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

[humble minion]

I think with spellcasting in Dark Sun, since the source of the cleric/paladin's power can't be a god, it needs to be shifted to something else (and shouldn't be them self like Eberron, doesn't really fit Dark Sun). So I suppose these classes, when doing spellcasting would also have to fall under the same preserver/defiling penalties of other spellcasting.

I'm not sure why. Elemental clerics, whose spells are granted via pacts with the elemental spirits, have been part of Dark Sun since the very beginning and they never had to defile. And of course there's druids, who also don't worship gods, and it's be ludicrous to have druids that defile.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Having just read the Theros book cover-to-cover, what impressed me the most about the book is that it never bothered to restrict things besides race. Thinking about it, I might say "well, as an ancient-Greek-inspired setting, there shouldn't be a lot of glass. More pottery and clay vessels then wine glasses. "Plate mail" is going to be something more like lorica segmentata, and so-on. But the book doesn't bother with going through the equipment list and saying what is/isn't in the setting, what stuff has to be changed, and so-on.

And it doesn't need to. All that really is a matter of flavor and window-dressing.

Same thing with Dark Sun. The tone, feel and so-on is largely going to be set by the themes the GM explores and their description of stuff. You don't need to go through the book and say "banned, not-banned, banned, banned, not-banned". The GM will decide, when it's appropriate, if something is or isn't in the setting.

The only stuff you really need to do up-front is the classes. And even that, I can think of some ways to handle most of it. And lots of other folks in this thread have thought of ways to handle most of it. And don't forget, in the end it's still up to the GM to say "I dunno Dave, that choice doesn't really fit what we're going for here. Can we work out something more setting-appropriate?" Just like I'd do with Theros if/when I run it... Eastern-flavored monk character? Not a great fit. Olympian grappler? Just fine. And that's all done without a line of text in the book.

So while I can see that Dark Sun would need a bigger section on character creation, it really isn't the insurmountable obstacle some think it is.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Here's a longer explanation of spellcasting;

In 5E, magic honestly isn't split up by "what it does," or "how it works" or even "what it is," there is only one point of separation; "what is the source." The wizard gets magic through studying, the sorcerer gets magic through themselves, and the cleric/warlock from an external god/patron (and the psionicist from the power of their own mind). The other classes if they have spellcasting dip across these various sources depending on the subclass.

So in Dark Sun, where magic is restricted, we should think about magic less as restricted by class and more by source. There are no gods, and a lot fewer powerful creatures to act as patrons. There is also no magical weave that wizards or sorcerers can manipulate, so they need a different source. You can still learn how to become a wizard, or be born with power like a sorcerer, but magic still must be filtered through to systems; preserver or defiler.

In the Dark Sun lore, the world is essentially brought to its state because the pyreen Rajaat discovered magic through the Pristine Tower, created by the lost halfling civilization (the tower is also responsible for people developing psionic power). Rajaat found two ways to harness magic, preserving and defiling. The former is more mundane and not as powerful, the latter stronger but destructive to the environment.

Moving on from lore, it's a problem that some classes wouldn't face penalties for spellcasting (cleric/druid) while the wizard would (either weak preserving or environmentally destructive defiling). So here's my suggestion; that the filter of preserving/defiling be applied to all spellcasting, regardless of source.

What this means, is that whenever someone does a spell of any kind, they need to make a choice; will this inflict harm on myself (preserving) or harm on the land/people around me (defiling). The idea being that the ultimate source of this magic is irrelevant; it can be your Sorcerer King patron or your own psionic power. But in order for you to complete the spell, the power required to cast calls for a cost. I know this isn't exactly how perserving worked, but I'd like to keep the two magic forms in parity (preserving being the "good" option as your only harming yourself, not others and the environment).

Now exactly what that cost should be I'm not sure; I don't love the idea of it being a direct "You take an extra 1d6 damage for every level" as that's kind of boring and makes spellcasting extremely unattractive. But a table similar to the "curse table" being rolled everytime someone casts a spell would be a great way to add flavor to spellcasting in Dark Sun, while also being a lot more fluid.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Having just read the Theros book cover-to-cover, what impressed me the most about the book is that it never bothered to restrict things besides race. Thinking about it, I might say "well, as an ancient-Greek-inspired setting, there shouldn't be a lot of glass. More pottery and clay vessels then wine glasses. "Plate mail" is going to be something more like lorica segmentata, and so-on. But the book doesn't bother with going through the equipment list and saying what is/isn't in the setting, what stuff has to be changed, and so-on.

