Wizards in a rough patch?

[WizarDru]

I've never understood this sentiment. I often buy setting books exactly for that, mining them for ideas and crunch.

As do I...to a point. But if I were inclined to purchase Dark Sun, it would be for the fluff more than the crunch. Some settings have crunch that is part and parcel to the setting, and to pull a piece of it out requires work that invalidates my purchasing a product to mine it for in the first place. That's not a problem, it's a personal preference of mine. I haven't picked up the Black Company sourcebook for that reason, though I prolly will get it because I love the setting and the stories.

 

[jcfiala]

In 2e, defilers were exactly like normal wizards, except they destroyed nearby vegetation (nearby in this case could mean up to 30 yards, depending on terrain and spell level, or even more if they cast many spells from the same place) and had a faster XP table (by the time a defiler was 20th level, a preserver (= normal wizard) was 17th or 18th). In my non-playtested writeup, I let them skip a few levels of spellcasting, so that at 17th level they had the same spell progression as a 20th level wizard.

Seems to me one way of doing this would be to give them Metamagic effects that they could trigger by burning nearby vegitation. Empower spell, enlarge spell, maximize spell - give them various power-enhancing effects at certain levels, and all they have to do is kill the world a little more to use them. I'd make these the Sudden variety - Bob the Defiler is going to cast Fireball, and decides to Maximize it. All the plants around him die, and the spell is maximized.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I've never understood this sentiment. I often buy setting books exactly for that, mining them for ideas and crunch.

While I agree, 90%, there are some settings that are very unminable. Dark Sun would be hard to pull stuff from for a normal campaign IMO.

 

[Vocenoctum]

AD&D 2E wasn't a fully integrated system like D&D 3.x. It was much easier to change even fundamental aspects without having negative results for other rule subsystems, which could stay the same as in basic 2E. Or look at balancing elements like different level progression tables; you cannot do that in 3.x, but you must find balanced abilities per class level that are similar between classes (or have level adjustment, which isn't necessarily the same).

AD&D also had no qualms of changing every thing in the quest to make a setting. DS had 5d4 for atts, started at third level and had so many other changes that it really WASN'T 2e, but something all togethor different in many cases.
So yeah, to capture that, in 3e it'd be totally different, like Midnight IMO. Dragon wasn't a full Dark Sun setting, it was "how to use Dark Sun in 3e", and I think it did a good job of it. Sure it didn't capture the entire setting, but it did a good job of introducing a usable setting for folks, IMO.

The last thing you can do is make the defiler stronger than the preserver and balance that out with roleplaying penalties. That's where the Dragon/Dungeon undead defiler comes into play.

I think a case could be made to make the Defilers sorcerers, and the Preservers wizards. Sorcerer's would cause damage, while wizards didn't, because of their careful preparation. A few metamagic feats that allowed more effect for more Defiling would be handy.

Sorcerer's can be "trained" rather than "inborn" with no real modifications.

I don't think Clerics would require much change truthfully, mostly just revising the spell lists.

I'd like to see the DS Druid though, they were fun.

The DS Bard is unneeded, Rogue does it fine. Poison Use would be easily gained, perhaps as a feat, but another class isn't needed for what the DS Bard does.
The core bard (and paladin) might fit or not, but they're easily removed.

 

[Ranger REG]

No, I don't. I just used them as example for design limitations that are intrinsic to 3.x because they are integrated into other rule systems. That's principally a good thing, but doesn't always allow for faithful replication of old designs.

Will having a singular universal XP table hinder replication of old classes?

 

[Turjan]

Will having a singular universal XP table hinder replication of old classes?

Yes, at least it hinders a true replication. There has to be some workaround in 3E, and the result will look different from the original. Of course, the 3E approach will be more balanced as far as hard mechanics go.

But anyway, I see that your overall opinion about Dark Sun hasn't changed much, if I look at one of your posts from a prior thread:

"Makes me wonder ... since I never got into Dark Sun in the 2nd Edition Era by TSR ... Was Dark Sun a published D&D setting, or was it a setting that radically deviated from their best-selling ruleset in the 1990's (IOW, a fantasy game with a false and misleading "D&D" label slapped on it)?"

I wouldn't put it that strongly. This depends pretty much on how you define D&D. If it's not D&D for you if it doesn't contain everything core D&D has to offer (like FR, Eberron or Greyhawk), you are right. Dark Sun isn't compatible with each and every concept from core D&D. That's why it doesn't look like one of the other kitchen sink approaches (disclaimer: I don't mind kitchen sink per se, but not for everything). The atmosphere of Dark Sun lives as much from what it contains as peculiarities as from what it does not contain. That's why even the author of the Dragon article, David Noonan himself, didn't like what the Dragon editor did with his write-up.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Yes, at least it hinders a true replication. There has to be some workaround in 3E, and the result will look different from the original. Of course, the 3E approach will be more balanced as far as hard mechanics go.

