D&D 5E Thoughts on a Darksun Cleric

[Zardnaar]

You're description of Rajaat matches a lot of warlock patrons honestly. It doesn't make a lot of sense in real terms for a god like Tharizdun to make a pact with someone, but that's mechanically how it can work. Same reason for why Rajaat would want to give someone a pact; vague backstory about how he sees this PC as the key to breaking free of his prison.

He gets killed in the Prism Pentad, but let's be real that's not going to be canon again.

The idea that there are no beings in Dark Sun powerful enough to support a warlock is frankly a little ridiculous.

It's not the power levels but PCs shouldn't have access to those patrons. At best the class should be NPCs only.

Sorcerer Kings as patrons is also silly since they should be defilers and having your Templars wandering around cities us also silly. Especially how the typical Athasian responds to defiling magic. No Sorcerer King is going to want a large amount of preservers serving them and they can only support a handful of pet defilers via trees of life.

It's also partly why they started using Templars in the first place. They weren't defilers.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

It's not the power levels but PCs shouldn't have access to those patrons. At best the class should be NPCs only.

Sorcerer Kings as patrons is also silly since they should be defilers and having your Templars wandering around cities us also silly. Especially how the typical Athasian responds to defiling magic. No Sorcerer King is going to want a large amount of preservers serving them and they can only support a handful of pet defilers via trees of life.

It's also partly why they started using Templars in the first place. They weren't defilers.

I think you are thinking of magic users like they're depicted in FR and Eberron, as relatively common people.

I imagine (and have always imagined) magic-users as extremely rare, something almost no NPC will have. It's something only the PCs will have access to.

In that context, having a Sorcerer King (or a dragon, or Rajaat) as a patron is perfectly logical, as at most it's going to be three characters in the entire world with these powers.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think you are thinking of magic users like they're depicted in FR and Eberron, as relatively common people.

I imagine (and have always imagined) magic-users as extremely rare, something almost no NPC will have. It's something only the PCs will have access to.

In that context, having a Sorcerer King (or a dragon, or Rajaat) as a patron is perfectly logical, as at most it's going to be three characters in the entire world with these powers.

I was thinking of the 4E Templars are warlocks thing.

Thematically Sorcerers make even less sense than Warlocks. I would probably tie defiling mechanics to an intelligence check so even if you added all the spellcasting classes to a modern take on Darksun.

Less is definitely more with arcane classes IMHO looking at the original boxed set.

 

[neogod22]

You're description of Rajaat matches a lot of warlock patrons honestly. It doesn't make a lot of sense in real terms for a god like Tharizdun to make a pact with someone, but that's mechanically how it can work. Same reason for why Rajaat would want to give someone a pact; vague backstory about how he sees this PC as the key to breaking free of his prison.

He gets killed in the Prism Pentad, but let's be real that's not going to be canon again.

The idea that there are no beings in Dark Sun powerful enough to support a warlock is frankly a little ridiculous.

Rajaat didn't die in the Prism Pentad. He was only imprisoned again. There was a follow-up book call "The Rise and Fall of a Dragon King" which was the life of Humanu, and talked about how and why he became a Sorcerer King and what happened that made the Sorcerer Kings betray Rajaat. To make a long story short, the other 3 Kings (and queen), decided that Humanu had to become the next Dragon to keep Rajaat's prison contained, so they forced his metamorphosis just like they did Borys. And while he was trying to cling the the little sanity he had while transforming, he forced himself to go to Ur Draxa to Rajaat's prison, and burued the prison and himself deep in the earth.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I was thinking of the 4E Templars are warlocks thing.

Thematically Sorcerers make even less sense Warlocks. I would probably tie defiling mechanics to an intelligence check so even if you added all the spellcasting classes to a modern take on Darksun.

Less is definitely more with arcane classes IMHO looking at the original boxed set.

I'm not really a fan of outright banning material for players, though I understand people who feel that way. I would love to see a mechanic introduced that makes magic-usage more punishing for the player (harmful to the environment or the player themself). Other than that though, it would be disappointing if the setting book just says "You can't play cleric there aren't gods here."

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not really a fan of outright banning material for players, though I understand people who feel that way. I would love to see a mechanic introduced that makes magic-usage more punishing for the player (harmful to the environment or the player themself). Other than that though, it would be disappointing if the setting book just says "You can't play cleric there aren't gods here."

That was the 4E logic because they made the silly decision to tie classes to power sources.

Even in 2E you could have non Divine clerics.

The Artificer doesn't belong on a few world's, the 5E phb makes it clear that only 4 classes and races are core.

I think trying to retrofit modern classes into some older settings is a bad idea. Even in 2E DS was different. Sure it didn't appeal to everyone much like any other setting.

 

[Coroc]

The templars of 2nd edition where moderate melee fighters.

And you are never going to be able to balance keeping good weapons out of the hands of PCs unless you completely remove cantrips from everyone. Which I would say is the point when it ceases to be close enough to core D&D to use the name.