And it doesn't need to. All that really is a matter of flavor and window-dressing.

Same thing with Dark Sun. The tone, feel and so-on is largely going to be set by the themes the GM explores and their description of stuff. You don't need to go through the book and say "banned, not-banned, banned, banned, not-banned". The GM will decide, when it's appropriate, if something is or isn't in the setting.

The only stuff you really need to do up-front is the classes. And even that, I can think of some ways to handle most of it. And lots of other folks in this thread have thought of ways to handle most of it. And don't forget, in the end it's still up to the GM to say "I dunno Dave, that choice doesn't really fit what we're going for here. Can we work out something more setting-appropriate?" Just like I'd do with Theros if/when I run it... Eastern-flavored monk character? Not a great fit. Olympian grappler? Just fine. And that's all done without a line of text in the book.

So while I can see that Dark Sun would need a bigger section on character creation, it really isn't the insurmountable obstacle some think it is.

Largely in agreement here. I am someone who would say the Artificer makes little sense in the Theros setting, but there's really no need to ban it directly in the text; the DM can make that call.

 

[Remathilis]

Reading your comments, I'm getting the idea that you don't actually expect DS to be ever be published. Considering how many times WotC has been trying to get psionics to work in past UAs, I'll say it's something they're actively pursuing, especially as setting books (both new and old) are proving extremely successful for them.

You read me slightly wrong. I expect there will be a Dark Sun eventually. What I expect though is it will be an extension of the work done in 4e rather than be a faithful 2e reproduction. Following what we've seen in four setting books so far (ignoring SCAG) WotC hasn't been too quick to re-invent the wheel. When I went back to look at 4e Dark Sun, I was even more shocked to see how different it was then I remembered. There was no "this is how x fits" section for classes, they just provided some new options and had a sidebar that said "no divine sources unless the DM says otherwise". There was no reworking of powers, and I don't even think I saw much discussion on rituals (I might have missed it). It kinda felt like D&D. In a Post-Apocalyptic Desert. Sure, the races had nonstandard roles and my weapons and armor were made of non-metal, but it otherwise it felt like a D&D setting. That's a feeling I never got in 2e; 2e Dark Sun felt too tryhard to be different for differing's sake.

And part of that is what has led to my multi-quote above; everyone has a different opinion of what does/doesn't fit. You might be cool with everything but clerics and paladins, but other people above are not. Coroc thinks clerics are fine, but barbarians and monks break the setting by being able to operate without gear. Zardnaar can't see sorcerers in the setting, but Haldrik does. I'm going to assume you all like the setting equally, but all of you pulled very different ideas of what "Dark Sun" is.

How about this compromise: let them all in.

Someone like me who liked 4e's DS will be happy, we have places for all the classes and all the noncanonically dead races. For those who want to emulate a more 2e feel, you can create your own custom banlist for your table (just like they can do for any setting). You can ban clerics, Coroc can ban monks, etc. New players who joined in 5e won't know the difference. Sure, ban or rarify some subclasses, and feel free to add additional rules for defiling, psionics, etc. Once the setting is open to the DMs Guild, I suspect there will be plenty of supplements to add in more thematic mechanical elements as well.

Its really the best of both worlds, unless you (all) are willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Haldrik]

Here are the 2e flavors for the Templar. How you feel about the implied flavors and mechanics?

Dark Sun Boxed Set

"
Clerical Magic
On Athas, there are several different types of clerics. Each of them pays homage to one of the four elemental forces − air, earth, fire, or water. Of course, the latter are perhaps the most influential on our thirsty world, but all are powerful and worthy of respect.

Another group of people call themselves the druids and, at least by most accounts, are considered to be clerics. Druids are special in that they do not pay tribute to any single elemental force, but rather work to uphold the dying life force of Athas. They serve nature and the planetary equilibrium. Many people consider it a lost cause, but no druid would ever admit that.

