D&D 5E How would you wish WOTC to do Dark Sun

[Remathilis]

I think theme-wise, most people seem to agree that the setting should harken back to the original 90s publication; some people do seem to like how Dark Sun worked in 4E, but I think people who want DS to have "all the classes and races of 5E" are a minority here. Yes there should be thematic ways and adventure options to run "D&D hard-mode" but this also doesn't need to be the default.

Awww... we were having a nice agreement on how draconic sorcerers could work in the setting and you had come and ruin it!

Here's the thing: in third edition there were updates of Dragonlance (WotC/Weiss) and Ravenloft (Arthaus). There was even a Dark Sun update in Dragon (Paizo). You know what they all had in common? THEY MANAGED TO FIT ALL THE PHB CLASSES AT THE TIME IN THE SETTING! Sure, they made some exceptions for race, (removing a few, adding or replacing some) but both of those settings (which like DS banned classes in 2e for "flavor" reasons) managed to find them all homes in 3e. And guess what? Nobody says how RL or DL was destroyed by allowing monks, paladins, or sorcerers in them.

Crunch-wise, I think we do need to recognize some classes, like clerics and paladins, just don't work here. Some races even-more so; there are no gnomes, and although there were options for tieflings here in 4E they really don't fit the minimalist theme here. However, making clear that some races don't fit a setting is not unprecedented; the recent book for Theros has only this to say on the base PHB races;

A diverse assortment of peoples dwell among the lands of Theros. Aside from humans, the races in the Player's Handbook are unknown on Theros, unless they're visiting from other worlds.

No, no we don't. D&D is not the same game it was in 2e. Settings, tastes, and attitudes change. Dark Sun's edgelord "I'm not your father's D&D" isn't going to work under a climate where books are greenlit on the basis of % of players willing to buy-in. You are NOT going to get sufficient buy-in for a setting that renders most of the PHB obsolete. And the Theros line is disingenuous when it comes to Dark Sun; its isolated from the multiverse so those "other worlds" are cut off. You might as well re-write it:

A diverse assortment of peoples dwell among the lands of Athas. Only the options presented in this book exist, unless your Dungeon Master decides otherwise.

A single sentence makes clear that the standards of normal D&D races do not apply. It is not difficult to imagine a similar line (or a page or two) being used to explain how some classes either don't exist or require moderation for use in Dark Sun. The book will certainly provide a suite of new subclasses for use in Dark Sun so people can play as most of the classes, and even the spellcaster classes will largely work with a Dark Sun approved spell list (Preserver/Defiler does not require it's own subclass, just rules explaining how spellcasting creates a cost on the player or environment).

So at this point, we circle back to "what classes make the cut?" If we are going most conservative (replicating 2e box set to a fault, keeping 'hard mode" status) you need to remove: Barbarian (AC, DR), Bard (magical), Cleric (divine), Monk (AC, martial arts), Paladin (divine), Sorcerer (magical), and Warlock (magical/planar). You also need to ban EK, AT, and any other subclass that grants arcane magic. And that's just from the PHB; presumably, NOTHING from Xanathar's Guide will work except maybe(?) a subclass like Mastermind.

Now, let me let you in on a little secret: people don't like being told they can't play with thier toys. That most of the PHB is banned and nearly all supplemental books they bought are equally deadweight. This is especially going to be true if you don't include viable alternatives to replace them. You can usually get away with races because those don't define a character in the same way class does. But banning up to seven PHB classes and dozens of subclasses and I maybe get 4-5 new subs to play with? Uh, no thanks.

Obviously magic will need some modification to account for how defiling/preserving works, but I also don't think it requires that much modification if there is also a page of "Dark Sun approved spells" (listing the spells from other books that are usable in Dark Sun, and new ones specifically designed for the setting). Psionics will make an appearance of some kind, either as its own class or as subclasses (probably the latter based on UA, but it hardly matters).

Lather rinse repeat with spells (5e has been slow to add new spells, so every banned spell is a further reduction of PC choice), backgrounds, equipment etc. If your 1-2 pages is a pure "this doesn't exist" you're going to make new players go "then what does?"

