Dark Sun 3E rules

[zoroaster100]

I have to strongly disagree with those who think imbalance is a good thing about the old Dark Sun. While I loved the original Dark Sun, I think the imbalance was an unfortunate part of it and unavoidable in that it was 2nd edition D&D. I don't think it is necessary to strip flavor from classes and races in order to make them balanced to play. With the ECL system, there is no reason one can't have one race that is "more powerful" than another without actually letting one player have a more powerful character than another based on what race they choose. Also, I think having preservers and defilers be really the same class with the same exact ability to defile is very much in the spirit of the novels. The novels described all "sorcerers", preservers or defilers, as having the inherent ability to defile in order to increase the power of their spells, but choosing to eke out that little bit of extra power comes at great cost to the long term well being of the world (and possible greater immediate cost if it leads to discovery of the defiler because of the damage to the nearby plant life). The choice to maintain the path of the preserver or to fall down the path of the defiler for the sake of more power should be a self-imposed discipline by a player, in my opinion.

 

[Mach2.5]

As for your test questions: those only work if you have power-hungry players

You've never met some of the people I've had both the fortune as well as misfortune of gaming with then Most of my groups have tended towards a mix of those who power game and those who don't. Personally, that's why I like using rule systems that maintain a sense of internal party balance, especially between classes and races (or skill trees, or whatever the system uses). I can't stand when, especially fairly early in a campaign, it becomes painfully obvious that a particular PC is going to be show stealing from the other players because of flaws or faults that are inheirent within the system and not simply due to making good or bad choices. Yes, some class/race combos fair poorly in certain types of scenarios, but assuming that your overall campaign runs the full spectrum of playing styles, if there is still one class or race that simply out does every other in too many regards, then there's a problem. And I agree that the PHB classes are not perfectly balanced against one another, but at least their fairly close. The 3.5 revisions that I've seen, but not yet playtested, seem to bring them a touch closer, but still no bullseye. Even so, that is the standard. That's why the DS races use level adjustments where appropriate; that's why spellcasting is being weighed against the core wizard; that's why tembo still devour egotistical and overzealous muls, thri-kreen, and half-giants alike . . . err, well, you know what I mean.

Also, and maybe its just a case of the silent majority, but I've not heard in the past year and a half that I've been following the conversion, a lot of people stressing that the core doc 'must', 'should', or 'has' to be imbalanced for it to work.

To claim that balance is an abstract and absolute quantity that exists outside of the playgroup, playstyle, and setting is demonstrably absurd

Not sure I get the gist of this last part. Abstract or absolute? Since their are near opposites, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Here's a scenario as an example. PC mage is doing a walkabout in the city-state and gets accosted. He cast a flashy spell and is seen. What happens then? Do the people around rise up and tear him to bits? Do they flee in terror, shouting for the templars? Is magic so feared and misunderstood that even the templars won't just come rushing in? Does the city's SK come down and smite the offending wizard? Does the veilled alliance jump in and snatch the PC away with a reprimand? Does the veilled alliance hide in the shadows and toss a disentigrate spell at the foolish mage for giving himself away? If there was only one other person who saw the mage cast a spell, how does that alter all of the above? Or even, if no one saw the mage cast a spell that he ahs a great mechanical bonus in, where's the offset? Is the clapper a really good purchase at only $9.95 +s/h? Will Prince Edward really decide to become a go-go dancer? Tune in next time.

That's why its not necessarily a good idea to balance mechanics with arbitrary RP advanatages or disadvantages. I know, most people have enough of a brain to run their game well and make the RPing disadvantage just that, a hinderance. But some people simply need things spelled out in very clear cut black and white tangible aspects. Also, if you balance mechanics against RP, then try and port that class or race into another region where the RP makes no difference, chances are that the mechanics still will. Is that a balanced class then? Assume someone designs a region where wizards face absolutely no persecution, but the rules gave them tons of mechanical advantages to offset the normally severe RPing penalties. Do I a: strip away the mechanical bonuses since now the class is overpowered?; or b: do I wrack my self comming up with some other way to penalize the class to 'keep it in line' with the group?; or c: leave it as is and let my players whine about it till I shove their PCs into another den of tembo and force them to pull a 48 hour straight Rolemaster game (oh the humanity)?

Balance doesn't matter to everyone and that's perfectly fine. It does matter though to the people who designed 3e (and who are generously letting the DS team develope this conversion), the core team (who have shot down thousands of wonderful ideas that were broken or imbalanced too much to be of use, even if they sounded way cool), and well, to me I guess.