In some cities, the sorcerer-king is glorified as if he were some sort of immortal being. In fact, many such rulers are actually able to bestow spellcasting abilities upon the templars who serve them. Are they truly on par with the elemental forces worshiped by clerics? I think not.

"

"
Priest Classes
There are three types of priests on Athas − clerics, templars, and druids.

The cleric is a free-willed priest, tending the needs of the local people with his particular talents. On Athas, clerics draw their magical energy directly from one of the four elemental planes: earth, air, fire, or water; not from any manner of deity. A cleric may be either a freeman or a slave.

The templar is a regimented priest devoted to a single sorcerer-king. Such disciples work within the hierarchy of that particular sorcerer-kings clergy, advancing in power and position. A templar draws his magical energy through his sorcerer-king. A templar can be either a freeman or a noble.

The druid is a priest tied to a particular feature or aspect of Athas. Unique geographic features are guarded by spirits when druids serve. For example, a pooled oasis has its own spirit and a single druid will reside there to protect it and preside over its use by humans, demihumans, and animals. Druids can be from any social class.

"

My first thought is. A 5e Druid isnt a Cleric. But they can be both divine. So a 5e update might refer to this section as "Divine Magic", rather than "Clerical Magic".

My second thought is. Wait. Templars are NOT "on par with elemental clerics". Perhaps the Templar spell slot levels tend to be less high than the elemental Cleric spell slot levels? Perhaps Templars make more sense as divine Paladins, after all. A priest background can make sense, in relation to a specific sacred community, and in the case of the Templar, a position in its bureaucratic hierarchy. (Mechanically in 5e, somewhat countertuitively, it is useful to select a background that is redundant, because if the character already has the skill or other proficiency, the player can pick ANY proficiency instead! So a redundant background opens up options for more customization.) So, I kinda like Templar Paladins, typically with a priest background. So the three 2e "Priest classes" can become three 5e "divine classes": Cleric, Druid, and Paladin.

My third thought is, avoid the ethnocentric term "worship". Terms like "revere", "venerate", "consider holy", "hold sacred", or so on, are more accurate for animistic cultures. And relatable: for example, many Christians consider holy water to be "holy", but they dont "worship" this water. Similarly, Daoists revere the five elemental motions, as fundamental forces, but dont "worship" these elements. If a specific animistic community is "worshiping" anyone, then it connotes some form of theistic traditions have developed in addition to the animistic traditions. Since Dark Sun clerics are nontheistic, "revere" conveys the flavor better. That said, the sorcerer-kings are a kind of divine-king, analogous to "worshiping" Caesar as a god to some degree. (Traditionally, Romans believed the Caesar family ascended to heaven after death, thus became immortal gods posthumously. Egyptologists still debate what sense the Pharaoh was understood to be a god.) So, the Dark Sun setting might have a sorcerer-king demand to be worshiped as a "god". The dragons appear to have eternal youth with an indefinite lifespan, so at least in this sense they are "immortals". In sum, use "revere" for animistic concepts. Use "worship" for theistic gods.

My fourth thought, Dark Sun Druids are animistic. They consider significant landscape features to be outdoor sacred spaces. Features include sacred wellsprings (of healing waters?), and extend to holy mountains, and perhaps sacred ancestral burial mounds, and other notable topography. It might well be, the wellspring itself is a conscious being with psionic abilities. But the flavor focuses on the other "spirits" that "guard" the wellspring. In an animistic context, a "spirit" is more like a dream about something. This something is always concrete. For example, if there are birds around the wellspring, the spirit of the birds is actually the literal physical birds themselves, even if a Druid might communicate with these actual birds by means of a spirit journey during a trance. Likewise, when a person dies, the breath leaves the body as literal wind − a conscious breeze! − and the corpse turns into dust − conscious dirt. The psionic consciousness of the formerly living person is still present, but now rather than being a body, the person has shapeshifted into the elements of earth and air. For animism, things are always literal, never poetic, despite trance journeys sometimes feeling dreamlike. As a rule, whatever is meaningfully "significant" will also have a more palpable consciousness − thus stronger psionic influence. Animism is entirely this-worldly. Thus the "Gray" if a separate other-worldly plane is non-animistic. As such, it might be better to explain the Gray as an aspect of this material world, being a psionic matrix of the internetting minds of this world. In other words, the Gray is NOT a separate plane. Rather it is a feature of this world, albeit a subtle feature. The Gray is more like a virtual "augmented reality" that overlays the material world, that psionically sensitive persons can detect and observe.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here are the 2e flavors for the Templar. How you feel about the implied flavors and mechanics?

