Dark Sun 3E rules

[woodelf]

1. The "Don't use any rules but ours" insular nature (which is probably my BIGGEST gripe) is illustrated in a few places...the races are the first culprit with "only the bonuses and penalties described here," meaning that if someone is, say, an Aarakocra from Faerun and they meet an Athesian Aarakocra, they could be subtly to wildly different.

Are you familiar with the original Dark Sun? It radically changed most of the classes (particularly bard and thief come to mind), threw some out, and added others.

Personally, i think that's just about necessary when doing a setting that's significantly different from pseudo-European heroic fantasy with D&D. *If* D&D3E had chosen more-archetypal classes, with greater customizability, then maybe not. But they didn't--they chose fairly narrow roles, and not particularly universal ones, at that. So, change is necessary. Look at Midnight (only other D&D setting i can immediately think of that deviates as far from the core D&D genre).

 

[Mach2.5]

BTW, the doc is unfinished. After more playtesting, some minor mechanical errors were noticed and more things are being updated to 3.5. So far, no news as to when exactly this will be, but it shouldn't be too long now.

. . . . and I can't find the difference between defilers and preservers. Are the feats the only difference? I don't see what the advantage to being a defiler is

This is a total and blantant oversight of te obvious. The core team is doing a little reworking of the text to clarify things a little more for those unfamiliar with te setting (it was so obvious to all of us because we all have been playing DS for so long that it took someone who wasn't familiar with the setting to notice the gross error). To clarify though, defilers and preservers are mechanically 100% similar. They use the same advancement tables (since the team is required to use the one in the PHB and not the one from 2e), the same spell progression tables, etc. The beefed up feats will be made available for any wizard, but they will only provide enhancements to a wizard who chooses to defile. Should a wizard defile too much and too often, he will no longer be able to cast a spell without defiling. The difference is no longer between the wizard, but in how the wizard casts his spells (i.e. wether he defiles while casting or not).

Restict cleric spells but make elemental spells more powerful (allow them to be cast as if one level lower for example)

There's a current topic on clerics on the wizard boards about trying to make clerics a little more 'elemental' and less 'priestly (found in this thread, where the current line of thought is spontaneous casting of elemental spells instead of cures). Athough I tend to cringe anytime I hear the word 'restrict', I do think that clerics on Athas need perhaps a bit more options presented to make them the elementalist that they should be. But, in what way would you have them restricted, especially since there's few spells that I wouldn't want my cleric to have access to. I wouldn't want to ditch 'essential' spells just to be more elemental.

There is no reason for the brute to be a barbarian

There was a lot of opposition against the barbarian/brute. In the end though, flavor won the day with someone merely rewriting the flavor text of the barbarian to fit better into Dark Sun and it just seemed to work. If your talking about a whole new class though, then by all means, write one up and present it to the team. If its workable, who knows, they just may use it (or submit it to my website in my sig, I'll post anyone's ideas with due credit as 'Optional Rules' for anyone).

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.

This can all be done without rewriting the class. Why do more work for nothing? There are plenty of feats that one could take to have a 'leader'. Does it really have to restrict those who don't want a fighter leader by reworking it into the class features? Also, why can't a charismatic rogue lead a group of irregulars? Or a bard lead a mass of rebelling slaves? Or a cleric lead a group of villagers? (and yes, in the examples I am refering to more mass leadership qualities that the fighter had in 2e. Why should fighter's get all the glory while other party members sit by the wayside during war?)

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)

Nasty things do happen to defilers all the time. Its called death by persecution *evil grin*. Kidding aside, I'm not sure what you mean by 'nasty things'.

A spellcaster who is 1 level below a standard wizard is a spellcaster that is not likely to be played, not without some serious benefits. I'm not sure exactly what would those benefits would be to make the class more enticing to play though, or compensate for what would end up being a major crutch. Adding metamagic feats as class skills is rather tricky though and would more likely overpower the wizard in the end. As for new ones, how about some suggestions?

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)

The 'Protector of the Land' is going to be covered more in an upcoming group of prestige classes. No one I ever gamed with played a druid more than once since they were weak as an ant off their lands (and try talking a whole party into traveling several hundred miles just so the druid PC could be on par) and while on their land, they really weren't much better. The druid is now more versetile (and much more playable), though I'm not sure how the PrC is going to handle the 'Protector' aspect of the oiginal druid.

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?

The bard isn't necessarily removed, but he has been given a DS facelift. I do agree that there are certain missing niche's. Multiclassing is the only option so far, but if someone wants to create a 'warrior, rogue, with a touch of spellcasting/psionics' by all means, I would love nothing more than to take a gander at it. In fact, it sounds like a great idea.

Can I not use a new weapon or new spell or new monster because that would destroy the flavor of the setting?

