D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Yaarel]

Dark Sun Campaign Setting did not need to shoehorn dragonborn and tieflings in at all, and it didn't need to include dray as a playable race-- but it did, because dragonborn and tieflings were in the PHB.

Musing on the evolution of the Dark Sun setting.

As the D&D editions evolve, translating the Dark Sun setting into each edition also evolves. Example, the Dark Sun "Gray" and "Black" are obviously comparable to Shadowfell and Deep Shadow with Domains of Dread, respectively. Indeed necromantic themes are surprisingly prevalent in the classic 2e Dark Sun, and fair game for later editions to call attention to. Whence, what about Feywild? I agree with how 4e translates the Dark Sun local areas of Positive Material Plane, as Fey Crossings. Thus Fey themes also make sense as a scarce and dwindling presence, but present.

I divide the potential 5e Dark Sun into three categories. "Classic" which closely models the 2e options, "sensical" which werent in 2e but make sense, and finally no-just-no but of course each DM can do whatever one wants.

For the "classic" Dark Sun, its 2e "Bard" is really the 5e Rogue Assassin with an Entertainer background, but these 5e options should be rewritten for Dark Sun setting flavor. The Athasian Elf is the Wood Elf with speed etcetera but the 5e wilderness flavor is desert. The Templar should probably be a new Warlock subclass. The UA translation feels correct: everywhere 2e says "magic-user", this means 5e Sorcerer, not 5e Wizard.

For the "sensical" 5e Dark Sun, Barbarian is fine, and Psi Warrior, Soul Knife, some Paladin oaths are ok, like Vengence and Glory, and maybe a Feywild Ancients, but not Devotion. In Dark Sun the Dragons are the result of magical experiments, thus Dragonborn makes sense as a byproduct of the experimentation.

No-just-no, includes Gnome as well as Orc, or any kind of theism.

 

[Gimby]

The difference, though (and without sarcasm), is that magical mind control vs another PC tends to fall squarely into CvC (or PvP) territory, where the martial controlling abilities for some reason do not.

The reason they don't is because there aren't any (or at least no-one has presented an example) Every martial one we've been considering is voluntary

 

[jmartkdr2]

The difference, though (and without sarcasm), is that magical mind control vs another PC tends to fall squarely into CvC (or PvP) territory, where the martial controlling abilities for some reason do not.

Because martial control abilities only apply to enemies?

Or do you consider buffing spells like Haste or Bless PvP?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Take the extra attack? Sure (assuming I get to choose the target, if a choice exists).

Move to my left when I'd rather go right as that's where I - rightly or wrongly - see the tactical advantage? No. I'm going right.

Are there any powers in 4e or 5e that do that?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

What a weird white room argument. At our table, the player with Commander’s Strike would ask their other party member if they’d like to be able to make a reaction attack. It’s a cooperative game. No player is taking control of someone else’s PC and having a functioning table adhering to the social contract. They’re just offering a buff to their teammate if/when it makes sense.

 

[CleverNickName]

Heh. This turn of conversation reminds me of that old "Table Captain" prestige class for 3rd Edition. (Someone wrote it as a joke. The whole premise was that the player got to tell everyone else at the table what to do, and the rules said they had to do it. The dream of every real-life table captain, I guess.)

 

[Lanefan]

Because martial control abilities only apply to enemies?

Or do you consider buffing spells like Haste or Bless PvP?

Given the nasty side-effects of Haste (in the version I'm used to, anyway) it very much could be seen as CvC at times.

Also, and this is from a how-does-this-make-sense-in -the-fiction perspective, why would martial control abilities only apply to enemies rather than to whoever the controller wants them to? In other words, what's the difference between an ally and an enemy that makes one vulnerable but the other not?

 

[Lanefan]

What a weird white room argument. At our table, the player with Commander’s Strike would ask their other party member if they’d like to be able to make a reaction attack. It’s a cooperative game. No player is taking control of someone else’s PC and having a functioning table adhering to the social contract. They’re just offering a buff to their teammate if/when it makes sense.

Are they having that conversation in-character in mid-combat?

 

[Remathilis]

What I'm getting from this debate is apparently casting any sort of spell (helpful or harmful) could be viewed as PVP, regardless if it's the cleric healing the atheist or the wizard hasting the fighter.

 

[SkidAce]

the fact i don't know what classes can cast what is besides the point.

My apologies, I didn't mean it in a bad way.