 

[woodelf]

I have to strongly disagree with those who think imbalance is a good thing about the old Dark Sun. While I loved the original Dark Sun, I think the imbalance was an unfortunate part of it and unavoidable in that it was 2nd edition D&D. I don't think it is necessary to strip flavor from classes and races in order to make them balanced to play. With the ECL system, there is no reason one can't have one race that is "more powerful" than another without actually letting one player have a more powerful character than another based on what race they choose. Also, I think having preservers and defilers be really the same class with the same exact ability to defile is very much in the spirit of the novels. The novels described all "sorcerers", preservers or defilers, as having the inherent ability to defile in order to increase the power of their spells, but choosing to eke out that little bit of extra power comes at great cost to the long term well being of the world (and possible greater immediate cost if it leads to discovery of the defiler because of the damage to the nearby plant life). The choice to maintain the path of the preserver or to fall down the path of the defiler for the sake of more power should be a self-imposed discipline by a player, in my opinion.

Can't speak for others, but i'm not proposing imbalanced classes. I'm proposing classes that are balanced in ways other than raw mechanical combat potential (the standard used by D&D3E). Moreover, i'm suggesting that a different standard needs to be used for balance, precisely due to the different nature of the setting, and thus the playstyle.

As for preservers or defilers: i'm not sure i agree with you. When the novels are based on the game (as in Dark Sun) rather than the other way 'round, i'm inclined to go with the game rules over the novels ,when they conflict.

But, going with your idea for a moment: how, then, do you balance it? What is the cost to defiling that prevents it? If we're not allowed to use RPing costs (such as persecution) and we're not allowed to use long-term costs (at least, not those that wouldn't affect the character, being too abstract and/or not becoming apparent until long after the character is retired/dead), what cost *is* there for that extra power boost?

I suggest that this is a perfect example where an RPing disad offsets a mechanical ad.

 

[woodelf]

Most of my groups have tended towards a mix of those who power game and those who don't. Personally, that's why I like using rule systems that maintain a sense of internal party balance, especially between classes and races (or skill trees, or whatever the system uses). I can't stand when, especially fairly early in a campaign, it becomes painfully obvious that a particular PC is going to be show stealing from the other players because of flaws or faults that are inheirent within the system and not simply due to making good or bad choices. Yes, some class/race combos fair poorly in certain types of scenarios, but assuming that your overall campaign runs the full spectrum of playing styles, if there is still one class or race that simply out does every other in too many regards, then there's a problem.

Also, and maybe its just a case of the silent majority, but I've not heard in the past year and a half that I've been following the conversion, a lot of people stressing that the core doc 'must', 'should', or 'has' to be imbalanced for it to work.

I wasn't suggesting that things be imbalanced in an actual-play sort of way. I'm suggesting that mechanical balance doesn't necessarily produce playtime balance, and that within the context of a specific setting you *can* use non-mechanical elements to balance mechanical ones.

Oh, and anecdote time: I played in a D&D3E campaign for 2 years. It fairly quickly became obvious that the monk i'd chosen to play was underpowered compared to the rest of the group (so, compared to barbarian, fighter, ranger, paladin, cleric, druid, sorcerer, bard, and wizard--nobody played a rogue at any point). I was in constant danger of being the show stealer. That matches my experiences from day one of RPGs: the good and/or outgoing RPer is the show-stealer, not the player with the powerful character. At least, not unless the power imbalance is absolutely ridiculous (as in, the powerful character can cover all the niches, and has no need for the others in any capacity). That's why i think that niche protection is far more important than overall power--even assuming you could accurately guage the latter. edit: and this is yet another case where i think the core system in Spycraft outshines that in D&D3E: the "core ability" of each class is only available to 1st-level characters, so the person who starts out in a given class always has a leg-up on the person who multiclasses into it.

As for balancing "across the full spectrum of gaming styles": how does that help? Campaigns don't run the full spectrum, and those that do usually tend to one style or another. Is the game really balanced if you spend 90% fighting (where some classes excel) and 10% politics (where others do)? What about the other way 'round? Getting the limelight in an equal number of styles is no help if those styles come up very unequally.

Not sure I get the gist of this last part. Abstract or absolute? Since their are near opposites, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

In this context: absolute: inflexible and not dependent on the particulars of the group or campaign; abstract: somehow derived solely from the mechanics of the game, yet applying to all game groups, settings, and play styles--thus, abstracting from the concrete reality of RPing, where all of those things contribute to what is balanced and what is not.