New weapons? Sure, why not? I don't remember reading anything about the list of weapons being entirely exclusive, especially since many of the weapons are 'improvised' weapons that the cultures have created over time. I think that many oriental weapons would make great inclusions (made from wood, bone and stone with altered names so they have a slightly better DS feel, but like the kusi-gama, heck even a nagitana with a jawbone at the end of a pole . . .). As for monsters? Once again, why not? Granted, DS never really seemed like a place to introduce fairy races, standard dragons, and such, but its your game in the end. Why wouldn't you be able to? There is an upcoming monster supplement (delayed because of the release of 3.5) that should include old DS monsters as well as encounter tables with monsters from MM, MM2, and (by way of rumor only) FF. But even if its not included in the list, there's no reason why you can't put your favorite monster into your game. I doubt illithids would make the list, but I like them too much and am including them in my game

 

[Spatula]

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?

Normal D&D dragons don't exist on Athas. "Dragons" are actually high level defiler/psions.

Were's the charismatic miracle-workers?

Miracles would be the purview of the divine casters...

Where's the 'natural magic'?

...and natural magic would be the druid's schtick.

Magic works a particular way on Athas. It's one of the main features of the setting. Sorcerers aren't a part of it. It's not like in OA where you're assumed to be in a different part of the same D&D world... Athas is a completely different world.

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?

Uhhh... the Bard class is on page 15 of the conversion doc. So I guess those players would play a bard...

Can I not use a new weapon or new spell or new monster because that would destroy the flavor of the setting?

You can do whatever you want. If you allow a paladin to multiclass, and then take more levels of paladin, have you destroyed D&D? And yet the D&D rules say you can't do that.

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.

If you go by the 3E books, you can't even play Bilbo in normal D&D... The hobbit culture that is very much a part of Bilbo's character doesn't exist, per the PHB. Perhaps you mean "good-natured halfling adventurer/thief," in which case there's nothing stopping you from playing one in DS.

 

[Mach2.5]

will an editable version of this document be made available? say a .doc file or whatever was used to create it

Hopefully. I would like to see a plain txt version or something that isn't so ink-cartridge heavy that you could edit, add or take rules from for your home game, recopy and print out for your players needs, etc.

[edited since Spatula beat me to the punch]

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!'

I'm really very sorry, but I have yet to see where your coming from. I've even reread the doc to see any specific point where this may have come from and have not found any. I see no reference to 'don't use this!', 'that is not allowed!', you cannot have this, that or the other,' or any such things. I undertand your point (at least, I think I do to the best of my ability).

What your asking for is for a group of people working full time jobs with real lives who are doing this on the side as part of their love for the setting to sit down and spend the time they don't have to 'cover any and all possible bases' for what someone may attempt to introduce into the setting. In the OA example, that was a work being done by paid professionals working on it full-time.

. . .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'?

You have the ability obviously to think for yourself and create for yourself? If you can think of a way to incorporate them, then by all means, do so. As it says in the intro to the doc however, that the rules are assumed that you have a familiarity with the setting (in the intro, second paragraph, IIRC). In DS, there are no standardized dragons. Dragons are high level wizard/psions who undergo a massive metamorphosis into an advanced being, i.e. a dragon. If your fine with having a PC class that is decended from decadant evil tyrants who rule cities through fear and oppression, then fine. If you want to alter the 'ancestry' of sorcorers to fit DS flavor (say, decended from elemental drakes), then that's cool too.

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.

See! You already did it! Without a section in the core devoted to incorporating sorcorers at all you just went and found a logical non flavor breaking way to add sorcorers into your game. Flavor being what it is, is subjective. Ask ten people what they feel DS flavor is and you'll likely get 10 different answers. The flavor of DS is what you get from it.

Does that violate the flavor of DS?

Why are you asking me, or anyone else this question? Its your game. Does it violate the flavor in my game? Yes. But that's just me and my own opinion. Does it violate the flavor in your game? That's for you to decide, not me.

*snipped* They [OA book] 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.

Once again, I don't find a single reference to 'they are not allowed, use only our races!' in the entire DS doc. Its just not something so integral and essential to have included in each and ever single setting specific book. I know I'm sounding harsh here, but I'm trying not to (text discussions being what they are, I hope I'm not sounding like I'm flaming or harrassing). If you really feel that this is a must have inclusion, then once again, make a suggestion to the core team to introduce it. (sorry, core team doesn't seem to frequent these boards much unfortunately, or I'd have a little backup and not be going solo with the Q&A, ah well ).

'OMG WTF, you want Bilbo, LOL u LAMER!'

Heh, your not lame for wanting Bilbo. Its just, Bilbo himself is lame (j/k).

