D&D 5E Mearls on other settings

[Remathilis]

Also rules for Dragonmarks.

Right, forgot those.

 

[Bolares]

Also in Eberron I would make action points oficial, and maybe touch on the magic itens commerce and rarity

 

[Staffan]

I'm not entirely convinced of the differences though. You mention the difficulty of healing in DS. Thing is, that's not a DS thing, that's a 2e thing. EVERY campaign was limited to clerical/druidic healing which was limited to 1st, 4th and 5th level spells. There is no difference in healing between DS and any other setting.

It was somewhat heightened in Dark Sun though, because clerics only had Minor access (up to 3rd level) to the sphere of Cosmos, which is where all the healing spells were. Only druids and templars had Major access to Cosmos.

Mid-level (7+) Dark Sun clerics really were terribly limited in their spellcasting. Using just the original boxed set, there were no 4th level Earth spells or 7th level Water spells. Other than that, they pretty much had 1-5 spells to choose from at each spell level.

Come to think of it, I think I'll go on record as saying that while Dark Sun clerics were pretty cool flavor-wise, they were very bad from a mechanical standpoint. It got better with Earth Air Fire and Water (the Dark Sun priest splatbook), but you still had the issue of too many spells to choose from at low levels and not enough at high levels.

It would also be hard to make a Dark Sun cleric, flavor-wise, based on the 5e cleric spell list - because 5e clerics are more focused on things like radiant damage, protecting against extraplanar critters, and so on. This is one area where I think 4e Dark Sun did well by using Shaman instead, but unfortunately 5e doesn't have any class quite like that (the druid is not quite there).

And, as far as defiler/preserver went, mechanically, they were pretty much bog standard casters with a couple of tweaks. They had identical spell lists, used the same xp tables, gained spells at the same rate, the works. Mechanically, there is no difference between a DS wizard and a Greyhawk or standard PHB wizard.

Nitpick: A 2e defiler used a much faster XP table than a regular wizard. Given the same XP totals, a defiler would usually be 1-3 levels ahead of a regular wizard (or a preserver, which really was a regular wizard).

 

[hawkeyefan]

There's no reason to be slavishly faithful to a particular prior edition...each edition has had its own limitations of different kinds, and there's no reason to carry over some effect of such a limitation from an older edition to a newer one. For example, there were no Monks or Barbarians in 2E. Why bring that limitation forward into a new edition of the setting? What do you gain by keeping those classes from the setting? Neither seems strongly against the themes and character of the Dark Sun setting.

I think that's what's most important....to keep the spirit of the setting in mind when making these decisions. Ultimately, we can all tweak things to our liking, but I think whatever WotC decides on as a default approach to a given setting, they need to keep it faithful to the spirit of the setting.

For Dark Sun, I think the more important things to keep in mind are the harsh environment, the fact that power is in the hands of evil overlords and society reflects that, the rareness of metal and water, the impact of magic on the world, and things like that. To me, those elements are far more important than "there's no Gnomes".

I'm not saying there can be no such restrictions, just that they need to serve a thematic purpose, and typically anything that's "taken away" in this manner should be replaced with something new (i.e. no Paladins, but here's a Gladiator class, and so on).

 

[Coroc]

Note, I did mention 2e era settings excluded monks. Greyhawk added monks as soon as monks were added to the game. But, even going from 1e forward, monks were always part of the game and setting. That's not true for any setting that started in 2e. IOW, you're claiming that no monks (as an example) is a defining trait of Dark Sun. Thing is, it's not. It's a defining trait of EVERY 2e setting. Because there were no monks in 2e.

Barbarians are the same. Are you seriously going to try to claim that barbarians don't fit in Dark Sun? Really?

Earlier you mentioned anthropomorphic animal races should be excluded. But, this is a setting with bug people. Anthropomorphic bugs. Considering the strong Egyptian flavor of the setting, I am having a problem thinking that cat people and jackal people wouldn't fit. Never minding that Dark Sun is the setting that gave us Aarokocra as a playable race. Hrm, bird people and bug people are groovy, but cat people are out?

I'd much rather they go the other way. Give us everything that they think could fit into Dark Sun and then let DM's sort out their own campaigns. Don't want war forged in DS? Ok, fair enough, ban Warforged. Make the setting your own. But, it's not groovy to insist that your vision of the setting is the only one that should hit the shelves.

That's certainly bad for WotC.

[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] is right with his concerns, with monks and DS they would imho only fit in some psionicist context because most monks follow either some faith or a philosophy and the only thing on Athas which is a kind of philosophy game mechanics wise is psionics.

While barbarians might be very fitting for Athas context wise they cannot be added in with 5E mechanics easy and unaltered, since as the standard monk they got abilities and features which get around some of Athas signature obstacles far to easy (unarmed combat instead of inferior weapons, bad availability of armor, damage resistance, to name a few)

Personally I would see it that Athas population be it PCs or NPCs of any class already all are some kind of barbaric at least from their physics which also should reflect in slightly higher stats.

