcane magic is rare/powerful on Athas and otherworld patrons for warlocks contradict the feel of Athas IMHO and should be excluded. Arcane energy comes from plant life on Athas simple.

Most additional arcane classes should be excluded with perhaps the exception of new wizard archetypes that may or may not draw on new power sources and even then PCs should discover those power sources not just decide to play one from level 1 (maybe in a follow up campaign).

Bards as arcane casters do not fit either for the same reasons and the original DS rewrote them to fit the setting. Rather than rewrite 20+ archetypes its easier just to exclude them for thematic reasons. Monks do not fit either as they do not really fit the flavour of the setting and mechanically its a way around the lack of metal. Darksun in particular is defined by its differences from the PHB, if you want to kitchen sink everything play Eberron.

What are the major themes of Darksun?


Harsh/Brutal-, environment society (slavery, death)
Hard to use magic (defiling, elemental clerics)
Psionics
No Gods
Extreme lack of metal.
Survival
Lack of knowledge/mysterious past.
Strnge races (Kreen, Half Giants, cannibal halflings etc)

Zardnaar said:

Letting any race on any world is silly. Krynn has no Half Orcs, Athas has no Gnomes, Half Orcs.

Click to expand...

I don't really see what the problem is. Sure, perhaps only certain races are endemic on some worlds.

However, we are talking about fantasy worlds with the possibility of planar travel, potentially a multi-verse, etc. So, there is nothing wrong with individual PCs or NPCs being of the Wrong Sort (or even large groups of NPCs being wrong). It's just part of the story/adventure.

Lehrbuch said:

However, we are talking about fantasy worlds with the possibility of planar travel, potentially a multi-verse, etc. So, there is nothing wrong with individual PCs or NPCs being of the Wrong Sort (or even large groups of NPCs being wrong). It's just part of the story/adventure.

Click to expand...

Sure. And individual DMs are welcome to add them back in for a home campaign. But they shouldn't be part of the setting as written.

Mouseferatu said:

Sure. And individual DMs are welcome to add them back in for a home campaign. But they shouldn't be part of the setting as written.

Click to expand...

There is our fundamental disagreement; a setting should expand the game, not contract it. Eberron grows D&D with new races and classes. Ravenloft messes with a PC's assumptions, it doesn't take them away. Greyhawk changes the tone of the game, not the rules.

Any setting that is defined by what it takes away rather than what it adds is a waste of resources.

Lehrbuch said:

I don't really see what the problem is. Sure, perhaps only certain races are endemic on some worlds.

However, we are talking about fantasy worlds with the possibility of planar travel, potentially a multi-verse, etc. So, there is nothing wrong with individual PCs or NPCs being of the Wrong Sort (or even large groups of NPCs being wrong). It's just part of the story/adventure.

Click to expand...

Depends on the setting, Athas was cut off from the D&D multiverse though RAW and it had its own planar cosmology and you could not Spelljam there.

If you have a player who wants to special snowflake a race onto a world I would argue that player is likely a disruptive type and should be excluded from the game anyway. Hell I booed 3 players a couple of years back for wanting to pull crap like this.

Its like that player where the DM is running a Drow campaign and wants to play an Elf or you are running a fantasy Greek game humanocentric and wants to play a Minotaur or something. Get with the program or get out IMHO. Its part of the social contract when agreeing to play IMHO.

If I run Darksun for example I invite people to play and here are the rules. If you don't like em don't play. I also return the favor so if a DM wants to run Dragonlance I am not going to want to play a Half Orc and if I play Ravenloft I would understand about the mists etc. I would only play those settings though if option B was no D&D.

Remathilis said:

There is our fundamental disagreement; a setting should expand the game, not contract it. Eberron grows D&D with new races and classes. Ravenloft messes with a PC's assumptions, it doesn't take them away. Greyhawk changes the tone of the game, not the rules.

Any setting that is defined by what it takes away rather than what it adds is a waste of resources.

Click to expand...

Ravenloft changed the rules and its also humanocentric. If you turn up with tabaxi, warforged, Dragonborn, and a Drow I think you are kinda missing the point of the setting and you should not be surprised if the DM attacks you with mobs or you are unable to interact with the inhabitants of the area.

Remathilis said:

There is our fundamental disagreement; a setting should expand the game, not contract it. Eberron grows D&D with new races and classes. Ravenloft messes with a PC's assumptions, it doesn't take them away. Greyhawk changes the tone of the game, not the rules.