Dark Sun Boxed Set

"
Clerical Magic
On Athas, there are several different types of clerics. Each of them pays homage to one of the four elemental forces − air, earth, fire, or water. Of course, the latter are perhaps the most influential on our thirsty world, but all are powerful and worthy of respect.

Another group of people call themselves the druids and, at least by most accounts, are considered to be clerics. Druids are special in that they do not pay tribute to any single elemental force, but rather work to uphold the dying life force of Athas. They serve nature and the planetary equilibrium. Many people consider it a lost cause, but no druid would ever admit that.

In some cities, the sorcerer-king is glorified as if he were some sort of immortal being. In fact, many such rulers are actually able to bestow spellcasting abilities upon the templars who serve them. Are they truly on par with the elemental forces worshiped by clerics? I think not.

"

"
Priest Classes
There are three types of priests on Athas − clerics, templars, and druids.

The cleric is a free-willed priest, tending the needs of the local people with his particular talents. On Athas, clerics draw their magical energy directly from one of the four elemental planes: earth, air, fire, or water; not from any manner of deity. A cleric may be either a freeman or a slave.

The templar is a regimented priest devoted to a single sorcerer-king. Such disciples work within the hierarchy of that particular sorcerer-kings clergy, advancing in power and position. A templar draws his magical energy through his sorcerer-king. A templar can be either a freeman or a noble.

The druid is a priest tied to a particular feature or aspect of Athas. Unique geographic features are guarded by spirits when druids serve. For example, a pooled oasis has its own spirit and a single druid will reside there to protect it and preside over its use by humans, demihumans, and animals. Druids can be from any social class.

"

My first thought is. A 5e Druid isnt a Cleric. But they can be both divine. So a 5e update might refer to this section as "Divine Magic", rather than "Clerical Magic".

My second thought is. Wait. Templars are NOT "on par with elemental clerics". Perhaps the Templar spell slot levels tend to be less high than the elemental Cleric spell slot levels? Perhaps Templars make more sense as divine Paladins, after all. A priest background can make sense, in relation to a specific sacred community, and in the case of the Templar, a position in its bureaucratic hierarchy. (Mechanically in 5e, somewhat countertuitively, it is useful to select a background that is redundant, because if the character already has the skill or other proficiency, the player can pick ANY proficiency instead! So a redundant background opens up options for more customization.) So, I kinda like Templar Paladins, typically with a priest background. So the three 2e "Priest classes" can become three 5e "divine classes": Cleric, Druid, and Paladin.

My third thought is, avoid the ethnocentric term "worship". Terms like "revere", "venerate", "consider holy", "hold sacred", or so on, are more accurate for animistic cultures. And relatable: for example, many Christians consider holy water to be "holy", but they dont "worship" this water. Similarly, Daoists revere the five elemental motions, as fundamental forces, but dont "worship" these elements. If a specific animistic community is "worshiping" anyone, then it connotes some form of theistic traditions have developed in addition to the animistic traditions. Since Dark Sun clerics are nontheistic, "revere" conveys the flavor better. That said, the sorcerer-kings are a kind of divine-king, analogous to "worshiping" Caesar as a god to some degree. (Traditionally, Romans believed the Caesar family ascended to heaven after death, thus became immortal gods posthumously. Egyptologists still debate what sense the Pharaoh was understood to be a god.) So, the Dark Sun setting might have a sorcerer-king demand to be worshiped as a "god". The dragons appear to have eternal youth with an indefinite lifespan, so at least in this sense they are "immortals". In sum, use "revere" for animistic concepts. Use "worship" for theistic gods.

