Dark Sun 3E rules

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not proposing re-writing history, though maybe I am proposing 'advancing the timeline' a bit.

I mean, when you're a wizard and your spellbooks cause panic, wouldn't it be wise to develop a talent to cast spells without them? At their basic, mechanical level, sorcerers are wizards without spellbooks. You don't need to have the magic be inborn to preserve the in-game feel of a sorcerer. You just have to take the class abilities and translate them into Athas-ese, so to speak.

So if a wizard learned how to cast spells without a spellbook, this arcane talent, honing memory and body to be a natural spellcasting implement, the class would be a Sorcerer...and you're saying that doesn't fit the setting enough to not include it?

Pick and choose your monster schmorgasboard as you prefer...that's more acceptable than denying races and classes to people, anyway. And at the very least, if you ARE denying races and classes, think about HOW that affects those people who could be playing. If someone likes the ecologically friendly and archer nature of an elf, give them some direction on a way that they can still have fun in DS (the savage halfling comes to mind). If someone wants to play a nomadic, mistrusted trader, give them a direction they can take to do that (the elf comes to mind...wierd how they just flip-flopped roles...).

There should be some reason I'm denying them things in the PHB, and it should be a good reason...and 'because it was that way in 2e' isn't a good reason. I don't want a faithful conversion or a mechanical update. I want a setting as true to the harsh and unforgiving spirit of the giant sun as it is to the fun and fast and furious spirit of 3e. I want a setting I can get people new to the game to enjoy. I want a setting that helps me DM it, not one that tells me what I can and cannot do within it's rigid bounds.

Sorcerers and magical bards are not, as far as I can tell, harmful to the setting. Wizards who have trained without spellbooks, psionic songster-rogues, all golden, all attainable if you forget the 3e flavor, but preserve the 3e rules and overlay a DS flavor.

Why *shouldn't* bards develop psionic abilities to enhance their trade? Why shouldn't you be able to play a inventor of sloar power, obsidian, and stone who defiles themselves and casts spells in secret without books (gnomish sorcerer)? Or a brutish thug going against his nature and trying for justice (half-orc paladin)? Or a rich snob who has fallen into a life of harsh adventure they never wanted (Bilbo Baggins)?

These concepts certainly aren't alien to Dark Sun...so why are the tools used to role-play them forbidden? And why is no reasoning, no advice, no motive or method given for this madness other than 'it wasn't in 2e, so it's not in cannon, so it's not in 3e, either.' Why is it "Don't play what's against the rules," and not "Here's how to play Dark Sun, with the tools you have available..."

I mean, I would think in a place as harsh and unforgiving as Athas that new things would sprout up all the time. This gives me the impression that the world has stagnated...that because no Destrachans were mentioned in any DS material, Destrachans can't exist, because they're not part of the world. Because no bards cast spells before, none can now. Because the Sorcerer-Kings have always ruled, they always will. Because the world is dead it will always be. Because Dark Sun was made in second edition, it must adhere to all (or most) of it's second edition quirks.(Keep in mind, I'm not proposing all of these as actual reasonable changes. )

IMHO, the DS team should've taken this opportunity to present how Dark Sun can change and grow and not loose it's distinctive flavor. Races? Monsters? Sure, fiddle with them, they're mostly/totally flavor. But give me reasons and advice, not do's/do not's. Justify your reasoning, help me understand the setting so as to present it in a way that evokes that harsh landscape, that mammal-less wilderness, that life on the edge between life and death. Help me guide players to characters they want to play, and how a character like that fits into the world. Certainly spellbook-free defiling Sorcerers can fit into Dark Sun without disrupting the feel of the game, or even the history that the game was based on. Ditto with psionic song-bards. And if the DS team, the most dedicated and knowledgable about Dark Sun, can't think of things like this, or can't get over that 2e 'conversion' hurdle, or for some strange reason thinks these ideas are crap, they should at least be able to give me a reasoning for it, and, if the idea is somehow workable but not exactly encouragable, some advice on how best to do it.

Dark Sun 3e should have been a conversion of Dark Sun 2e in the same way as 3e was a conversion of 2e -- it should've broken barriers and questioned reasoning and offered options and reinvented wheels, but, in the end, offered the same game with the same flavor and the same style as the original.