TLDR: You're making a false choice between either a minor 4E book or a completely new game system, when it is not required to make Dark Sun both functional and true to the original's themes in style and gameplay.

You're making a choice between a faithful recreation of a setting that was a minor hit 20 years ago and one that could actually sell in 2020. There is no way WotC is putting out a setting that is barely compatible with its own PHB! Either the setting gets brought up to support 5e, or it needs to find a way to exist without referencing a book that's mostly obsolete to it.

Or it needs to stay in limbo if its that incompatible to the game today. It can go chill with OA in the "good idea for its time" section.

And oddly, no discussion ever why some one can not play his half-tiefling-half hobbit in Theros. Zilch. Nada.

Nice strawman. People are discussing the game supporting at bare minimum what 4e supported.

"Why do you complain on classic Darksun restrictions and keep quiet about Theros? Please do also answer, if you do not intend to play either of those settings."

See above. Theros still allows me the choice of any class in the PHB, plus any background and all the spells. Dark Sun is going to tell me what races, classes, backgrounds, spells, and equipment my PC can have. It might as well pre-gen my character for me at that point.

 

[Bagpuss]

Exact opposite to me. It is basically the only official D&D setting that I find interesting.

For me it is Birthright but the chances of anything for that, are none existent, although Matt Colville's stuff will probably make a good bases.

 

[briggart]

Awww... we were having a nice agreement on how draconic sorcerers could work in the setting and you had come and ruin it!

Here's the thing: in third edition there were updates of Dragonlance (WotC/Weiss) and Ravenloft (Arthaus). There was even a Dark Sun update in Dragon (Paizo). You know what they all had in common? THEY MANAGED TO FIT ALL THE PHB CLASSES AT THE TIME IN THE SETTING! Sure, they made some exceptions for race, (removing a few, adding or replacing some) but both of those settings (which like DS banned classes in 2e for "flavor" reasons) managed to find them all homes in 3e. And guess what? Nobody says how RL or DL was destroyed by allowing monks, paladins, or sorcerers in them.

Well, the official 3.X DS rules did not allow monks, paladins, sorcerers, etc. so you have a counterpoint to the Dragon magazine article. I personally don't think sorcerers can work in the setting lore. Arcane magic is not an innate part of the world, psionics fill that role. Arcane magic requires study and dedication, it took Rajat several thousand years to develop and refine it to a point where he could teach it to other people. Given 5e' more flexible paladin ethos, I could see some sorcerer-kings (especially Nibenay, Lalali-Puy, Hamanu) having some paladins among their templars. A psionic monk could also work, the issue with the class is how it interact with the metal-armor-is-scarce. The same clearly goes for barbarians, although they are a much better fit to the setting lore.

That said, I agree with your overall point that WotC is not likely to publish a book that requires ditching a large part of the PHB and Xanathar's, so it's unlikely will see a 5e version of Athas that can capture the feeling of the original boxed set.

 

[humble minion]

Here's the thing: in third edition there were updates of Dragonlance (WotC/Weiss) and Ravenloft (Arthaus). There was even a Dark Sun update in Dragon (Paizo). You know what they all had in common? THEY MANAGED TO FIT ALL THE PHB CLASSES AT THE TIME IN THE SETTING! Sure, they made some exceptions for race, (removing a few, adding or replacing some) but both of those settings (which like DS banned classes in 2e for "flavor" reasons) managed to find them all homes in 3e. And guess what? Nobody says how RL or DL was destroyed by allowing monks, paladins, or sorcerers in them.

I just pulled out my 3e RL setting book. No literal banning of classes - but class features were rewritten all over the place. Paladin's detect evil doesn't work properly, Bardic Knowledge is the same, Turn Undead is hamstrung, a whole bunch of spells are modified to corrupt the caster or not work properly, familiars and animal companions and paladin mounts are actually evil spirits trying to tempt you into corruption, etc etc etc. There's 13 entire pages of the book devoted to setting out the modifications of dozens and dozens of standard PHB spells - so that they fit the themes of the setting better. Because the themes of Ravenloft were all about mystery (that couldn't be solved in 6 seconds with the casting of a divination spell), gothic-horror-inspired undead monsters being scary (rather than just fodder to be promptly blasted into nonexistence by the cleric), and the inherent corruptive effect of dark (necromantic, demon-summoning, etc) magic, and the isolation of the Darklords in their own prison/domain (which loses its impact if a druid can just Pass Without Trace the hell out of there)

Even the 3e iteration of ravenloft that you hold up as an example recognises that the PHB as-written is not a one-size-fits-all system that's universally applicable in every jot and tittle to every campaign setting. Sometimes changes from the base ruleset are necessary to evoke the themes and feel of the setting. I think the same holds true for the 5e PHB and Dark Sun.

