Dark Sun 3E rules
- Thread starter theT0rmented
- Start date
brehobit
Explorer
A few quick comments. I’ve only just scanned the new D.S. rules, so I could be off base quite a bit.
The biggest problem is that it feels way too much like a standard D&D world. The old 2.0 D.S. rules gave the feeling of a very different game world. In 2.0 DS the power of many of the races was offset by roleplaying considerations. The half-giant was dumb as a rock and had such a variable personality that he was actually fairly balanced. Plus there were just places he couldn’t go.
Water feels too easy to come by (a 0-level spell?) and the spell lists are too similar to standard D&D.
In my mind the point of DS is that folks are very different and aren’t balanced in any given situation. As others have noted, clerics were a bit weak, but you had to have one. A water cleric was almost a requirement. Druids were basically an NPC class, which was just fine.
The races are too similar to standard D&D races, much more so than the original DS. I’d like to see the dwarven focus bonus increased. Heck, bring back the (rather silly) list of EXP bonuses for doing things (running for an elf, focus for a dwarf, etc.) The class ones probably won’t work anymore, but the racial ones were fun.
The Psionic rules of 3.0 seem to close to the general caster rules. Again, D.S. demands something different. Having a very few huge powers is fine in DS where it would be unbalancing in the Realms. The key to D.S. is that no matter how powerful you are there are things that can kick your rear without a thought. So long as each party member can contribute things are “balanced.”
All told, this document loses much of the flavor of DS. 3.0/3.5 strive for balance. DS should not. I feel it needs to move much farther from the 3.0 rules….
After all the complaints, I’d like to add a “nice job.” It text looks quite profesional (other than a “ref. not found” error) and I think does what it was designed to do (be a 3.0 version of DS). I just think it moved too far toward 3.0….
Mark
The biggest problem is that it feels way too much like a standard D&D world. The old 2.0 D.S. rules gave the feeling of a very different game world. In 2.0 DS the power of many of the races was offset by roleplaying considerations. The half-giant was dumb as a rock and had such a variable personality that he was actually fairly balanced. Plus there were just places he couldn’t go.
Water feels too easy to come by (a 0-level spell?) and the spell lists are too similar to standard D&D.
In my mind the point of DS is that folks are very different and aren’t balanced in any given situation. As others have noted, clerics were a bit weak, but you had to have one. A water cleric was almost a requirement. Druids were basically an NPC class, which was just fine.
The races are too similar to standard D&D races, much more so than the original DS. I’d like to see the dwarven focus bonus increased. Heck, bring back the (rather silly) list of EXP bonuses for doing things (running for an elf, focus for a dwarf, etc.) The class ones probably won’t work anymore, but the racial ones were fun.
The Psionic rules of 3.0 seem to close to the general caster rules. Again, D.S. demands something different. Having a very few huge powers is fine in DS where it would be unbalancing in the Realms. The key to D.S. is that no matter how powerful you are there are things that can kick your rear without a thought. So long as each party member can contribute things are “balanced.”
All told, this document loses much of the flavor of DS. 3.0/3.5 strive for balance. DS should not. I feel it needs to move much farther from the 3.0 rules….
After all the complaints, I’d like to add a “nice job.” It text looks quite profesional (other than a “ref. not found” error) and I think does what it was designed to do (be a 3.0 version of DS). I just think it moved too far toward 3.0….
Mark
Most of those aspects that you mention though are gameplay elements, not true mechanic elements. For a much more consistant adaptation of DS, it would have to be done in a d20 fashion using only SRD material and due to legality, it would be entirely unable to present flavor text for anything (even describing what a particular race looked like would be an infringement of intellectual property). Such a system wouldn't bother me in the slightest since I have a working knowledge of the setting, but because of WOTC's legal stance, you could not create or present new material, attempt to appeal to new players without having them purchase and download the original setting books, etc.
Character classes and races are as different from the PH as you present them either as a DM or player. This is an example of where role-playing superceeds roll playing.
As to the second point, yes, clerics were weak. And honestly, who wants to play a weaker class, get womped on constantly, or be outshined by the other PCs? Not anyone that I have ever gamed with.
Since both FR and Dark Sun use the same core rule books, mega powerful psionics would be unbalancing in both settings. Plus, the 2e psionics were a prime example of a well thought out yet broken system. With the right tweaks, a psionicist dominated any other equal level class twice over. Sorry, but if that is the type of game you want to run, then its your choice. It just tends to not be the majority opinion. Lets both hope though that the revised psionics handbook does things in a slightly better fashion. Bruce Cordell doesn't make trash
I fully agree with you there (and feel the same way about Planescape flavor as well). Such a mentality though is more easily represented by tougher monsters, or using higher CR encounters. The wheel was already invented with the core rulebooks. Why reinvent it in 100 other fashions merely to present that your DS PC can wup on your FR PC? Not to mention taking every unbalancing factor into consideration . . . . sorry, but that's a migrain that I would much rather avoid.
*edited for drunkin' sphellin'*
Character classes and races are as different from the PH as you present them either as a DM or player. This is an example of where role-playing superceeds roll playing.