Any setting that is defined by what it takes away rather than what it adds is a waste of resources.

Click to expand...

Eberron was designed from the ground up as a kitchen sink setting. Darksun was designed from the ground up to be very different from the PHB. The designers went out of their way to be very different from the PHB deliberately (Troy Denning).

The original ideas was not to even use things like elves, halflings and Dwarves and they designed a few ideas off the art of Brom as he turned in concept sketches.

4E tried the kitchen sink thing, it tanked and offended the fans of FR for example (and Darksun, Eberron not so much). Baker explicitly designed Eberron to be anything goes- magitech, multicultural cities, no fixed alignments for NPC races etc. If you want that play Eberron if you don't want that play Darksun or Krynn.

Zardnaar said:

Ravenloft changed the rules and its also humanocentric. If you turn up with tabaxi, warforged, Dragonborn, and a Drow I think you are kinda missing the point of the setting.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The mists grab anyone; it's up to them to determine if they can hide well enough to survive.

And it depends on the domain as well; being an elf on Barovia gets you a funny look; in Darkon it doesn't raise an eyebrow, and in Tempest it gets you lynched. Yet in no version of RL (black box, red box, DoD, 3e Arthaus, or CoS) has any race been outright banned. Nor any class, even if paladin is tantamount to having a bullseye on you forehead...

Zardnaar said:

Erm Athas had Clerics it was the lame 4E conversion that removed them. They were quite important in the original setting.

Click to expand...

Original Dark Sun had a class called cleric, but it bore little resemblance to the regular cleric. They had only limited access to non-elemental magic (which, due to the way the system worked, meant that the only healing spell they got was cure light wounds, and things like restoration or raise dead were left to druids), and were limited in what weapons they could use based on their elemental pacts. This was partially possible due to the flexibility of the Priest chassis back in 2e, and partially because they rewrote the Priest spell list for Dark Sun.

One of the more clever things the 4e version of Dark Sun did was to look at the cleric, particularly the more clearly defined basher or radiance-based cleric archetypes, and say "No, these are not what we want in Dark Sun." Instead they had shamans communing with spirits to fill the cleric's role. They could probably have done a better job giving them a stronger elemental identity, but it's a lot better than having "classic" clerics in Dark Sun.

Remathilis said:

Rather than expand the game with new options and flavor, you chop it in half for sake of genre emulation. Might as well leave my PHB at home, because its verging on useless.

Click to expand...

Settings should expand the game in some directions, but limit them in others. They should not necessarily be "Forgotten Realms but with extra _____". They should have their own identity, which includes limiting available options.

I mean, look at Magic: the Gathering. The current set takes place on the world of Amonkhet, inspired by ancient Egypt (and Nicol Bolas). This world does not have elves (other than Nissa, who's from Zendikar and planeswalked to Amonkhet so she doesn't count) or goblins - because they don't match the theme. You have other creatures that to some degree serve the same role of being small-to-medium green and red creatures (naga and jackal-men), but not elves or goblins.

Rather than say "X doesn't exist", why not find it a home?

Click to expand...

Because it doesn't match the theme. The setting should not bend or break to match something found in other settings.

But then again, I've always been more interested in setting and story than particular characters or rules mechanisms. I don't really have a favorite class in the game, so I'm not bothered if someone says "this setting has no clerics."

Zardnaar said:

Eberron was designed from the ground up as a kitchen sink setting. Darksun was designed from the ground up to be very different from the PHB. The designers went out of their way to be very different from the PHB deliberately (Troy Denning).

The original ideas was not to even use things like elves, halflings and Dwarves and they designed a few ideas off the art of Brom as he turned in concept sketches.

4E tried the kitchen sink thing, it tanked and offended the fans of FR for example (and Darksun, Eberron not so much). Baker explicitly designed Eberron to be anything goes- magitech, multicultural cities, no fixed alignments for NPC races etc. If you want that play Eberron if you don't want that play Darksun or Krynn.

Click to expand...

Dark Sun, as I said before, isn't really a D&D setting. It's a separate game that uses the skeleton of the D&D rules. They should have cut the cord and been made it's own game. It's shotgun marriage to the D&D rules has hindered more than helped.

Dark Sun should be viewed more like Gamma World than Dragonlance, imho.