No, no we don't. D&D is not the same game it was in 2e. Settings, tastes, and attitudes change. Dark Sun's edgelord "I'm not your father's D&D" isn't going to work under a climate where books are greenlit on the basis of % of players willing to buy-in. You are NOT going to get sufficient buy-in for a setting that renders most of the PHB obsolete.

Given that approximately a quarter of the books WotC has released are adventures - which are generally only bought by GMs - I don't think this is a significant problem in this case. And it's just ridiculous to claim that DS necessarily renders the PHB obsolete.

So at this point, we circle back to "what classes make the cut?" If we are going most conservative (replicating 2e box set to a fault, keeping 'hard mode" status) you need to remove: Barbarian (AC, DR), Bard (magical), Cleric (divine), Monk (AC, martial arts), Paladin (divine), Sorcerer (magical), and Warlock (magical/planar). You also need to ban EK, AT, and any other subclass that grants arcane magic. And that's just from the PHB; presumably, NOTHING from Xanathar's Guide will work except maybe(?) a subclass like Mastermind.

Is there really that much demand for Dark Sun to be 'hard mode'? I'm not seeing it in this thread, to be honest. And certainly not 'replicating the 2e box set to a fault'! There's much more interest in preserving the themes and basic principles of the original setting, and the higher-quality bits of its later supplements and lore. 'Hard mode' comes from GMing style more than anything. If your Dark Sun GM enforces stuff like thirst rules, and imposes consequences if you cast wizard spells out in the open where people can see, and runs the city-states like templar-ridden tyrannies where the populace lives in fear, then you're playing on hard mode regardless of the ruleset. If you really need 'Hard Mode', the place for it is probably in Xanathars' 2 as a universal set of optional rules people can use in whatever setting they like (Hard Mode Strahd!)

As for your list, I can see no reason whatsoever to bar barbarians (especially!) or monks from DS, though personally i'd limit a couple of the more magical subclasses. Clerics (elemental or the templar version) have been in Dark Sun since forever, I honestly don't know why you'd assume they wouldn't make the cut. I can certainly see room for all three PHB paladin subclasses as well, perhaps just with some changes to the tenets of their oaths (I've babbled on about this at great length earlier in the thread, I'll refrain from doing so again). 4e had warlocks as templars, that's not my favoured interpretation personally, but it can certainly work ok. As for Xanathar's, I could very easily see Zealot barbarians in the service of Raam, Urik, or Guistenal, Shepherd druids are fine, as are Samurai, Cavaliers, Drunken Masters, and Kensai - Sun Soul Monks I think are actually a great fit. Either of the paladin oaths here can work, especially Oath of Conquest, no problems with any of the three of the rogues subclasses either. You could even make a case for the Shadow Sorcerer as someone who Rajaat or the Shadow giants have touched from beyond the Black.

I really think you're overstating the case here. You're railing against restrictions that I don't think anyone is actually asking for.

Lather rinse repeat with spells (5e has been slow to add new spells, so every banned spell is a further reduction of PC choice), backgrounds, equipment etc. If your 1-2 pages is a pure "this doesn't exist" you're going to make new players go "then what does?"

I've heard exactly zero calls to mass-ban spells. Nerfing water/food creation is a popular idea, and MAYBE planar or summoning spells. That leaves a hell of a lot - much less than was modified in the 3e Ravenloft book that you were talking about earlier. Same with backgrounds and equipment. (And really, who's planning on banning backgrounds?! There's still nobles, urchins, sages, hermits, soldiers, charlatans, artisans, etc etc etc on Athas!)