As it stands, Dark Sun 3e seems like Dark Sun 2e with rules that make slightly more sense and can be played in the same system. Which, to be honest, isn't what I want out of Dark Sun. I want the feel, the emotion, the suffering, the power, the raw nature, the opressed life, the world of Athas and all of it's glory. And you can't really give that to me by telling me which items off a list I get to pick and choose from. You have to re-work it, from the ground up, questioning everything, cutting the chaff, obeying the rules, and following the logic lines to their logical conclusions. You can't superimpose 3e on Dark Sun. You have to make Dark Sun for 3e. At least, for me to be content, you do.

2e was hole-ridden, balance-problematic, quirky, and nonsensical at times. There's no reason to resist moving the world as a whole forward, as far as I can see.

 

[Staffan]

Why *shouldn't* bards develop psionic abilities to enhance their trade?

If they want to develop psionic abilities, they can take the psion class just like anyone else.

Why shouldn't you be able to play a inventor of sloar power, obsidian, and stone who defiles themselves and casts spells in secret without books (gnomish sorcerer)?

Because all the gnomes on Athas were killed off millenia ago. And sorcerers fill the same niche as the psion, and the psion has way more rights to that niche.

Or a brutish thug going against his nature and trying for justice (half-orc paladin)?

Because all orcs were killed off at roughly the same time as the gnomes, and because there are no forces around that grant powers to people just for being good - i.e., no paladins.

Or a rich snob who has fallen into a life of harsh adventure they never wanted (Bilbo Baggins)?

How do the DS rules prevent that one?

These concepts certainly aren't alien to Dark Sun...so why are the tools used to role-play them forbidden?

But they are alien to Dark Sun. Many of the things not allowed in 3e Dark Sun are disallowed because they were specifically disallowed in 2e Dark Sun - not 2e in general, mind you, just in Dark Sun. This establishes how the world is different from other worlds, which is very important.

As it stands, Dark Sun 3e seems like Dark Sun 2e with rules that make slightly more sense and can be played in the same system. Which, to be honest, isn't what I want out of Dark Sun.

Bit it is what I want - and I think the conversion has strayed too far from the 2e roots (especially regarding the divine spellcasters) as it is.

2e was hole-ridden, balance-problematic, quirky, and nonsensical at times. There's no reason to resist moving the world as a whole forward, as far as I can see.

Quirky is good. It means it's not just like everything else. A good 3e conversion would clean up the holes and balance, but keep the quirks.

 

[theT0rmented]

Wow... I've missed a lot of discussion in the last couple of weeks.

Some points:

Bards:
Arcane bards simply do not fit the setting. All magic in Dark Sun comes from some "power source": plant life for wizards, elements for clerics, spirits of the land for druids and rangers. An arcane bard would have the same restrictions as a wizard, but it's never been it's traditional role. DS bards can still sing, juggle, play the lute if they want; but they are also sneaky assassins, lore masters, etc. A version of the bard with psionic powers would certainly fit. The source of the power has to fit with the setting. The problem is then playtesting; can we create a bard with psionic powers (and a psionic point progression) that is balanced with the rest? Maybe, maybe not. The DS bard has never been described as a character with any "supernatural" (ie, magic or psionic) powers. I think what we've got now is good.

Sorcerers:
Again, this comes down to the power source and the social stigma of arcane spellcasters. A sorcerer in DS should be subject to the same defiling and preserving rules. But then the spellbook, which the wizard has to contend with and hide, is no longer a hindrance for the sorcerer. Also, how do you explain the "innate" ability? Arcane magic has always been difficult to learn; it took Rajaat a long time to learn (invent) magic. You could, I guess, say that it's a consequence of the Cerulean Storm, or just chalk it up to a mutation from the Pristine Tower, but to me, it doesn't fit the setting.

Clerics:
Personally, I find as well that the old sphere system better represented the elemental clerics. But consider that some clerics had limited choices for spells, and that re-writing and balancing spheres for 3E would be a playtesting nightmare. The domains actually allow a cleric to memorize more elemental spells and not use their slots for healing spells; that's what their spontaneous casting allows them to do.

Defiling / preserving:
We did have defilers with free metamagic at one point. Oh how horribly broken that was; it didn't take a lot of playtesting to realize how wrong we were with that... To have a system that's relatively balanced, and maintain some incentive to defile is a challenge. We've had maybe 5 or 6 different systems for defiling since we started working on the doc. Is the current system perfect? No. But it's a reasonable compromise. We wanted something with a little incentive for preservers to defile, and some mechanic so that if you defiled more and more, then you couldn't go back to preserving. No wizard should be able to defile or preserver whenever it's convenient; there should be some mechanism that prevents that.

