Mechanics of Revived Settings; your thoughts?

[Remathilis]

Well then, IMO you are just plain wrong, because all D20 games are based on 3rd edition, which has very very different core mechanics to 5e.

Example of a core rule in 5e: "In combat you get one action, and may get up to one quick action and reaction." This is core rule of 5e, but is not a rule in any D20 games.

An example of the many core mechanics that are part of D20 which are not part of 5e: "for every 5 points of BAB you get an extra attack at BAB-5". And there are many more regarding multiclassing, skills etc.

If you have played those games (I have) you would be aware that the feel of gameplay is very different.

On the other hand, Pathfinder has pretty much all the same classes and races as D&D 5e - so you are pretty much proving my point - it's not the classes and races that are core, it is the gameplay mechanics.

1. The One Ring is 5e based.

2. You're making a semantic argument; they're all d20 based, use similar concepts (if not perfect executions) and are all based on the same OGL, which doesn't discriminate between 3e and 5e.

You seem to think I'm some noob whose never played D&D before 5e. You're wrong and I feel your ad hominum attacks are not worth further response. Good day.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I am not familiar with The One Ring, but it proves my point: It is not D&D simply because it does not say "D&D" on the cover. If it said "D&D The One Ring" on the front it would be D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

So, where is the difference? It's in expectations and beliefs. See, here's the thing. Do you know one way that they can ensure that people may not purchase it? If they butcher it. Why would, say, an Eberron fan purchase a Guide to the Multiverse is Keith Baker tweets, "All they did was apply the standard PHB and give us the Eberron names."

There are people out there, right now, that are running, trying to run, or want to run the alternate settings, and they want rules for it. Rules for classes and races and feats that are necessary to that setting. This doesn't mean that a DM can't decide to allow FR-standard races and/or classes (Purple Dragon Knight?) into the setting. But it means that the rules will be there for what the setting *should be* if the DM chooses.

Because, and this is really the important point, nobody is running Dark Sun (to use an example) because they love their standard Elf Paladins. We have a generic D&D setting already. And there is no arbiter of D&D correctness that will keep you from running your Elf Paladin in whatever campaign you want; just those, like me, who will say that we have too many Elves and the only good Paladin is a dead Paladin. But that's okay! I am not the arbiter of campaigns, or your table. You can keep on Elf Paladining to your heart's content.

My thought is that the inclusion of core elements is not in conflict with any of these settings.

I'm a big Eberron fan, owned every 3e book, ran a campaign there for years. You know what Eberron has? Everything in the 3e Core books. You know what is different? Where those things are in the world. Half-orcs are druids who live in the Shadow Marsh and are guardians of the world against aberrations. Halflings ride dinosaurs and live a tribal life. Elves worship undead ancestors who rule there people for millennium. Drow live in the jungle and worship scorpions. It's changed and twisted, but it's there.

There is no reason why Dark Sun can't put it's own spin on paladins. You know what's interesting? Exploration of that contradiction. What does a man who holds himself to a strict code do in a world so savage? How does he make the world better when the odds are so against him? That is space worth exploring. He doesn't need plate armor or a stout charger to be a paladin; he works just fine in bone armor and obsidian blades. But he's still serves a calling to some personal oath of goodness and gets supernatural power from it and has to figure out how to use that power in a world that will kill him for a couple cup of water. That's better than "no paladins" and forget it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Remathilis]

So, here's the thing. There are different ways to do it. Let's use Paladins (UGH!) as an example.

One thing is that prior editions of Dark Sun specifically called out Paladins as not being present in the campaign world. So, what should a "new" Dark Sun do?

Well, they can continue that. No paladins.
Or they could offer a different type of Paladin. A new oath for the Dark Sun world.

But even if they don't have paladins, there is nothing keeping them from having a sidebar in the classes section saying, "Paladins do not exist in Athas. However, there have been occasions when others have been transported from strange lands beholden to an oath." Etc. Heck they could mention rumors of warriors who have taken an oath to the sorcerer-kings.

The fundamental disagreement that we keep having is that you want to insist that any setting have a standard, "We accept everything," whereas I don't, and would keep that as optional (perhaps hinted at). I would also state that, as a fan of non-standard settings, your approach is (IMO) the absolute death of different settings.

People can certainly re-mix and add and homebrew, but no one, other than perhaps you, want to play Dark Sun so that they can play an Elf Paladin.

To use your phrasing- what's interesting is a setting that's different, where someone doesn't just play the same old Elf Paladin called Legolas that they play in every other setting. YMMV.

But hey, as I wrote, we will see what actually happens. Until then, who knows?