The other signature element of Athas the Gladiator class, which had bonus in armor in the AD&D 2nd as well as specialisation in all weapons and combat styles gets severely overshadowed as the toughest melee class when barbarians exist as well in the setting.
(This precludes a working faithful conversion to 5E of this class of course)

The barbarian or monk in Athas is like a birdman in a setting with many airships.

 

[Remathilis]

@Zardnaar is right with his concerns, with monks and DS they would imho only fit in some psionicist context because most monks follow either some faith or a philosophy and the only thing on Athas which is a kind of philosophy game mechanics wise is psionics.

While barbarians might be very fitting for Athas context wise they cannot be added in with 5E mechanics easy and unaltered, since as the standard monk they got abilities and features which get around some of Athas signature obstacles far to easy (unarmed combat instead of inferior weapons, bad availability of armor, damage resistance, to name a few)

Personally I would see it that Athas population be it PCs or NPCs of any class already all are some kind of barbaric at least from their physics which also should reflect in slightly higher stats.

The other signature element of Athas the Gladiator class, which had bonus in armor in the AD&D 2nd as well as specialisation in all weapons and combat styles gets severely overshadowed as the toughest melee class when barbarians exist as well in the setting.
(This precludes a working faithful conversion to 5E of this class of course)

The barbarian or monk in Athas is like a birdman in a setting with many airships.

This reminds me of the OTHER thing I hate about some of these thematic settings; the use of theme to club the PCs into submission.

Monks and Barbarians get around bad armor and weapons. THAT IS THE POINT. You know what they call creatures that cannot adapt to their surroundings? Extinct. It makes MORE sense that in a world where armor is poor and monsters are deadly, they'd rely more on things like this. The same thing is usually use in Ravenloft to bludgeon any class feature that might remotely help them fight evil and/or undead; its nerfed to high heaven. (Fun fact, read the weaknesses section of the 3.5 Ravenloft PHB; it literally punished fighters for fighting and wizards for casting light). A setting with airships should FULL of races that can fly; they're naturally suited to thrive in that environment. Ditto a seafaring game and aquatic/water-breathing races.

D&D shouldn't be an endurance test for punishment, its an RPG where the heroes are expected to be better than the common rabble. If the class modeled after Conan the Barbarian is too powerful for the world modeled after Hyperbola, then something has gone off the rails.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think the Monk or the Barbarian really undermine the setting at all. The Monk seems to fit right in with the concept of Psionics (one of the 4E changes that I thought was great). The Barbarian also seems to fit right into the setting. Do they get around the armor limitations, therefore having a bit of an edge? Yes...but that's not really that different from the main setting. They don't need armor....that's one of the perks of the class. It's a bit bigger a perk on Athas, but not gamebreaking by any means.

I also think the Warlock/Patron relationship mirrors the Templar/Sorcerer King one so perfectly, that I'm surprised anyone would resist having things work that way. Just modify the spell lists a bit to fit the Templar flavor (maybe even going as far as to have a different list for each Sorcerer King? and then some alternate lists for Warlocks with Patrons other than the Sorcerer Kings).

Same with Clerics...come up with a Domain for each of the primary elements, and there you go.

Gladiator doesn't need to be its own class, really. A subclass of Fighter, most likely. Maybe a subclass of Barbarian? The "rage" would instead be "combat focus", and you could swap a couple of features to get the right feel.

Tieflings, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs feel like they wouldn't be all that disruptive to the setting....they could be reskinned a bit if needed. Half-orcs can essentially be Muls, for the most part. The Dragonborn are probably the most glaring race given that there's only one Dragon on Athas, but even then it can be explained away.

Especially if they're dialing things back to the Death of Kalak in Tyr. It's essentially starting over....so there's no reason not to include all the new classes.

Again, if Gnomes or Dragonborn didn't make it in, I would shed no tears, but it's really not that big a deal. Especially since the rules for Gnomes are in the PHB, so I can add them back in if I wanted.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I don't think the Monk or the Barbarian really undermine the setting at all. The Monk seems to fit right in with the concept of Psionics (one of the 4E changes that I thought was great). The Barbarian also seems to fit right into the setting. Do they get around the armor limitations, therefore having a bit of an edge? Yes...but that's not really that different from the main setting. They don't need armor....that's one of the perks of the class. It's a bit bigger a perk on Athas, but not gamebreaking by any means.

I also think the Warlock/Patron relationship mirrors the Templar/Sorcerer King one so perfectly, that I'm surprised anyone would resist having things work that way. Just modify the spell lists a bit to fit the Templar flavor (maybe even going as far as to have a different list for each Sorcerer King? and then some alternate lists for Warlocks with Patrons other than the Sorcerer Kings).