Here's a scenario as an example. PC mage is doing a walkabout in the city-state and gets accosted. He cast a flashy spell and is seen. What happens then? Do the people around rise up and tear him to bits? Do they flee in terror, shouting for the templars? Is magic so feared and misunderstood that even the templars won't just come rushing in? Does the city's SK come down and smite the offending wizard? Does the veilled alliance jump in and snatch the PC away with a reprimand? Does the veilled alliance hide in the shadows and toss a disentigrate spell at the foolish mage for giving himself away? If there was only one other person who saw the mage cast a spell, how does that alter all of the above? Or even, if no one saw the mage cast a spell that he ahs a great mechanical bonus in, where's the offset? Is the clapper a really good purchase at only $9.95 +s/h? Will Prince Edward really decide to become a go-go dancer? Tune in next time.

That's why its not necessarily a good idea to balance mechanics with arbitrary RP advanatages or disadvantages. I know, most people have enough of a brain to run their game well and make the RPing disadvantage just that, a hinderance. But some people simply need things spelled out in very clear cut black and white tangible aspects.

So spell them out. Who says RPing elements have to be all wishy-washy? Whether it's part of the balance of a class, or just an element of the setting, you need to say what happens when you let off a fireball in the town square--that's part of what makes the setting. So, i'm not proposing arbitrary RPing disads (or ads). Take D&D3E as an example: it has several quite specific RPing disads built in: paladin behavior, barbarian alignment, monks and paladins not multiclassing, rangers fighting with 2 weapons, half-elven diplomacy, etc. In each case, an RPing element has been codified so that it has roughly the same impact regardless of the group (provided they are following the rules). The same could be done for Dark Sun (using existing systems, or inventing new ones).

Also, if you balance mechanics against RP, then try and port that class or race into another region where the RP makes no difference, chances are that the mechanics still will. Is that a balanced class then? Assume someone designs a region where wizards face absolutely no persecution, but the rules gave them tons of mechanical advantages to offset the normally severe RPing penalties. Do I a: strip away the mechanical bonuses since now the class is overpowered?; or b: do I wrack my self comming up with some other way to penalize the class to 'keep it in line' with the group?; or c: leave it as is and let my players whine about it till I shove their PCs into another den of tembo and force them to pull a 48 hour straight Rolemaster game (oh the humanity)?

Well, i think that's a sort of silly answer. What if i design a region where weapons are not allowed, and even fisticuffs will get you life in prison? Is it the game's fault that fighters are shafted there? D&D has certain in-built assumptions WRT the setting. Dark Sun has far more specific ones. You can't expect the classes, races, etc., to necessarily work in a different setting. The only change is that the parameters of the intended setting for Dark Sun are significantly narrower than the intended setting for D&D. And, on th flip side, much of the flavor of Dark Sun comes from the social and environmental setting, so i'd like to see those incorporated into the mechanics of the game (such as through class abilities/restrictions).

 

[Mach2.5]

Take D&D3E as an example: it has several quite specific RPing disads built in: paladin behavior, barbarian alignment,

Okay, I have to start by saying I hate alignments and the built in (but not balanced against) alignment restrictions. Second, yes, the 3e rules are not perfect, but when your making a conversion of their stuff to their rules, you stick with their guidlines for doing so.

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.

Campaigns don't run the full spectrum,

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.

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.

I suggest that this is a perfect example where an RPing disad offsets a mechanical ad

Even if correct, the precedence is set. Once again, if it were a d20 conversion, yeah, you could alter things in favor of this. But its not (although there are other conversions of DS that do follow less rigid standards than the Athas.org team is abiding by).

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, I guess the problem is one of perspective.

What I'm hearing a lot in opposition to my stance is 'it wasn't like this in 2e, and therefore would ruin the flavor'.

The only real alternative I have to that is 'screw 2e,' honestly. Just because there wasn't sorcerers in 2e doesn't mean they shouldn't be a part of Dark Sun 3e, since the ARE part of 3e, as much as Barbarians and BAB.

And I certainly would've preferred it if the DS team, I guess, would've taken a more 'how can we translate the 3e rules and give them a Dark Sun flavor' approach, and less of a 'let's take 2e rules and update them' approach.

I've seen several examples in this thread alone of why having a Sorcerer in the Dark Sun world wouldn't have to destroy the flavor, if spun right. Thus, it makes everyone happy -- the flavor is presevered, and my player is happy to play a sorcerer that fits the setting. Instead of me saying 'try somethin' else, jonesy!,' I can say 'here's how you'll be different.' There should be more of that, and less of the 'Don't use these, they're stupid for Athas.'

