D&D 5E Dark Sun Conversion: Campaign Guide & Monster Manual

[Raduin711]

Any reason why you went the route you did with Dwarven Focus? Why not just go with Advantage?

I know 2nd edition Half-Elves didn't get much, but this version feels a little sparse.

So you decided to keep the spellcasting bard rather than try to create a replacement feature. Can't blame you...

I wonder if the Circle of Dreams could be explained as being partially psionic in nature? None of its abilities as I recall is terribly anti-dark sun. Mostly just healing-focused.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Any reason why you went the route you did with Dwarven Focus? Why not just go with Advantage?

Dwarven focus was a tricky one. The original AD&D power was: While performing tasks that are directly related to his focus, a dwarf receives a + 1 bonus to all his saving throws and a +2 bonus to all his proficiency rolls (or + 10 to any percentile roll).

So, we're staying true to Focus by having it modify only saves and skill checks. I went with a scaling system that would get better as the dwarf got more skilled, virtually assuring that you're going to have a hard time deterring a dwarf with a Focus. Admittedly, at 9th level, the dwarf is getting a base +8 to all saves IF, and only IF, that save is directly tied to thwarting the Focus, whereas Advantage has been calculated as roughly a +3.3 modifier on a d20 roll. But, if run properly, there may be entire sessions where Focus doesn't come up at all.

So, it's strong when you have it, and much of the time, you may not.

I know 2nd edition Half-Elves didn't get much, but this version feels a little sparse.

The half-elf never gets any love in any edition. This version is as close as I could get to the Dark Sun half-elf, which had the ability to Charm beasts. Otherwise, it has as many features as the half-elf always gets. But, like many things DS, it's something unique that you don't get anywhere else.

So you decided to keep the spellcasting bard rather than try to create a replacement feature. Can't blame you...

Purely to preserve a 2nd Charisma-based casting option (otherwise, we're left with only the Warlock). The "Bard" as a separate poisoner class never really made sense. It's a rogue...who uses poison. Brilliant. But, argument was proposed earlier to do away with the Bard caster as a class in DS. If you're running a hardcore, old-school, true-to-canon setting, I'd say go for it.

Alternately, if you don't like the current psionic rules, it wouldn't take much doctoring to convert the Bard caster class into a homebrew Psion class. Many of its spells are focused on the mind anyways. Components would need to be addressed as one feature of the Psion is that everything comes from the mind. No components, no somatics, no verbals.

 

[Zaukrie]

Some really good stuff here. For psionics, I'd check out the psionics handbook by jason steel on DMSGUILD (no, I'm not him). It's good....

Can't wait to really dive into the details, and not just skim this work. Really nice.

 

[toucanbuzz]

@Raduin711 Your comment on Dwarven Focus probably calls for a revision. Looking at what we're replacing for the Dwarf (losing weapon proficiency and stonecunning), a +4 to a save at 1st level is probably way too much and +8 at 9th way too much. I think the simpler, and more balanced way, would be a simple "you are considered proficient." Advantage would also be solid but this preserves the scaling effect.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Some really good stuff here. For psionics, I'd check out the psionics handbook by jason steel on DMSGUILD (no, I'm not him). It's good....

Skimmed his "free preview" version (levels 1-5), some impressive labor went into that.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Monster Manual
...In nearly all cases, these monsters are exactly as originally designed, with the original Hit Dice and powers...

How did this work out when making relative comparisons to official 5e monsters brought over from prior editions? (Ie, if DS Monster X was about as strong as a griffon in AD&D, how does it stack up to a griffon in 5e?)

I wonder, because in 5e HD only exist to determine hit points. You will find major discrepancies if you compare the HD of 5e monsters from the HD of 1e-3e monsters. They don't convert directly. Converting by HD can drastically change the power level of creatures.

 

[toucanbuzz]

How did this work out when making relative comparisons to official 5e monsters brought over from prior editions?...

I had a 2 step process.

First, I used prior edition creatures and followed the rules on ability score conversion. I had 3 major influences: the Dragon Magazine 3rd edition Dark Sun monster conversions, 4E monsters, and anything that was missed from either of those from the Athas.org 3rd edition monster conversions. This pretty much covered my ability score conversions. I used common sense when appropriate.

Second, I used Hit Dice largely from the AD&D versions as, for a handful of monsters, the 3rd edition conversions went wonky and radically altered their original design.

Once I had these, I plugged in my creature features to an online version of the DMG monster generator, which gives a CR.

We can use the AD&D Griffon as a prime example of how our Hit Dice can remain the same and preserve the same monster, given D&D is modifying hit points for size, CON scores, and modifying damage/save checks based on ability scores. AD&D had none of that.

Originally, the Griffon was a 7 Hit Dice creature with a D&D AC of 17, +8 on 3 attacks doing on average 2, 2, and 9 damage. Back then, you rolled HP at d8, so let's say 41 hit points.

The D&D Griffon is a 7 Hit Dice creature with 59 hit points, AC 12, and +6 on 2 attacks doing on average 9 and 11 damage. It's effectively the same creature, albeit with a much worse armor class.

So, largely, I was working with material we already had.

 

[Larnievc]

A dropbox link is on the original post to the PDF. If you're looking to modify with GM Binder, holler and I can provide that link.

And totally don't mind constructive criticism or discussion on what others are doing or have done. I easily looked over a dozen different conversions before I ever got to work.

Gladiator---Samuri was an interesting choice? What was the rationale?

 

[Larnievc]

Skimmed his "free preview" version (levels 1-5), some impressive labor went into that.

Take a look at The Korranberg Chronicle: Psion's Primer - A Complete Psionics System - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

It's a novel take on psionis (I can't get on with Mystics). When I think of members of the Order I don't see Mystics in my head.

I really, really like what you have done, here. It's the first I've seen online that matches my take on half giants and thri kreen.

What time frame is your take set? My preference is post Kalak, pre destruction of Ur Draxa.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Gladiator---Samuri was an interesting choice? What was the rationale?

Gladiator didn't feel like it needed to be a separate class, and several features of the samurai subtype fit perfectly with a gladiator, particularly the Charisma-based traits. Much of a gladiator's appeal would be from their style, given battles to the death are particularly rare events (otherwise, we'd run out quick).

Otherwise, the timeline was meant to be generic (pre or post Kalak). I have plans to run a pre-Kalak campaign (incorporating Freedom and letting the party be the ones to have a shot at stopping Kalak's ascension), and eventually I'll have to bring out my Dregoth material.