My fourth thought, Dark Sun Druids are animistic. They consider significant landscape features to be outdoor sacred spaces. Features include sacred wellsprings (of healing waters?), and extend to holy mountains, and perhaps sacred ancestral burial mounds, and other notable topography. It might well be, the wellspring itself is a conscious being with psionic abilities. But the flavor focuses on the other "spirits" that "guard" the wellspring. In an animistic context, a "spirit" is more like a dream about something. This something is always concrete. For example, if there are birds around the wellspring, the spirit of the birds is actually the literal physical birds themselves, even if a Druid might communicate with these actual birds by means of a spirit journey during a trance. Likewise, when a person dies, the breath leaves the body as literal wind − a conscious breeze! − and the corpse turns into dust − conscious dirt. The psionic consciousness of the formerly living person is still present, but now rather than being a body, the person has shapeshifted into the elements of earth and air. For animism, things are always literal, never poetic, despite trance journeys sometimes feeling dreamlike. As a rule, whatever is meaningfully "significant" will also have a more palpable consciousness − thus stronger psionic influence. Animism is entirely this-worldly. Thus the "Gray" if a separate other-worldly plane is non-animistic. As such, it might be better to explain the Gray as an aspect of this material world, being a psionic matrix of the internetting minds of this world. In other words, the Gray is NOT a separate plane. Rather it is a feature of this world, albeit a subtle feature. The Gray is more like a virtual "augmented reality" that overlays the material world, that psionically sensitive persons can detect and observe.

Templars were stronger than Clerics.

The wanderer wasn't a fan of the SKs and it was just his opinion.

The war cleric is the best "Templar" IMHO.

 

[Coroc]

...
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.

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

Color coded for better understandability, please expand citate.

You summed it up perfectly and I do not see any problem at all with the selection except that I would make Templars Warlocks as I already posted a few times. I do not need Xanathars for DS. (Fun fact : are Beholders a thing at all for DS, do they exist there?)

That is your assumption, I do not think that is valid generally, there might be that player who feels shackled if you do not let him play the class/race he intends to, but it is a cooperative game, and maybe you can sort it out individually and maybe only maybe even shoehorn his choice in somehow. I would have more problems with most of my players to convince them to play something else than human, dwarf, halfelf ,gnome or maybe elf, because they feel they cannot RP/portray them good enough. So you see different players, different preferences. But my players had no problem at all when I limited things, they just want a choice, and with my take on DS atm which would be 5 to 7 races to chose from and about 50 available combinations (assuming the 7 and not counting the wizard specializations) I do not think that the selection is to limited.

Sorry, it was really not meant as strawman argument or to defend anything tooth and nail, it is really that way, it is. No one complains about other settings limitations the way that people discuss about DS . Theros allows you any class which was easy to do, since nothing conflicts with its lore and design. Still some races don't fit well into its lore, so they are normally banned.
..

 

[Coroc]

Templars were stronger than Clerics.

The wanderer wasn't a fan of the SKs and it was just his opinion.

The war cleric is the best "Templar" IMHO.

Warlocks ("of the medallion" thereby using the of the tome mechanic), having a divine casters spell list are perfect for Templars, I think.
If you give them selected clerical spells you meet the feel that they are something like clerics, but mechanically they resemble warlocks rather.

You only need to detail them out anyway if you intend to run them as PC or fully stated NPC. I think this approach is less fiddly than using some cleric template for them.

 

[Haldrik]

@Micah Sweet, @Remathilis, et al

Probably, players should not be able to see any special treasure, including magic items, so it seems helpful to include the Treasure section together with the Monster Manual as a separate book.

Both magic items and monsters are rules where specific beats general. They are a smorgasbord where a DM normally cherry picks which items or creatures the DM wants to introduce and deal with any repercussions that they bring. Oppositely, there normally specific magic items and creatures that a DM doesnt want to deal, sometimes because they are situationally mechanically unbalanced and sometimes because they are flavorfully less appropriate.

At first I thought, a book that is for just Treasures and Monsters seemed weird. But I quickly realized that getting loot from monsters is exactly how D&D has always done things.

Also, it bothers me when an intelligent hostile with a useful magic item as loot, would fail to use it during the combat encounter. So the DM benefits from thinking about the available treasure while designing a particular combat encounter. Monsters and treasure go together, especially for the DM.