See above. Theros still allows me the choice of any class in the PHB, plus any background and all the spells. Dark Sun is going to tell me what races, classes, backgrounds, spells, and equipment my PC can have. It might as well pre-gen my character for me at that point.

From someone who was complaining about straw men one paragraph earlier, that's more than a bit rich.

 

[Danzauker]

Nobody reasonably expects (I think) a new edition to be the same verbatim as an older one. A lot has been introduced in the game that simply didn't exist at the time.

It's quite reasonable that a setting will put limitations on what's allowable from the core rules and introduce new features. It's what makes a setting distinctive. And Dark Sun is very distinctive.

But I think it's natural that they would try to accomodate some of the new classes that didn't exist in 4E. some people here already gave some interesting explanation for their existance. They could be exceedingly rare or even your PCs might be the only known ones. Monk traditions seem even more likely in a world where metal and other effective weapons are scarce. Warlocks make good templars. Paladins could be sorcerer-king bodyguards.

I don't see it as a problem if a setting when presenting its background and peculiarities also states some heavy expectations and limitations from the core rules. It just need to remind in bold letters rule 0. Whatever the DM and players want to exist in the game, can exist. Just make up an explanation and go with it.

 

[Remathilis]

As for your list, I can see no reason whatsoever to bar barbarians (especially!) or monks from DS, though personally i'd limit a couple of the more magical subclasses. Clerics (elemental or the templar version) have been in Dark Sun since forever, I honestly don't know why you'd assume they wouldn't make the cut. I can certainly see room for all three PHB paladin subclasses as well, perhaps just with some changes to the tenets of their oaths (I've babbled on about this at great length earlier in the thread, I'll refrain from doing so again). 4e had warlocks as templars, that's not my favoured interpretation personally, but it can certainly work ok. As for Xanathar's, I could very easily see Zealot barbarians in the service of Raam, Urik, or Guistenal, Shepherd druids are fine, as are Samurai, Cavaliers, Drunken Masters, and Kensai - Sun Soul Monks I think are actually a great fit. Either of the paladin oaths here can work, especially Oath of Conquest, no problems with any of the three of the rogues subclasses either. You could even make a case for the Shadow Sorcerer as someone who Rajaat or the Shadow giants have touched from beyond the Black.

Really?

Classes: no spellcasting bards. ... No sorcerors, at all, unless this is how you decide to do psionics.

All of this (No barbarians or monks because of the AC (and DR!) gimmicks , and of course no arcane casters except of wizards), and the only warlock pact that makes sense in 5e Darksun is a pact of the medallion with the according sorcerer king/queen as a patron for Templars. In fact that is even better than the original 2e solution presenting them as clerics.

Same thing with Sorcerer. Inborn magic, Darksun you get inborn psionics, dragon Sorcerer doesn't really fit etc.

Given all this, where does the 'natural spellcaster' fit in? ... The concept of inborn natural magic just flies in the face of everything having a price.

Crunch-wise, I think we do need to recognize some classes, like clerics and paladins, just don't work here.

Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer all don't fit per DS fans. Warlock maybe? as templars, but that's NPC only.

Unless you're willing to say some of you are wrong, of course...

 

[Remathilis]

I just pulled out my 3e RL setting book. No literal banning of classes - but class features were rewritten all over the place. Paladin's detect evil doesn't work properly, Bardic Knowledge is the same, Turn Undead is hamstrung, a whole bunch of spells are modified to corrupt the caster or not work properly, familiars and animal companions and paladin mounts are actually evil spirits trying to tempt you into corruption, etc etc etc. There's 13 entire pages of the book devoted to setting out the modifications of dozens and dozens of standard PHB spells - so that they fit the themes of the setting better. Because the themes of Ravenloft were all about mystery (that couldn't be solved in 6 seconds with the casting of a divination spell), gothic-horror-inspired undead monsters being scary (rather than just fodder to be promptly blasted into nonexistence by the cleric), and the inherent corruptive effect of dark (necromantic, demon-summoning, etc) magic, and the isolation of the Darklords in their own prison/domain (which loses its impact if a druid can just Pass Without Trace the hell out of there)

Even the 3e iteration of ravenloft that you hold up as an example recognises that the PHB as-written is not a one-size-fits-all system that's universally applicable in every jot and tittle to every campaign setting. Sometimes changes from the base ruleset are necessary to evoke the themes and feel of the setting. I think the same holds true for the 5e PHB and Dark Sun

You know what 3e Ravenloft also had? A dedicated PHB, DMG and Monster Manual, like I suggested for Dark Sun, that could change those things that don't work and supply the game with new things that do.