I don't think you need alternate XP charts. If you took characters of various XP costs, they would mostly be comparable at times. Even if they were slightly divergent in levels.

So, the slower advancing classes would just have slower advancing per levels, but be the same level.

 

[Ranger REG]

Yes, at least it hinders a true replication.

Because 3e's dramatic overhaul is no longer 2e, which is a refinement of 1e.

There has to be some workaround in 3E, and the result will look different from the original. Of course, the 3E approach will be more balanced as far as hard mechanics go.

So you want a less balanced ruleset for Dark Sun?

But anyway, I see that your overall opinion about Dark Sun hasn't changed much, if I look at one of your posts from a prior thread:

"Makes me wonder ... since I never got into Dark Sun in the 2nd Edition Era by TSR ... Was Dark Sun a published D&D setting, or was it a setting that radically deviated from their best-selling ruleset in the 1990's (IOW, a fantasy game with a false and misleading "D&D" label slapped on it)?"

I wouldn't put it that strongly. This depends pretty much on how you define D&D. If it's not D&D for you if it doesn't contain everything core D&D has to offer (like FR, Eberron or Greyhawk), you are right. Dark Sun isn't compatible with each and every concept from core D&D. That's why it doesn't look like one of the other kitchen sink approaches (disclaimer: I don't mind kitchen sink per se, but not for everything). The atmosphere of Dark Sun lives as much from what it contains as peculiarities as from what it does not contain. That's why even the author of the Dragon article, David Noonan himself, didn't like what the Dragon editor did with his write-up.

You're right, my definition of D&D would exclude Dark Sun.

Which is why I say, make it a d20 or OGL-based product. What's wrong with that?

 

[Turjan]

Dragon wasn't a full Dark Sun setting, it was "how to use Dark Sun in 3e", and I think it did a good job of it. Sure it didn't capture the entire setting, but it did a good job of introducing a usable setting for folks, IMO.

It was trying to put the kitchen sink approach back into Dark Sun. I think that's what most people didn't appreciate.

I think a case could be made to make the Defilers sorcerers, and the Preservers wizards. Sorcerer's would cause damage, while wizards didn't, because of their careful preparation. A few metamagic feats that allowed more effect for more Defiling would be handy.

That might well be. But it wouldn't allow for the concept that defilers and preservers can be easily mixed up. I'm not really sure whether so many different spellcasting classes are really needed. With all the psionics in the setting, it gets a bit much for my taste.

I don't think Clerics would require much change truthfully, mostly just revising the spell lists.

I'd like to see the DS Druid though, they were fun.

The DS Bard is unneeded, Rogue does it fine. Poison Use would be easily gained, perhaps as a feat, but another class isn't needed for what the DS Bard does.

Agreed. But look at the athas.org bard, which is quite okay.

The core bard (and paladin) might fit or not, but they're easily removed.

Core bards are not really needed, and the paladin just doesn't fit at all. Bard and sorcerer have the problem that they interfere with the whole defiler/preserver story. This is a main theme of DS, and it gets severely watered down with even more spellcasting classes everywhere.

I don't think you need alternate XP charts. If you took characters of various XP costs, they would mostly be comparable at times. Even if they were slightly divergent in levels.

So, the slower advancing classes would just have slower advancing per levels, but be the same level.

That's right, there are ways around the problem. It's just not exactly the same, which was my point. Most write-ups I saw make me ask myself why anyone would want to go the path of a defiler. It was supposed to be the easy way to more power

 

[Turjan]

So you want a less balanced ruleset for Dark Sun?

No, but I want an overhaul that fits the mood. The Realms are still the Realms, even after all the changes from 2E to 3E. Dark Sun should get a similarly sympathetic treatment. Actually, 3E has lots of tools to make that happen. I'm not against changes in DS; probably I would change even more than most proposals that float around, but not in a way that you could easily integrate the setting into the FR, like it happened in Dragon.

You're right, my definition of D&D would exclude Dark Sun.

Right, here we have different opinions. I don't see something outside of D&D just because a few core rules are taken out of the setting and a few specific ones are added. If we take your definition, quite a few of the 2E settings wouldn't be D&D. Neither Spelljammer nor Birthright would meet those conditions (with Birthright, even I have problems ), and I suppose it will be similar with other settings that I don't know.

Which is why I say, make it a d20 or OGL-based product. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. Except that this will not happen.