Same with Clerics...come up with a Domain for each of the primary elements, and there you go.

Gladiator doesn't need to be its own class, really. A subclass of Fighter, most likely. Maybe a subclass of Barbarian? The "rage" would instead be "combat focus", and you could swap a couple of features to get the right feel.

Tieflings, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs feel like they wouldn't be all that disruptive to the setting....they could be reskinned a bit if needed. Half-orcs can essentially be Muls, for the most part. The Dragonborn are probably the most glaring race given that there's only one Dragon on Athas, but even then it can be explained away.

Especially if they're dialing things back to the Death of Kalak in Tyr. It's essentially starting over....so there's no reason not to include all the new classes.

Again, if Gnomes or Dragonborn didn't make it in, I would shed no tears, but it's really not that big a deal. Especially since the rules for Gnomes are in the PHB, so I can add them back in if I wanted.

I'd like to see warlock's Patrons for each Sorcerer Kings!
Also, reading on the Gladiator as a class, it does seem like most of its features are now maneuver for the Battlemaster, but with a greater emphasis on Performance checks. The ability to feint, parry, encourage with chants and analyze a foe is already there, so I think I just a matter of changing the name ''Battlemaster'' to ''Gladiator''.
For clerics, I think we have already the Light domain for the Sun or Fire domain, Tempest for the Rain or Wind domain, I guess a refluffed Forge or Protection could do the trick for Earth or Magma domain. Healing as somehow connected to Water.

If I were to run a Dark Sun campaign in 5e (I did with 4e and it went badly...), I'd also change the paladin to Psychic warrior/Ardent: I imagine their aura to the same kind of emotional psionic emanation. Just change their spellcasting from ''divine'' to ''psionic, maybe change the spellcasting stat to INT and Radiant damage to Spirit. Oath of Valor becomes Way of the Argent Soul (radiant damage and healing), Oath of Ancient becomes Way of the Hope Preserved and Oath of Vengeance becomes Way of the Stygian Adept (fear).

 

[Coroc]

I don't think the Monk or the Barbarian really undermine the setting at all. The Monk seems to fit right in with the concept of Psionics (one of the 4E changes that I thought was great). The Barbarian also seems to fit right into the setting. Do they get around the armor limitations, therefore having a bit of an edge? Yes...but that's not really that different from the main setting. They don't need armor....that's one of the perks of the class. It's a bit bigger a perk on Athas, but not gamebreaking by any means.

I also think the Warlock/Patron relationship mirrors the Templar/Sorcerer King one so perfectly, that I'm surprised anyone would resist having things work that way. Just modify the spell lists a bit to fit the Templar flavor (maybe even going as far as to have a different list for each Sorcerer King? and then some alternate lists for Warlocks with Patrons other than the Sorcerer Kings).

Same with Clerics...come up with a Domain for each of the primary elements, and there you go.

Gladiator doesn't need to be its own class, really. A subclass of Fighter, most likely. Maybe a subclass of Barbarian? The "rage" would instead be "combat focus", and you could swap a couple of features to get the right feel.

Tieflings, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs feel like they wouldn't be all that disruptive to the setting....they could be reskinned a bit if needed. Half-orcs can essentially be Muls, for the most part. The Dragonborn are probably the most glaring race given that there's only one Dragon on Athas, but even then it can be explained away.

Especially if they're dialing things back to the Death of Kalak in Tyr. It's essentially starting over....so there's no reason not to include all the new classes.

Again, if Gnomes or Dragonborn didn't make it in, I would shed no tears, but it's really not that big a deal. Especially since the rules for Gnomes are in the PHB, so I can add them back in if I wanted.

Totally agree with Templar being a Warlock. Other Patrons not so much
PCs being Templars? Only in an evil style campaign.
Tieflings why? Does FR need Thrikreen or Muls?
Halforcs cmon you got halfdwarfs aka Muls they are the better Halforcs
Gnomes they been extinct forever, in vanilla settings they are the tinkerers or gemcutters how would they fit in a world where there is not much metal to tinker with.
Dragonborn are a NoNo for me even in most vanilla settings. The only place they could have in a campaign based on official material is the 2nd ed council of wyrms.
Some suggested reskinning them as Draj but that might lead to other difficulties.
Your Idea for Barbarian re-skinned as Gladiator is superb absolute kudos from me.

 

[Zardnaar]

What?

Bards in every edition of Greyhawk have been spellcasters; druidic in 1e and arcane in every edition since. Monks were also there for 1e, came back in 2e (Scarlet Brotherhood), and 3e on.

The 2E Athasian Bard was not a spellcaster, they rewrote it because magic is hard. The PHB Bard was a spellcaster, on Darksun it was not.

In 5E terms it would be an Rogue:Assassin with the perform skill and poison use.