Dark Sun 3E rules

Heck, I wouldn't mind if they removed the gladiator class - just give the fighter some gladiator-ish feats as well as some soldiery feats, and the fighter class can fill both niches

I agree. As long as the gladiator has a presence, whether as a core class, fighter alteration, PrC, or in any other guise, I'm happy.

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

*looks around* Now where was that email I had been meaning to send to you . . .

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?

Not that I've seen in my games anyway. Then again, I've discussed this with others before and it does seem to be a split issue. Paladins have a great deal of versatility on their side, and some people feel that is their penchance for being overpowered without their code. Others feel that versatility without mastery is balancing but not overpowering. I guess its a matter of opinion. I had a GH game going that altered the Paladin's code for more 'cavelier-like' paladins, lessoning its restrictions (and changing others). I removed some minor abilities to compensate and had a rough time playtesting it. I would not have included it into the game, but the player still insisted. Although the PC turned out great, there were times noted by myself and the player that the class was slightly under par. Your milage will vary I guess.

First, i notice "politics" didn't make your list

I agree that there are several types of 'PC and NPC interactives', political amongst them. Political would fall both within interactive, as well as skill based incorporating both within its type.

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?

Your actually asking to go through each and every character concept found in a typical setting (of which there are probably several hundred) and give a cross referencing list of DS alternatives. I'm sorry that DS has not include flavor templates for a few archetypes found in most genres, but I think your asking someone to count the grains of sand on the beach here. Nothing is being forbidden either. I still can't see why your feel so. These are RPing templates. You keep asking 'Does Dark Sun fobid this, that, or the other'. Yet I still have yet to see a role mentioned that can't be adapted into DS in some way (even if some of those roles break a little flavor, but that's only my personal interpretation of the setting that I would never want to see made into canon). Yes, some rule specifics may not be so easy to adapt, but the role that those rules encompass are still ever present. Spatula's role filling suggestion work just fine IMO to filling those roles. Your still talking about potentially thousands of character concepts.

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.

Arms courteous. Let's try not to be rude and start any flamewars. We can all get along and sing koom-bye-yaa while pracing nekkid peacefully around a campfire, even when we disagree.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kamikaze Midget said:
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?

I dunno--you tell me. Why isn't there a psionic performer-type in D&D? Why change an entire class when you can just follow some guidelines and duplicate it with existing classes? (i'm thinking particularly of the ranger in 2e/3E/3.5E, which is basically what the ranger/druid was in 1e--which is fine, but you can't really make a 1e ranger with the existing 3E core classes (*maybe* with fighter/thief--if you try. But not really). Why create a new thing and forbid the old when you can just include the old with proper flavor? (As in, why make the rogue a dirty fighter, instead of a deceiver, when the dirty fighter can be created by adding to a deceiver, but there is no provision for subtracting from classes in D&D3E?)


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.'
No, it's saying "brutish thugs striving for justice in this world look very different, and can't be usefully represented by the particular set of abilities of the paladin in the D&D3E PH".

Um--IMHO, Athas *doesn't* have spellcasting inventors. And while one of the basic premises of the setting is PCs that are striving for justice, that's not the same as divinely-gifted champions of law and justice.


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.

OK, this was the part that got me to respond to this post.

Take away *what* concepts? Only if you consider D&D3E a perfect and pure representation of all archetypes of any value, does this make any sense. D&D3E forbids, or makes very difficult, all sorts of archetypes common to fantasy literature (and literature in general). D&D3E bizarrely favors certain more-fringe archetypes, while ignoring other relatively-core archetypes. D&D3E takes classes that are clearly intended to be representative of an archetype, and then twists them in strange ways so that you can't use them [efficiently] for the archetype they purport to be based upon. I don't see any advice in the D&D3E core rules for playing noble savages, con artists, self-sufficient martial artists, huntsmen, commandos, shamans, witch doctors, totemic warriors, wise non-combatant non-wizardy priests, or any of a number of common [high] fantasy archetypes--you want me to list a few more? Most of these can be done, with varying degrees of satisfaction, with the existing classes/skills/feats--but not all. So what's so special about the set of archetypes that D&D3E supports that *they* are the ones that *must* be supported in any D&D-compatible setting, no matter how different, while others are unimportant?


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.

The same could be said of D&D3E. It'd be a lot better game if a few more sacred cows had been sent to the butcher.


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....

Sure--i got no problem with sorcerers that need a spellbook to prepare their spells. *That's* the part that makes it "easy" for sorcerers--nothing "flavor" about it.
 

Only if you consider D&D3E a perfect and pure representation of all archetypes of any value, does this make any sense

Waaaahhh!

You mean its not perfect??!!??

Why didn't anyone ever tell me before . . . that's it, I'm busting out my old Character, Creature, and Campaign Law books. . . . Rolemaster . . . now that's a perfect system.

(The above bit of rambling was brought to you today by Sleep Deprivation, Taster's Choice Instant Coffee, and Mentos, the Freshmaker . . . please visit our sponser's websites. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.)
 

I am utterly confused that people want to play Bilbo in Dark Sun. That's kinda like playing Buzz Lightyear in Forgotten Realms. :)

No one can be completely happy with a published gameworld. Afterall, it didn't come out of your imagination. Even I don't really like most of Dark Sun's history (Blue starfish guns wielded by primordial halflings? Please.)

Do I ask the game designers to change the entire history for me? Nope.

I can't stand playing in the Star Wars universe, because Luke and Han give me schlong envy. Do I ask Lucas to rewrite the script for parts 4 through 6 for me? Nope.

My DM made the Rebel Alliance lose at the battle of Endor. Luke is a bad guy now. Han is an AT-ST pancake. I rule supreme as a piddly pud. MY SCHLONG IS LONG!! :)


Moral: Cool it. Parts of Dark Sun rock. Use what you want. Throw out the rest. Just like, um, every other game out there.



P.S. I do suggest that PCs should start at 3rd level again, just so players who want to start as half-giants or thrikreen can do so without having to kill off their human character after 3000 XP.

If not, PRESTO: My PCs will start at level three! No skin off my schlong! ;)
 
Last edited:

Ah, the profound wisdom of Buddha and his schlong . . . (j/k)

P.S. I do suggest that PCs should start at 3rd level again, just so players who want to start as half-giants or thrikreen can do so without having to kill off their human character after 3000 XP

I'm basing it on wether any takes a thri-kreen or half-giant, or any other race with a LA, and letting the rest join in at the minimum level. Otherwise, its lvl 1 for all.
 


Mach2.5---

Ah, the profound wisdom of Buddha and his schlong . . . (j/k)

RPing is all about comparing **** sizes, isn't it?

"I have a +9 dagger vs. Ogres!!!! If there's any girls there, I want to DO them!!!!!!!" ;)


Imperialus said:


...Fruid...


Fruity Liquid? Frumpled Squid? I don't think I want either of these to have a field day with me. :)
 

"Your obseqeous nature makes me want to kill you."

-From Planescape book.

"He had the most obseqeous manner,
which was the reason I had him killed . . ."

-They Might be Giants.

Coincidence?

Or just another lame attempt at bumping this thread?
 



Remove ads

Top