As to the second point, yes, clerics were weak. And honestly, who wants to play a weaker class, get womped on constantly, or be outshined by the other PCs? Not anyone that I have ever gamed with.
Since both FR and Dark Sun use the same core rule books, mega powerful psionics would be unbalancing in both settings. Plus, the 2e psionics were a prime example of a well thought out yet broken system. With the right tweaks, a psionicist dominated any other equal level class twice over. Sorry, but if that is the type of game you want to run, then its your choice. It just tends to not be the majority opinion. Lets both hope though that the revised psionics handbook does things in a slightly better fashion. Bruce Cordell doesn't make trash
I fully agree with you there (and feel the same way about Planescape flavor as well). Such a mentality though is more easily represented by tougher monsters, or using higher CR encounters. The wheel was already invented with the core rulebooks. Why reinvent it in 100 other fashions merely to present that your DS PC can wup on your FR PC? Not to mention taking every unbalancing factor into consideration . . . . sorry, but that's a migrain that I would much rather avoid.
*edited for drunkin' sphellin'*
Last edited:
brehobit
Explorer
Mach2.5 said:
I disagree. The mechanic elements get in the way of the gameplay elements. Any attempt to make the PC human fighters as good in a fight as his half-giant co-PC ruins the point of playing a half-giant. And the ECL adjustments are there to do that. Half giants have enough other problems that they should be allowed to dominate hand-to-hand fighting (when they can actually get there. Indoor fights suck for a half-giant). The same is true of the other races.
Huh? I don't understand that. A fighter is a fighter. You can role-play two fighters very differently, but what they are capable no different.
Clerics were weaker in a fight, but because of the restrictions on other spell casters (defiling, general dislike of defilers, weakness of preservers) clerics were not in that bad of shape. At lower-levels they were fine. At higher levels is where the problems occured. But even there the ability to summon powerful elementals was pretty darn handy. I enjoyed by elven cleric a lot in DS.
My point is that DS should use a different system than FR.
Plus, the 2e psionics were a prime example of a well thought out yet broken system. With the right tweaks, a psionicist dominated any other equal level class twice over. Sorry, but if that is the type of game you want to run, then its your choice. It just tends to not be the majority opinion. Lets both hope though that the revised psionics handbook does things in a slightly better fashion. Bruce Cordell doesn't make trash
2e psionics were a bit out-of-wack. But their ability to radically change the nature of the game seems gone in the 3.0 core rules. It is just another kind of spellcaster, mechanically and in practice the two are basically the same.
I couldn't agree with you more on this one. D&D does not lend itself well to a 'purist' conversion on Dark Sun. d20 however, does.
However, as I've said a few times, this isn't a d20 conversion. Its a D&D 3.5 conversion. In the D&D system, balance is the next thing to a roleplaying prime directive. It is a little unfortunate. The Athas.org conversion though, is not allowed to deviate from several aspects of the D&D core rules. An example that they must abide by is the use of Experience Point Awards for Challenge Ratings. If you have unbalanced races and classes (as you've suggested), then you invariably and unargueably skew this aspect of the 3rd edition rules.
Basically, Dark Sun would be best converted using a whole different system than D&D entirely. GURPS for example, would do the actual setting far more justice. But this isn't a GURPS conversion, or a d20 conversion, or any other conversion. Please try and keep that in mind.
Errrr . . . I thought this was D&D, not champions. If I wanted to play a game where one PC is significantly more powerful than another then indeed, I would be playing champions instead, or Rifts, or some other game. Or I would be playing 2e D&D where thri-kreen dominated any combat encounter, unless of course it was a psionicist, in which case the psionicist dominated anything, and adding a couple of kits to a class made one even more game breaking. But alas, this is 3rd edition that we're discussing, with all the problems of balancing races (using LA and ECL and such) and classes (acid testing them against other classes). And yes, balance does hurt some aspects of Dark Sun flavor.
What suggestions do you have then to make the system better, using 3rd edition?
brehobit
Explorer
Mach2.5 said:
Restict cleric spells but make elemental spells more powerful (allow them to be cast as if one level lower for example)
There is no reason for the brute to be a barbarian. Give him the DR and uncanny dodge of the barbarian. Add in 1d6 of backstab damage per 4 levels. Perhaps allow them to reduce the impact of using inferior materials for weapons. Perhaps also a bonus for using better material against those who are not as well armed (say +1 attack, damage and AC against humanoids armed with weapons made of material poorer than theirs) Those material bonuses could be spread out over levels 1-10. Also the DR could be slightly better than a barbarian.
Fighters should probably have leadership related abilities like a bard's enspire courage. Perhaps also grant rerolls (say 1/day per 4 levels) to those following his orders. The fighter should be a leader in DS.