Huh, I wonder where I got that idea from...

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

You should remember we could use the option of variant classes, as the archetypes from Paizo's Pathfinder, where the class features are replaced with a different list, for example the paladin would become the primal warden (4th Ed Class) or the ardent (3.5 the complete psionic). This last would be something like the jedi knights.

WotC also could publish no-canon articles about subclasses adapted into "Athasian" style, for example sorcerers as primal/divine-elemental spellcasters or psionic manifesters.

I understand any people don't like Pentad Prism because the metaplot altered too much the setting, killing some ture big fishes, but it erasure it as canon has got some risks. My theory is a reboot, using as excuse time-travelers, but this trick is not going to be used only in DS but in all D&D worlds. In the past I was kidding about a multiverse infinite secret war crisis, but I don't say it could happen officialy, something about "Chrononauts wars" where time-travels want to alter other parallel worlds to save their own timeline. But the "loser factions" are punished with the total disappearance but its world becomes a special type of demiplane, mixture of dreamland and akasha realm (created by the collective memory of sentient beings), more vulnerable to primal chaos forces, and invanders from the Far Realm. This would allow alternate Athas where the dromites (psionic race), wilden(4th Ed) or the asherati (3.5 Sandstorm) are possible. This alternate Athas would by a clone, a copy, something like the dark domain of Kaladnay in Ravenloft, and the original Athas wouldn't be altered at all but if this is your wish.

* Would WotC allow Paizo to publish its own D&D 5th Ed of Occult Classes (Kineticist, Medium Memerist, Occulty, Psychic and Spiritualist)?

 

[hawkeyefan]

To me, the important restrictions for Dark Sun are more about the theme and the setting than about the class and racial mechanics. Setting the more rules oriented elements aside for a minute, I think the below are the important restrictions/limitations.

• Resources are hard to come by- water and food are difficult to find outside the city-states, metal is extremely rare, as is wood and similar mundane materials common in other settings
• Arcane magic is dangerous and outlawed in most areas
• Divine magic works differently, typically coming from the primal elements or from the sorcerer-kings themselves
• Liberty and freedom are rare, enjoyed only by the powerful; the Tyr region exists under the boots of the sorcerer-kings and their regimes, and the past is riddled with genocide and horror of all kinds, many of which still persist to this day

Those are the most immediate that spring to mind. I feel like if you keep those ideas in mind, then they will inform selection of class and race and other PC options. Sure, new options are perfectly fine.

I mean....Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, for example....yes, these subclasses could be banned, and I think everyone would understand the reasoning for doing so. But can we really not imagine an Athasian example of each of them?

A warrior who enhances his martial prowess through the use of arcane magic? Seems like there's room for this archetype in the setting, it would just need to consider the preserving/defiling angle. Same with a rogue who uses arcane magic to deceive others. Perhaps such a trickster has a way to mask his use of magic? Such a character would fit right in to the Veiled Alliance.

I just don't see the need to ban any of the options so much as reimagine what they might mean in this setting as opposed to more standard fantasy settings. I think the setting and the game would be far better served to offer suggestions about how to reimagine the options from the PHB with Athas in mind. Inspire players to be creative and to rethink their expectations.

It just seems a better way to try and get a character who fits the setting than to just bar a bunch of options.

 

[Zardnaar]

Really?










Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer all don't fit per DS fans. Warlock maybe? as templars, but that's NPC only.

Unless you're willing to say some of you are wrong, of course...

Barbarian can IMHO, Sorcerer's maybe but not Draconic ones, Clerics yes, new Paladins maybe, Warlocks don't really fitvas pact magic is clerical in nature and they're an arcanists.
They don't fit as templars at least.

The reason the SKs use Templars is because they're not arcane magic they're priests (primal in 4E terms). Clerics also primal not divine.