Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 1065610" data-attributes="member: 907">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 from where I'm sitting, that's precisely what they have done - to the setting's detriment.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.</blockquote>

Verification