At the end of the day, there is a a series of switches that a DM can flip to turn off access to things like paladins and such. I'd prefer the switch default to on and allow the DM to turn it off than have it turned off and DMs have to find ways to turn it on. It takes effort to make a paladin work in DS, perhaps even requiring some mechanical changes and/or new subclasses. It takes only one world for a DM to ban it. I'd rather WotC did the work to make it fit and allow me to choose to ignore it and ban it than to have WotC say no and I have to make my own stuff to make it fit.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Remathilis]

I hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure you are appreciating what I am trying to say.

There is already "default" D&D. It's Forgotten Realms. It's the base PHB. Without being pejorative, if you want a kitchen sink setting, you already have it.

People who deliberately play different settings are doing that for a reason. They do not want to play a standard kitchen sink setting. I am not sure how else I can keep saying this. But as I keep saying, no one plays Dark Sun to play a Paladin.

There is a concept called negative space which I'm sure you are familiar with, but to put it another way, a setting in D&D is not just defined by what is there, but also what is absent. By the way that a setting changes, modifies, and removes the standard gestalt assumptions we make about a "standard" (kitchen sink) D&D game.

That is true whether we are discussing Dark Sun, or a homebrew campaign where Mind Flayers have enslave humanity.

So I think we are just two ship passing in the night; as a fan of alternate settings that would play them and run them (such as Dark Sun), I definitely do not want WoTC making yet another "kitchen sink" setting. Because we have that. I want Dark Sun. Not "Dark Sun 5e with Paladins and Gnomes because why not?"

I do not want to rain on anybody's parade, or keep Brad from playing an elven archer named Legolas for the fourth decade running; what I do want is a choice in campaign settings that reflects, you know, some variety.

I get you, but I don't agree that having elf paladins = Forgotten Realms.

Ravenloft, for example, handles Gothic horror by coloring the rules, not removing them. It changes things, but still allows you to be an elf paladin even if that paladin it's a very different type of character than a Faerun elf paladin. Eberron also does alot with getting a pulp-noir without removing stuff. Dark Sun is D&D as seen though a sword- and-sorcery lens, I'd like to see the D&D tropes go through that; I'd play Conan if I wanted true genre emulation.

In the end though, it's a agree to disagree point.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, Dark Sun doesn't chop them, it just makes them non-core.

Core Dark Sun races:
Human (psionic variant)
Mul (Dwarven subrace)
Half Giant (replaces half orc)
Tri-Kreen

Non-core but still playable:
Elf (Arthas subrace)
Half Elf
Halfling (Arthas subrace)
Dwarf (Arthas subrace)
Yuan-Ti pureblood

Gnomes, Tieflings, Dragonborn are presented as non-core in the PHB, ergo they can be freely cut from the setting.


That's what Starfinder does too: it has all new core races (apart from human) but old races (elves, dwarves, etc) still exist in the setting and can be played with GM permission.

Neat rundown. I like how it also fits with how I would interpret Rem's view that D&D's core races need to be present for it to remain D&D. I didn't think the elves/dwarves/halflings need to be the focus, just present and available.

 

[devincutler]

The problem with adding all of this proposed material for new settings is that it will greatly contribute to what went wrong with 3e. Every time a race or class or subclass is added to 5e, the opportunity for things to get thrown out of balance expands geometrically, as you then have to reconcile the new material to all of the old material in all of the possible combinations.

This is especially true for classes and subclasses, given the propensity for multiclassing in 5e (I know it is optional, but most people use it). Because of multiclassing, in theory every single class combination should be evaluated for balance. This is less necessary for new races, since a PC can only be one race at a time.

My point in all of this is that WOTC needs to be extremely careful when adding new classes or subclasses for new settings. Whenever possible, they should simply reskin an existing class and MAYBE give a sidebar with an alternate class ability when absolutely necessary.

While some may point out that these new classes and subclasses would be exclusive to that setting, we all know this is not the case...once an official class or race or spell is released into the wild, it percolates throughout the game, and therefore, it needs to be balanced throughout the game. If a Blighter class were released for DS and a Solomnic Knight is released for DL, WOTC still needs to account for people playing a multiclassed Blighter/Solomnic Knight.

I hope that WOTC takes great care in releasing these settings and keeps new classes and subclasses to an absolute minimum. Instead, new creatures and faction are probably the best things to introduce, with races a close second.

 

[dwayne]

I would love a Greyhawk, Planescape, but right now a modern, future, apocalyptic, or gamma world too would be cool. I am really interested in a modern setting with magic mixed into it.