Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DammitVictor" data-source="post: 8323850" data-attributes="member: 6750908">Both. I don't have a problem with narrative changes to better suit modern sensibilities-- within reason; Dark Sun is supposed to be oppressive and portraying oppression isn't endorsing it-- but the themes of the setting and continuity with pre-existing lore are both very important to me, even if that pre-existing lore was the product of weird and no longer inapplicable constraints. These things give settings a delicious organic texture.Every class in 2e Dark Sun represented a fairly coherent type of thing. Clerics, Druids, and Templars were all Priests, but they were different kinds of Priest because they had different kinds of power source. Preservers and Defilers were diametrically opposed approaches to the same power source-- and I think the 4e rules for preserving and defiling were orders of magnitude better than the 2e rules. Honestly, I think Gladiators and Bards and Traders were wholly unnecessary, barely justifying design space, but something by those names needs to be included or people more commited than myself will riot.If a class exists in 5e Dark Sun, I believe it must represent a coherent type of thing on Athas. I'm okay with the Paladin/Warlock thing because narratively speaking, Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks all represent similar things with different powers. I'm less okay with Presevers being Wizards and Defilers being Sorcerers... mostly because I think it's clumsy, but also because I think the line between the two should be fragile, like in 4e.I loved Thri-Kreen in 4e. They've always been my favorite race, my first D&D purchase with my own money was Thri-Kreen of Athas, and on and on and the 4e implementation was really cool. The 4e implementation of Half-Giants and Dray was "just use these barely similar and completely unrelated races that already exist", and I'm over it, but it's also a big part of why I'm also over WotC and WotC D&D.Practically speaking, this is what I want from classes:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cleric: 4 (or 8) (Para)Elemental Domains. Modified spell list.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighter: Gladiator and psionic subclasses. EK uses Preserver/Defiler rules.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Monk: It's fine! Give it a psionic subclass, maybe restrict some of the non-core subclasses I've never looked at.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Paladin and Warlock: Templars, as I've discussed.  Modifying existing Paladin Oaths to fit the Dragon Kings is okay, but remember that "close enough" isn't close enough, and when it isn't close enough, the system budges.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rogue: Bard subclass. Maybe Trader subclass. Psionic subclasses. AT uses Preserver/Defiler rules.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ranger: Gets Element as free secondary subclass.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizard: Preserver/Defiler mechanics, Preserver/Defiler as secondary subclass with "falling" rules.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Barbarian and Druid: These classes are fine as-is. Restrict some subclasses and remove some spells from Druid list.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bard and Sorcerer: I don't see a way to use the 5e versions of these classes on Athas without massive, "why don't you just make a new class, sicko?" changes.</li> </ul>What I want from races is basically what you've already suggested: new subrace(s) for Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. All non-PHB races get an actual writeup based on their 2e lore. Add Genasi and Gith.</blockquote>

Verification