There's no reason sorcerers can't fit into the preserving/defiling schema. And there's no reason that DS has to be 'low magic' (just replacing most magic with psionics to keep it at the same 3e base level). Other than, of course, 'because it wasn't that way in 2e.'

Similarly, Bards....you could, for instance, say that bardic magic is 'psychically defiling', withering free will as normal magic withers the plants. There's pretty much the only mechanical change needed...apply it to both their spells and their songs, and you're good. All the rest is 'bards on Athas don't prance around and sing in taverns for ceramic...their darker and stealthier and their knowledge comes from the seedy deals, isntead of the limelight. This is, in part, because Bards use arcane magic, and thus join in the defiling tradition. It is also because Bards are much more stubtle in this defiling, and must take pains to make sure that those who may know them are unaware of their mental decay-causing abilities.'

Is that, for any reason other than 'they didn't do that in 2e', somehow world-shaking? An arcane caster who defiles minds as a normal wizard (or, potentially, sorcerer) defiles the land around them?

I guess in other words, I had hoped the disign team would focus more on OPTIONS and less on restrictions. More on how to make a third edition of Dark Sun, and less on how to make a rules update to the second edition of dark sun.

Meh. Since 3e doesn't have to affect flavor at all, I would've hoped for a more 'robust' translation...one that didn't forego much of 3e potential due to some misguided (I feel) attempt at preserving cannon.

I mean, take the Planescape 3e conversion, for a ferinstance. They're doing factions powers as FEATS. They're using Tieflings with a Cha penalty. They're using Bariaur with level adjustments. None of these is particularly true to the 2e version, and will drastically change some elements of the game (especially the importance of faction membership on a PC). Sorcerers and barbarians and monks have now always existed in the setting. They're taking, from what I can see, 3e, and slapping the Planescape flavor all over it. Which results in a setting that I can play with any concept I may have, and proper for the setting (Bilbo wouldn't exactly survive long in Sigil, either...though I guess Bilbo wouldn't survive in 3e period...). They could've just said 'Factions are templates,' 'Use our races instead of the usual ones,' and 'Sorcerers don't exist,'....but they embraced 3e.

I guess when I see a Sorcerer, and I see Athas, and I put the two together in my head, I say 'why not?', whereas the disign team said 'why bother?' and left it at that. And you can see that the setting certainly benefits from the inclusion of a properly spun sorcerer....self-defiling, defiling as normal (but training to not use spell books), or having a Sorcerer-King in their lineage....why can't any of these be a part of the official DS campaign setting? And I'll need something better than '2e didn't have 'em,' to satisfy me....because 2e didn't have Barbarians either, but Dark Sun has obviously always had them.

And Preserving/Defiling? You don't even need a new class for that. Just specify that arcane spells always do certain damage to the wielder (maybe subdual to a preserver, maybe real hp damage), or to the area around (a certain foot-radius per point of damage). No need to have two completely seperate classes or even one new class....

 

[Spatula]

Planescape wasn't a radical departure from core D&D. It always used the same classes - the only difference was the faction kits. It used the same races, plus a few extra. It existed as an extension of the 'prime' settings. Bards in PS worked just like normal bards. Ditto every single other D&D class & race.

Part of what makes Dark Sun, Dark Sun, is that it is radically different than regular D&D. Halflings go from short, lumpy, peaceful folk to cannibal pygmies. Elves go from noble, cultured types to gypsy rogues that decent folk look down upon. There are no gods. There are no orcs. Mages are hunted down and killed. Arcane magic works differently.

I don't agree with a lot of the choices made by the 3E DS conversion folks, but they have wholly embraced the 3E conventions. If you want to play a half-giant or a thri-kreen now, you have to deal with ECL. Stats are generated using the normal methods, and the core races get their normal racial ability adjustments (in 2E, ability scores ranged from 5-20 and races got double the normal adjustments plus extra adjustments). No assumptions about starting level are made (in 2E, all new characters were 3rd level) and the low-level monsters have been adjusted accordingly (e.g. gith, the standard evil humanoids, went from 3HD -> 1HD). Clerics and druids are unchanged, even though that's not a good translation of their 2E DS counterparts (which were very different from regular 2E clerics & druids). Racial restrictions on classes were thrown out. And so on. The 3E conversion is hardly a direct translation of the 2E DS gaming experience.

If you want to play a spontaneous caster that only knows a handful of spells, that is the exact role filled by the Psion class. Or just throw in the sorcerer class. The people that put together the 3E doc aren't going to come over to your house and beat you up for it.

