Search results

I kinda did. Because a maximum enchanted metal weapon on Athas is effectively that unique. And I have no idea why it's even something to worry about. Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Dude. For real. It's the height of wackiness to rest your argument on +3 metal weapons, or getting angsty about +3 metal weapons somehow breaking bounded accuracy. It's missing the forest for a tiny, tiny sapling. Re: Reduced damage die, see all of my previous posts. It's better than a +/-...

Oh come on. That's a corner case of corner cases, and a simply ridiculous hill to die on. That's an artifact. An artifact somewhere in your setting is not a good reason to muck around and apply new modifiers to almost all the other weapons in the game. I mentioned changing damage dice...

Holy cow, man, it's not about "can't handle" it's about minimizing useless busywork. I mentioned a bit earlier that there's other ways to distinguish steel than simple +'s. But if you're stuck on modeling steel as +1, and for some reason still need +1 steel swords (which I honestly don't see...

This isn't about saying metal weapons can't be better. They should be. The only difference between giving 10% of the weapons a bonus, or 90% of the weapons a penalty, is whether you're adjusting 90% or 10% of all weapons. It's silly to add that extra level of busy-work to the 90%.

Because, from a design point of view, you keep the setting expectations as the standard. That keeps fiddling around to a minimum. If you expect 90% of all weapons to be inferior quality, you should focus on adjusting the remaining 10%. It's poor design and unnecessary overhead otherwise...

Let's turn that around. If a metal sword is as good as a +1, what's important about having +1 metal swords? :) Seriously, though, weapons can differ in ways beyond bonuses or penalties. A simple and easy to use weapon breakage rule, for example, is quite genre-appropriate. Likewise, changing...

(1) Why are you penalizing bone/stone/etc instead of giving metal advantages? (2) Dark Sun is not a low-power setting, and I simply don't understand why you are trying to make it one. If you're going that way, Dungeon Crawl Classics is probably a better rule-set.

The idea of intrepid Dwarven scouts blazing trails in the trackless tangle of tunnels in the underdark doesn't appeal? Or hunting across mountaintops for foes, keeping the icy peaks and secret valleys at the edge of their homeland free of giants and dragons? Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus...

So I'm not running or playing 5e, and don't expect to, but this is a pretty generic D&D question so I might as well chime in anyways. I prefer carrots to sticks. If I have a theme in mind, I'll communicate it with my players. If they want to go with it, they get a perk like an extra +1 point...

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...

Yeah, I think you are missing the point. You're focusing entirely on how Dark Sun deprotagonizes the PCs and ignoring all the ways in which it sets them up to be heroes. I added some notes up above, but you're missing how the original setting made the characters extremely powerful and gave them...

On all of this - no. I am in the 'corporate world' now, and the idea that anyone - Mearls included - is somehow so diabolical that he could both design it to fail, not blink at throwing away potentially millions of dollars on a project he manages out of spite, and then cackle over a pile of...

I don't think you have a very good handle on what Dark Sun is supposed to be about, based on your posts, here. You are mistaking the setting's themes with the provided content in the 2e setting and the specific rules implementations of AD&D. These are not the same things, at all. For example...

Eladrin in the DSCS are clearly not an elven sub-race. I don't buy an argument that 'anything but the wizard' is out of place except - again - in a 2e (not Dark Sun, AD&D 2e) purism. Athasian casters could still be specialists, after all - having sorcerers and SK-worshipping templar warlocks is...

My difference with your post above was not the idea that they'd have to be modified, but with the idea that just because something wasn't in the 2e setting, it's the same as being intentionally excluded. Frex: There are still no gnomes or half-orcs or paladins (or any divine class) in 4e Dark...

That's kind of the thing, though. The races and classes you find in 2e settings are all there because they were 2e settings, and that's what was in the AD&D 2e rulebooks. I simply don't think that's a very firm foundation for the "intended character and feel of a setting." It's not like these...

Like I said - I think you're bringing in a lot of baggage here and not looking at the material on its own merits. For one thing you can't just glide past "increased ability scores and incredibly powerful PCs" when you're complaining about healing rates. And no, Dark Sun is not a low magic...

Yeah. There's a difference between "Wasn't there 20 years ago" and "Wildly inappropriate for the setting's themes, even after tweaks." For example. I mentioned this briefly, but Warforged in Dark Sun. The hell I say, right? So let's make them experiments of the Sorcerer-Kings, semi-undead...

Hey, MechaPilot this is exactly the kind of 2e purism I was referring to. I found the 4e Dark Sun conversion to be both thoughtful and well-executed. If that's your take on how the Eladrin and Dray were implemented ... uh ... I think you're bringing in baggage well outside what was contained...