I'm going to forward some of the better points on to the core team and see what they think of some of the proposed ideas. If you want to make some of the seggestions to the core team yourself, simply head over to the Official Dark Sun Message Boards and post up a response, suggestion, idea, critique, criticism, complaint, flame, harrassment, news about your dog's health, or even comments about hamster riding killer halflings from outer space.

In the meantime, keep the comments coming and I'll do my best at answering them.

 

[Imperialus]

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'?

Simplest explination would be Sorcerers didn't exsist in 2Ed. As Darksun is by and large a 2Ed setting and very very difficult to convert over, I tried back when 3rd ed first came out. I mean the gladiators biggest advantage used to be they were proficant in all weapons. That was a huge advantage, by comparison a 10th level 2Ed fighter only had 5 or 6 weapon proficancies. As for the sorcerers, Dark Sun is by nature a very low magic campaign. It's like adventuring in Dragonlance between the first and second war of the lance and wanting to play a Cleric. Sure you can wear the robes but you god isn't going to answer. Magic being avelable by sheer force of will makes very little sence, it states quite clearly that the very reason for preservers and defilers is that the nature of magic sucks the life out of stuff around them. An interesting concept might be to force the sorcerer to make a Con check at 5+the spell level to represent the fact that he is useing his own essance to cast a spell. Failure means he looses a temprorary point of Con. Plus Sorcerers would have a HUGE advantage over other the traditional preserver/defiler route. No spellbook means no evidance if you are suspected of casting a spell.

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?

Well yes... Like I said before, the very nature of magic in Darksun is that it comes from without, not within. The entire world was laid barren because when a very powerful mage transformed himself into the Dragon of Tyr he sucked most of the life out of the world around him in the process.

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.'

What banned races? Only ones I don't see are Gnomes and Half Orcs. Once again Half Orcs didn't exsist in 2nd Ed, and gnomes... well try and tell me how you could fit a race of experimental machinests in a world with little magic and less metal? As for changeing the races. Even you must admit it's really tough to play a metal working Dwarf in a world where iron is one of the single most precious and difficult to find substances on the planet. Elves too have a tough time filling their traditional roles due to a distinct lack of forested area. Halflings would have a very tough time filling their normal role because there is little food and less water. Besides, there are plenty of races like the Muls, Thri-Kreen and Aarakocra for your players to experiment with.

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! )

You can't really call the sorcerer a banned class since he didn't exsist in the verson of D&D that DS is based on. They managed to fit in the Brute which is a fairly close copy of the Barbarian. The Paladin simply can't exsist in a world without a diometrically oppsed force of right and wrong, good and evil, nevermind the lack of gods.

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?

Well... The Bard does... He still has most of his PHB abilities they've just beefed him up some and made him a force to be respected. Most of the classes have been powered up to a cirten extent, why should the bard be any different?

Can I not use a new weapon or new spell or new monster because that would destroy the flavor of the setting?

for all I care you can say that sorcerers exsist in your campaign and get their powers from clapping their hands and beliveing in fairies. All I'm saying is that DS is not Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk during a heat wave. It is a vastly different ecology, system of magic, and culture than any other D&D setting out there.

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. [/B]

Dude, like I said, you want to play Bilbo, play Bilbo. If it were my campaign I'd just give you a stack of 2nd ed supplements and say "Ok, explain his exsistance by next session". It's not my responsability to hand feed my players backstory for every character concept they come up with. Halflings would be really tough... They don't intigrate well into the other cultures at the best of times, most halflings will starve themselves if taken captive, and very rarely do they leave the polar forests of their own accord. I had a player a few years ago who played a Halfling Bard quite well. He was exciled from his tribe at a young age (can't remember why) and made his way to the city state of Tyr where he survived by literally hunting other members of the population. He was found by a group of bards, taken in, educated and turned into a bard/assassin. He would oftentimes dress as a child so that others would ignore him and did quite well for himself. He enjoyed his food sure enough the only differance being, his breakfast was oftentimes last nights mark.

 

[Mach2.5]

An interesting concept might be to force the sorcerer to make a Con check at 5+the spell level to represent the fact that he is useing his own essance to cast a spell. Failure means he looses a temprorary point of Con

Hmmm, you make a very interesting point. Not too sure about the specific mechanic though, but I'm sure it could be elaborated on. Mind if I tinker with the concept?

 

[Imperialus]

dude knock yourself out. I come up with some interesting ideas when sleep deprived and drugged up on cold medication... Lord knows I couldn't elaborate on it any though.

 

[Mach2.5]

 

[Imperialus]

lol, It's not my fault, really. The GF gave me a cold about a week ago and I've been so stuffed up I can't sleep.

 

[Aaron L]

Internal defilers, defiling themselves. Cool.