 

[Imperialus]

So what you're proposing is that the design team completely re-writes the history of the world to your specifications? They are just supposed to ignore the genocidal wars that wiped out the orcs, goblins, gnomes and a few dozen other races I can't be bothered to remember? All the setting is, is a rules update to play the 2nd ed dark sun campaign setting with 3rd ed rules. I doubt they could even legally start tinkering with the timeline and other cannon material from the setting. After all they don't own 2nd ed darksun and I can only imagine that most 2nd ed players (myself included) would be up in arms if all of a sudden our second ed supplements and novels meant nothing, even for background information. Normal bards in 2nd ed D&D could cast spells, yet they didn't in Darksun. Should they somehow magically gain the ability to cast spells just because they can in 3rd ed too?

Darksun is full of options, they are just different. I mean in what other campaign setting can you play a giant insect who views adventuring as a great hunt, former slave leading a raiding encampment hidden by a tiny oasis emerging to attack heavily armoured caravans, or even a normal human delving into an ancient fortress from the green age armed with the most primitive of weapons emerging with a great treasure, a steel edged longsword worth more than the rest of his gear combined.

So you can't play a gnomeish sorcerer, or a half orc paladin but there are many other options available.

 

[Mach2.5]

The only real alternative I have to that is 'screw 2e,' honestly. Just because there wasn't sorcerers in 2e doesn't mean they shouldn't be a part of Dark Sun 3e, since the ARE part of 3e, as much as Barbarians and BAB.

Barbarians weren't in 2e Dark Sun, but they're in the 3e conversion as Brutes. So your stance is not entirely true.

[regarding wizards] . . . No need to have two completely seperate classes or even one new class

Check the doc. Wizards are essentially 99% carbon copies of the core PHB wiz. The mechanic used for defiling itself is being altered (hopefully to a simplistic system) and there's no sneak peak forthcoming.

Similarly, Bards....you could, for instance, say that bardic magic is 'psychically defiling', withering free will as normal magic withers the plants

You could say that. Or you could also say that bards spell casting isn't arcane, but rather psionic manifestation (there's an unofficial version on the WOTC Dark Sun boards) which not only fits the setting better (IMO) but then allows one to port over the core PHB bard as is. This is one where I both agree and disagree with the DS team. I'm not fond of either bard version really.

I guess in other words, I had hoped the disign team would focus more on OPTIONS and less on restrictions. More on how to make a third edition of Dark Sun, and less on how to make a rules update to the second edition of dark sun.

On this we both agree. I would have loved to see some variety in approach, even if its just as sidebar optional rules using some of the better house ruling mechanics and such. Since any conversion is based on personal interpretation, more options allows for more customization to one's own personal 'vision'.

 

[Staffan]

See, I guess the problem is one of perspective.

What I'm hearing a lot in opposition to my stance is 'it wasn't like this in 2e, and therefore would ruin the flavor'.

The only real alternative I have to that is 'screw 2e,' honestly. Just because there wasn't sorcerers in 2e doesn't mean they shouldn't be a part of Dark Sun 3e, since the ARE part of 3e, as much as Barbarians and BAB.

To me, that sounds pretty much like "screw Dark Sun". The 2e DS rules laid down how the world was different from other worlds, and you seem to want to disregard that. To me, that is not Dark Sun. It's Greyhawk with some Dark Sun names thrown in.

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.

That said, I don't think the setting needs to be translated to 3e precisely the way it was in 2e, as long as the important things stay the same. I don't want sorcerers in the setting, because inborn magic feels wrong, considering the importance the invention of arcane magic had in the setting (also, they fill a very similar niche to the psion, and psions are way more important to Dark Sun than sorcerers). On the other hand, I don't mind barbarians, because brutish savages have been there all along - this is just a better way to look at them. 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.

And I certainly would've preferred it if the DS team, I guess, would've taken a more 'how can we translate the 3e rules and give them a Dark Sun flavor' approach, and less of a 'let's take 2e rules and update them' approach.

And from where I'm sitting, that's precisely what they have done - to the setting's detriment.

I mean, take the Planescape 3e conversion, for a ferinstance.

There is a big difference between Planescape and Dark Sun: Planescape is a far more "open" world than Dark Sun. It's a lot easier for Planescape to adapt to changes than it is for Dark Sun, because Planescape is already pretty much an "anything goes" setting. While Dark Sun allows many things that are not around in general D&D, it only allows certain specific things.