 

[woodelf]

The things that attracted most Dark Sun fans to begin with was that the world is different from regular D&D. That's the whole point, really. A conversion that does not preserve Dark Sun's originality is a bad conversion IMO.

Yeah--and different in a way that we were interested in. Speaking as a fan/consumer, i *want* to throw out options from the PH--if i just wanted another Greyhawk-compatible world, i'd be playing Kalamar or Scarred Lands. The appeal of Athas is precisely that it is different--and not just a thin veneer of difference; radically different. Hell, my biggest complaints from day one were (1) why keep the standard races at all? and (2) the classes/magic are too similar to the standard rules. Now, once i learned the history of Athas, i was mostly mollified on the races issue, but i still think the classes should've deviated *more* from the baseline. And that's my opinion of the current conversion, too: several of the classes (druid, cleric, particularly) have lost much of the feel of Dark Sun, IMHO, in the process of conforming more closesly to D&D3E defaults.

You know, when i saw the first ads for Dark Sun, i pretty much shelved my then-current homebrew. I had a three-quarter-developed setting that focused on a harsh desert world where magic was evil and psionics were common, which i was hoping to sell as an article or series of articles to Dragon. Somehow, i think it lost some novelty when Dark Sun showed up. (Mind you, most of the other details were different--frex, the only race in common is humans, who were outsiders come to a world that was otherwise all-reptilian. And *my* setting had dinosaurs!)

 

[woodelf]

Okay, I have to start by saying I hate alignments and the built in (but not balanced against) alignment restrictions. [snip]

Now, although the paladin has his code, it is not out balanced with anything. My experiences don't put the paladin on any higher standing than any other class in general, but then there's the RPing hinderance of a code of rules to follow. So, in your theory, the Paladin is a massively underpowered class. To use this as an example, I can tweak the paladin's code in a thousand ways to represent a thousand different organizations of knighthood or dieties or anything else that I want to use the paladin for without worrying about 'breaking' the class. I could even ditch the code entirely, and tha paladin still works just as well as before. Now say I want to tweak the class features. A little trickier for many people if you want to maintain a semblance of balance.

I'm not sure i follow you: are you saying that the paladin is balanced even if you take away the code of conduct? Wouldn't that make them underbalanced as written? From everything i've heard and seen (only paladin in my group only lasted to 3rd before the player left town), paladins are noticably on the powerful side of balance, and the code is a required balancing element. Or are you claiming that the paladin code has essentially zero impact on game balance, and is purely flavor? If so, i'm gonna have to disagree--i've seen plenty of groups where, absent the thread of losing game-mechanical nifties if they break the code, they'd be doing all sorts of nastiness, just for the power.

Oh, and i'm with you on alignment--one of the best changes Arcana Unearthed makes is ditching it. I *hate* the moral certitude it engenders.

[Campaigns don't run the full spectrum, or are weighted towards one style.]

Mine tend to, since the diversity of players that I normally have (as well as the sheer number of them at times) also favor all sorts of playing styles and adventure styles. I tend to run as ecclectic of a mixture of things as I can. Normally, over the coarse of a few adventure, I try to include enough combat to keep the (what are group calls) smash-heads happy, enough RPing and NPC interaction to keep the talk-techs happy, enough exploration and such to keep the skill-mongers happy (who also need a new name in 3e, but it stuck in favor of dungeon-delvers). Its not always 100% successful. Sometimes an adventure or mini-campaign does indeed lean more to one end or the next, but generally its a fairly even mix. That's why I would much prefer it if the classes that are available are able to support such.

Three points here:
First, i notice "politics" didn't make your list. Not saying you don't do it, just pointing out that there are more than just 3 styles of gameplay. And, if you don't, i claim that it is *quite* different from "RPing and NPC interactions".
Second, i would've put your "smash-heads" and "skill mongers/dungeon delvers" as two factions of the same playstyle, if i'm understanding you correctly--they're both about the semi-adversarial style of play represented by dungeon crawls.
Third, i'm skeptical. This is gonna sound like a personal attack, but i really don't mean it to be: IMHO, the classes are only balanced assuming a fairly high percentage of "dungeon-crawl" style challenges, which must be overcome with some mixture of brawn, magic, and problem-solving. The further you get from that balance, the less balanced the classes are. Equal thirds fighting, socializing, and puzzles/challenges leaves the fighters bored 2/3rds of the time, whereas most of the other classes are at least helpful 2/3rds of the time. A game has to be combat-heavy in order to give a spread of classes equal spotlight time--what's the one thing *every* class gets better at with increased level?