Defilers should have nasty things happen to the stuff around them. Preservers should be at least 1 level back in casting ability. Both should get a few minor improvements (meta magic feats either standard 3.5 or new ones)
Druids should have their land restrictions and should be more powerful on their land. (say animal comp. as +4 levels; caster level +2 for duration, damage, etc; Summon animals lasting for 1 minute per level) and weaker if gone from their land for more than a few weeks (1 negative level per month max of -3)
All magic using planes other than the elemental planes should be greatly restricted. No celestial beasts should be summonable for example. Commune should only be to the elemental planes etc.
And 3e does allow EXP for things other than just beating on stuff. Those should be added again from 2e DS.
Finally a DS elf really shouldn't have a -2 Con....
I'm not sure what it means to be 3e but adding base classes, changing base classes, etc. should be fine. As should adding and removing spells. None of that has been done enough to be a DS converstion.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
The thing is that while flavor is very important, I feel that they should be giving me advice on how to preserve and maintain that flavor, and not saying 'don't use this!'
Let's take something that we're not supposed to use in general in dark sun...say...Sorcerers. Now if I have a player who likes sorcerers and wants to play them, I have to tell them 'tough noogies, mate!' And someone plays a character they're not as interested in because I like the setting. I may suggest they play a wizard, or a templar, but that's not really the same is it? Where's the blood of dragons? Where's the charismatic miracle-workers? Where's the 'natural magic'?
What I could have used instead of 'don't play sorcerers' is advice on how to integrate a sorcerer into the campaign without loosing flavor. Something perhaps like 'a group of preservers have bonded so closely with the magical energies running through themselves that they have learned to cast spells without spellbooks. Many may call themselves psions to allay suspicion, but they are arcane casters and not psionic.'
Does that violate the flavor of DS? Does that rape the setting of integrity? Does that hurt the campaign?
To compare it to OA, take a look at the 'other races' section of the Races chapter....there are the PHB races, laid out fully, with the instructions for infusing them into an OA campaign. They don't say 'they are not allowed, use only our races!' they say 'they don't really match the flavor...but here's how to do it if you want to.'
Similarly, the 'banned classes' doesn't exactly ban the classes, and even provides some reasoning and advice. Heck, the 'campaigning' chapter illustrates an elf and dwarf samurai. And there it also lists alternate names for PHB weapons so that they didn't have to stat out that many new weapons (hint!)
Also, some of the DS rules remove niches that people would want to fill...so the Bard is removed....who sings in the taverns or tells stories around the campfire? Who's the DS 'jack of all trades, master of none'? Or why doesn't Dark Sun have one of those types of characters? And what should players who like those types of characters do instead? Can I not use a new weapon or new spell or new monster because that would destroy the flavor of the setting?
And I do love the work they've done. But I gave my critique and my reasoning for it. I still think it would be a lot more helpful to include at least a blurb on 'including banned ideas without violating the setting' rather than just saying 'OMG WTF, you want Bilbo, LOL u LAMER!'
Instead, tell me how I can perhaps play a Bilbo-like character that IS appropriate for the setting (a savage halfling that someone has domesticated?), or at least why Bilbo isn't allowed.
Let's take something that we're not supposed to use in general in dark sun...say...Sorcerers. Now if I have a player who likes sorcerers and wants to play them, I have to tell them 'tough noogies, mate!' And someone plays a character they're not as interested in because I like the setting. I may suggest they play a wizard, or a templar, but that's not really the same is it? Where's the blood of dragons? Where's the charismatic miracle-workers? Where's the 'natural magic'?
What I could have used instead of 'don't play sorcerers' is advice on how to integrate a sorcerer into the campaign without loosing flavor. Something perhaps like 'a group of preservers have bonded so closely with the magical energies running through themselves that they have learned to cast spells without spellbooks. Many may call themselves psions to allay suspicion, but they are arcane casters and not psionic.'
Does that violate the flavor of DS? Does that rape the setting of integrity? Does that hurt the campaign?
To compare it to OA, take a look at the 'other races' section of the Races chapter....there are the PHB races, laid out fully, with the instructions for infusing them into an OA campaign. They don't say 'they are not allowed, use only our races!' they say 'they don't really match the flavor...but here's how to do it if you want to.'
Similarly, the 'banned classes' doesn't exactly ban the classes, and even provides some reasoning and advice. Heck, the 'campaigning' chapter illustrates an elf and dwarf samurai. And there it also lists alternate names for PHB weapons so that they didn't have to stat out that many new weapons (hint!
)Also, some of the DS rules remove niches that people would want to fill...so the Bard is removed....who sings in the taverns or tells stories around the campfire? Who's the DS 'jack of all trades, master of none'? Or why doesn't Dark Sun have one of those types of characters? And what should players who like those types of characters do instead? Can I not use a new weapon or new spell or new monster because that would destroy the flavor of the setting?
And I do love the work they've done. But I gave my critique and my reasoning for it. I still think it would be a lot more helpful to include at least a blurb on 'including banned ideas without violating the setting' rather than just saying 'OMG WTF, you want Bilbo, LOL u LAMER!'
Instead, tell me how I can perhaps play a Bilbo-like character that IS appropriate for the setting (a savage halfling that someone has domesticated?), or at least why Bilbo isn't allowed.
Similar Threads