5e Templar warlock would be as good. Templar 2e was cleric which was 2nd best in melee. In 5e every class gets the same proficiency to hit so there is that.

My homebrew take on DS minor material weapon quality is to basically leave the dice of the weapon as is. On a nat. 1 the player has to make a DC 10 check to see if it breaks.
Weapons made from steel are 1 die step up, e.g. Stone mace 1d8 steel mace 1d10.
That way I do not have to fumble around with the ultra annoying -1, -2 to whatever hit or damage and get s*loads of inconsistencies and slow gameplay.
It also resolves pretty good if you got some magic weapon made of e.g. bone. It would use the lower (=normal) damage die but would not need its magic + to compensate for any -1 for bad quality.

So far, so good, but why would I also want that: I want the finding of a non magic metal weapon by the players in Athas to be like the finding of a +1 weapon for other worlds. That is absolutely within the original spirit of the game.

What I do not want on Athas at all are things like magic weapons callable when lost etc etc. That is why I never would allow a blade pact warlock pc not even for an npc like a Templar.

There are other things which ruin your DS campaign that are:
-spells that create food or water,

• Easy movement spells or feats like teleport fly etc,
• Feats, especially ones like resilience constitution,
• Classes like monk or barbarian or whatever can whisk away the environmental challenges, or is not really affected by them or gives big damage reduction.

If you allow any of these in your campaign then you are playing a wussified version of darksun not true to the originals imho.

 

[Zardnaar]

5e Templar warlock would be as good. Templar 2e was cleric which was 2nd best in melee. In 5e every class gets the same proficiency to hit so there is that.

My homebrew take on DS minor material weapon quality is to basically leave the dice of the weapon as is. On a nat. 1 the player has to make a DC 10 check to see if it breaks.
Weapons made from steel are 1 die step up, e.g. Stone mace 1d8 steel mace 1d10.
That way I do not have to fumble around with the ultra annoying -1, -2 to whatever hit or damage and get s*loads of inconsistencies and slow gameplay.
It also resolves pretty good if you got some magic weapon made of e.g. bone. It would use the lower (=normal) damage die but would not need its magic + to compensate for any -1 for bad quality.

So far, so good, but why would I also want that: I want the finding of a non magic metal weapon by the players in Athas to be like the finding of a +1 weapon for other worlds. That is absolutely within the original spirit of the game.

What I do not want on Athas at all are things like magic weapons callable when lost etc etc. That is why I never would allow a blade pact warlock pc not even for an npc like a Templar.

There are other things which ruin your DS campaign that are:
-spells that create food or water,

• Easy movement spells or feats like teleport fly etc,
• Feats, especially ones like resilience constitution,
• Classes like monk or barbarian or whatever can whisk away the environmental challenges, or is not really affected by them or gives big damage reduction.

If you allow any of these in your campaign then you are playing a wussified version of darksun not true to the originals imho.

The 2E list on how spells work or don't work on Athas is a good idea.

I think I streamlined weapons to -1 or -2 to hit for simplicity. No -1 to hit -2 damage.

Metal sword in effect is +, an actual +1 sword is still decent. Changing dice size also effect crits.

A lot less archetypes would be another way as I only use a few. I've been waiting for Psion rules,might have to fudge them shirt term.

 

[Coroc]

The 2E list on how spells work or don't work on Athas is a good idea.

I think I streamlined weapons to -1 or -2 to hit for simplicity. No -1 to hit -2 damage.

Metal sword in effect is +, an actual +1 sword is still decent. Changing dice size also effect crits.

A lot less archetypes would be another way as I only use a few. I've been waiting for Psion rules,might have to fudge them shirt term.

+-1 to hit in 5E is equivalent to +-3 or so in 2E and you would upvalue weapons which are made of inferior material per default (A thing already faulty in 2e), e.g. a wooden club would be better than a bone mace, a quarterstaff made from wood would be one of the best weapons in the game if you would not use my houserules (Quarterstaff 1d6 two handed only is how I rule this in every setting I DM).

And your +1 bone mace would only be +0 to hit so worse than a metal sword although it is a magic weapon. I do not want to selfpromote here but my way is far superior to this, it is consistent and does not need much number crunching and it is in line with wbound accuracy

 

[Zardnaar]

+-1 to hit in 5E is equivalent to +-3 or so in 2E and you would upvalue weapons which are made of inferior material per default (A thing already faulty in 2e), e.g. a wooden club would be better than a bone mace, a quarterstaff made from wood would be one of the best weapons in the game if you would not use my houserules (Quarterstaff 1d6 two handed only is how I rule this in every setting I DM).

And your +1 bone mace would only be +0 to hit so worse than a metal sword although it is a magic weapon. I do not want to selfpromote here but my way is far superior to this, it is consistent and does not need much number crunching and it is in line with wbound accuracy

Steel Greatsword 2d8, d20 greataxes?
I saw upsized weapons as far back as 2E combat and tactics.