Sorry, but I do think we're at a point of contention without end here. I understand where your coming from, but I'm not swayed. Nor do I think you'll be swayed by anything I've got up my sleeve either. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Well, i've said my piece, i guess. Feel free to get in the last word.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Originally posted by Kamikaze Midget
Why *shouldn't* bards develop psionic abilities to enhance their trade?

If they want to develop psionic abilities, they can take the psion class just like anyone else.

Why should that be a requirement? Certainly the likes of Psychic Warriors don't have to be mutliclass to be both competent psions and competent fighters...why should Bards be any different? Why change an entire class when you can just follow some guidelines and make it similar without drastically changing it? Why do things the hard way, and limit those who like psionic/magical songsters? Why create a new thing and forbid the old when you can just include the old with proper flavor?

Why shouldn't you be able to play a inventor of sloar power, obsidian, and stone who defiles themselves and casts spells in secret without books (gnomish sorcerer)?

Because all the gnomes on Athas were killed off millenia ago. And sorcerers fill the same niche as the psion, and the psion has way more rights to that niche.

Or a brutish thug going against his nature and trying for justice (half-orc paladin)?

Because all orcs were killed off at roughly the same time as the gnomes, and because there are no forces around that grant powers to people just for being good - i.e., no paladins.

Or a rich snob who has fallen into a life of harsh adventure they never wanted (Bilbo Baggins)?

How do the DS rules prevent that one?

Dude, you missed the point there. Does Dark Sun forbid a character that is a spellcasting inventor? Does it forbid a brutish thug trying for justice? Or a snot who has fallen into a harsh life?

From my experience, it doesn't forbid those...but it forbids gnomish sorcerers, half-orc paladins, and Bilbo. Which are the exact same thing. So if someone wants to play a gnomish sorcerer, there are no words of advice for them playing even a similar character (a spellcasting inventor). It's just 'you can't.' Which is effectively telling them not 'you can't play a gnomish sorcerer,' but 'this world does'nt have spellscasting inventors.' Similarly, telling somebody they can't play a half-orc paladin tells them 'this world forbids brutish thungs trying for justice,' and outlawing Bilbo is like is saying 'this world does not support rich snobs who fall into a lfie of adventure.'

If you're going to take away character concepts, try to give people advice on how to meet those same concepts being true to the campaign.

These concepts certainly aren't alien to Dark Sun...so why are the tools used to role-play them forbidden?

But they are alien to Dark Sun. Many of the things not allowed in 3e Dark Sun are disallowed because they were specifically disallowed in 2e Dark Sun - not 2e in general, mind you, just in Dark Sun. This establishes how the world is different from other worlds, which is very important.

If you stop using 2e as a bible and start using it as a guideline, however, you can at least explain a reason behind it, and offer an alternative.

There may be no gnomes because plant-related fey were some of the most affected by the defiling magic, and they were killed off to a man. Though if someone likes the creative/mischevous aspect of the gnomes, they can try playing a human crafter who knows defiling arts.

And Sorcerers were not expressly forbidden in 2e...and the best reason I've heard why their forbidden ('easy magic' shuoldn't be possible) was never even presented as a motive for their exclusion. And my opinion, obviously differs -- I feel that 'easy magic' is flavor for the sorcerer, and there's no reason that sorcerous magic can't be as difficult and arduous as any thing a Wizard casts....

 

[EArly]

If you stop using 2e as a bible and start using it as a guideline, however, you can at least explain a reason behind it, and offer an alternative.

There may be no gnomes because plant-related fey were some of the most affected by the defiling magic, and they were killed off to a man. Though if someone likes the creative/mischevous aspect of the gnomes, they can try playing a human crafter who knows defiling arts.

You are focusing to much on 2e. Dark Sun, under 2e was a radical departure from the standard. People aren't focusing on 2e and using it as a bible, rather they are focusing on Dark Sun and using it as the bible. But obviously you dont care about this as your second comment quoted above demonstrates.

There are no gnomes, not because plant-related fey were some of the most affected by the defiling magic, and they were killed off to a man, but rather because Rajaat sent one of his champions out to kill them and that champion suceeded. If you dont like that, I am sorry, but THAT is Dark Sun.

Dude, you missed the point there. Does Dark Sun forbid a character that is a spellcasting inventor? Does it forbid a brutish thug trying for justice? Or a snot who has fallen into a harsh life?

Nope, your more then welcome to, for the first how about a Human Psion seeking to use his skills on a grander scale? Or Elven? Both could invent. Hell you could also have a Templar with aspirations of Granduer. For the second, A Mul Gladiator out to right the wrongs that have been commited during his life. For the third, well anyone of any race and/or class.

From my experience, it doesn't forbid those...but it forbids gnomish sorcerers, half-orc paladins, and Bilbo. Which are the exact same thing. So if someone wants to play a gnomish sorcerer, there are no words of advice for them playing even a similar character (a spellcasting inventor). It's just 'you can't.' Which is effectively telling them not 'you can't play a gnomish sorcerer,' but 'this world does'nt have spellscasting inventors.' Similarly, telling somebody they can't play a half-orc paladin tells them 'this world forbids brutish thungs trying for justice,' and outlawing Bilbo is like is saying 'this world does not support rich snobs who fall into a lfie of adventure.'

They are not the same thing. If you decide to play Dark Sun, that means no Gnomes, no Orc, no Sorcers. But it does mean Thri-kreen Psion with an attitude. Half-Giant Gladiator with a bad temper today. Its not that there are less choices and more restrictions. It just means that there are different choices. If you want to play some otherway, thats fine, but its not Dark Sun at that point.

Might I make a suggestion. Go read the Novels. Get a feel for the world. Read the history. Then come back and talk, becuase right now you obviously dont know what Dark Sun is.

 

[Spatula]

Dude, you missed the point there. Does Dark Sun forbid a character that is a spellcasting inventor?

Dwarven Wizard. You can replace dwarf with any race, really, but dwarves get lots of craft-related bonuses and are often depicted as being mechanically innovative (or at least ambitious). You can also easily replace Wizard with Psion (Shaper).

Does it forbid a brutish thug trying for justice?

Mul fighter. Or half-giant fighter, if you prefer.

Or a snot who has fallen into a harsh life?

Human rogue with an aristocrat background.

From my experience, it doesn't forbid those...but it forbids gnomish sorcerers, half-orc paladins, and Bilbo. Which are the exact same thing.

Hardly. You have heard of this thing called role-playing, yes?

 

[uv23]

Just wanted to throw out a bravo to the folks who have worked so hard on this. It really is an enjoyable read and brings back lots of warm fuzzy memories. Oh, and I *love* the bard class.. positively drips with dark flavor. Maybe one day WOTC will see the light and grant you a license to produce a DS 3.5 book!

 

[Imperialus]

Kamikaze Midget: Perhaps it's time you realized that Darksun just isn't for you. It isn't supposed to cater to all play styles... I mean heaven help you if you try and go on an Arthurian style dragonhunt. As others have pointed out though, where is it written in stone that many of the character concepts you so frantically cling to can't be done with races and classes already avelable but it seems like we are talking to a wall.

Why should that be a requirement? Certainly the likes of Psychic Warriors don't have to be mutliclass to be both competent psions and competent fighters...why should Bards be any different?

Because a Psychic warrior is just that, they can fight, and be a second rate spellcaster, not much else. A bard already has reasonable fighting skills, assassins abilities, a ton of skillpoints and class skills, great saves, and just look down the special abilities list. You're saying you want to add sorcerer style spellcasting on top of that? Perhaps if they were a PrC but otherwise that's just ridiculous.

Perhaps most importantly, at least from a role playing perspective you are forgetting the fact that bards are tolerated in the city states. If the sorcerer kings knew they could cast spells (and believe me they'd find out) Bards would be just as banned as mages. That of course would make a normal bardic life very difficult since their very way of life requires that they spend quite a bit of time in major population centers. You're forgetting the fear and hatred that 99% of people have towards magic. That hardly makes it a desirable skill for someone who relies on his popularity and charisma to have. After all it's tough to do a performance in an inn when the templars kick the door in and arrest you because your class is capable of useing magic.