# So, Dark Sun:  It's officially out.  What do you think of it?



## Wik (Aug 18, 2010)

Seriously.  What are your thoughts/concerns about the new Dark Sun books?  Are you hype for dark sun still, or has your love kind of faded?  Did you come into it a classic dark sunner such as myself, or had you never played it before?

Really, I'm just curious what everyone thinks of the new setting.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 18, 2010)

It's exactly everything I was hoping for. Especially the creature book, which is excellently designed and one of the best monster books I own. The new mechanics, the decision to stick it to certain canon and other decisions they've made were excellent. This is probably the best of the three settings published for 4E by quite a distance.


----------



## Wik (Aug 18, 2010)

As for yours truly... I've only been skimming, but I've seen some cool things, and some lame things.  A few things that stuck out:

1)  At times, I seem to be misreading some rules.  The rituals section mentions that there's no longer a "religion" skill - am I reading that right?  In fact, a lot of the book seems to have some gaps that I can't figure out.  What is a "stout" weapon?  

2)  There seems to be some weird little glitches involving coinage, as if the game designers couldn't decide between "gp" and "cp".  Most of the game uses the gold piece standard, which makes sense in a broad situation, but not so much in athas.  I can live with it.  But there are some parts where prices are in 'cp' - I really don't think they meant that it costs only a couple coppers to pay a sorcerer king's levy.  Strange.

3)  The races.  The art for the muls is actually kind of cool, in a cartoony sort of way.  I never really imagined female muls could be attractive, but I'm finding I like it.  Muls with hair?  Not so much.  Why do all female muls still need hair?  But meh.  As for the other races - they're mostly okay.  And to answer an old argument here, the new Eladrins don't bug me that much as presented, but I still won't be using them.  I really had more of a problem with the new tieflings - they just don't feel right within the setting.  

4)  Wild Talents as an option is pretty cool.  Random Wild Talents is even cooler.  I grinned when I saw that.  Very nice touch.

5)  The atlas part of the book seems really well done, so far.  The maps look halfway decent, and there's a lot of good stuff in there.  I really like how they focused on making each city take up a good chunk of page space - they really should be the focal point of almost any dark sun campaign.  The "Cities at a glance" sidebar was pretty nice.  Also, dividing the map up into regions as they did was a great way to organize the text.  A lot of the new locations (at least, I've never heard of them) were pretty imaginative, and seamlessly mixed in with old gems.  

6)  Themes look alright, though the recycled art for a couple of them bugged me.  Especially the athasian minstrel - I really don't see athasian minstrels as happy go lucky musicians, but more of the dark poisoners and political fiends that they were in 2e.  I think they presented that theme in the wrong way, but whatever.  Most of the themes had a pretty good fit.

7)  Templars as arcane casters is suprisingly a good touch, that reinforces some of the campaign themes.  I approve.  Didn't think I would, but turns out that I do.  

8)  Monsters are generally pretty cool.  Silt Horror is especially nice, and I really like the "personages of athas" chapter - a nice touch.  I have to wonder about a few of the choices thrown in, but that's to be expected.  Tareks as an orc analog is a surprisingly good choice.  The art for the kirre (one of my favourite 2e Dark Sun monsters, for the simple reason that it was in the Monstrous Manual and not the unavailable to me at the time Dark Sun MM) absolutely blows - it just looks goofy.  While I'm on the subject of monsters - why were gnolls thrown in as one of the monstrous races?  Is there any particular reason?  I'm not necessarily appalled at it, but it just seems like they were put in because wotc has been really big on using gnolls over the last few years. 

9)  So far, the feywild looks like it could have been handled a lot worse.  Renaming it was a step in the right direction, I have to say.  I still see no reason for it to be there except as a means to put in "fey" creatures and I won't be using it in my campaign, but they could have done a lot worse.  

10)  Kalidnay.  Not sure whether I think it's suddenly gone up about ten points on the awesome scale, or dropped ten points on the awesome scale.  Really have to think on that one.  

11)  The "adventures in Athas" part was good - I really like how they have sample adventure ideas in there.  The skill challenges, just from a cursory glance, make sense, though I wish they wouldn't throw skill challenges in books, as I use the (MUCH BETTER) Obsidian system which just makes WotC's SC's a waste of space.  Still, I can't really complain with how they were set up.

12)  And finally... is it just me, or does it feel like the tone of the game isn't quite right?  It still seems like the PCs are "heroes" and really feels like it's a lot less gritty than it should be.  I realize tone is kind of ephemeral, but from the way the book reads, the tone doesn't seem necessarily right.  Mind you, I've really only been skimming so far, so maybe it's just a bad first impression.


----------



## Wik (Aug 18, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> It's exactly everything I was hoping for. Especially the creature book, which is excellently designed and one of the best monster books I own. The new mechanics, the decision to stick it to certain canon and other decisions they've made were excellent. This is probably the best of the three settings published for 4E by quite a distance.




I have to admit, I didn't really look at the mechanics for the creatures quite yet, but I know I generally agree with you when it comes to monsters mechanics, so this is a good sign.  

Some of "canon sticking it" parts bug me, but other ones (particularly arcane templars) really agree with me.  

And I fully agree that this Dark Sun is the best setting released yet.  But that's kind of a loaded question, since I would never run a Forgotten Realms campaign (I'd play it, mind you), and I really don't like Eberron as presented (when I modify it, it's pretty cool, though).


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 18, 2010)

> There seems to be some weird little glitches involving coinage, as if  the game designers couldn't decide between "gp" and "cp".  Most of the  game uses the gold piece standard, which makes sense in a broad  situation, but not so much in athas.  I can live with it.  But there are  some parts where prices are in 'cp' - I really don't think they meant  that it costs only a couple coppers to pay a sorcerer king's levy.   Strange.



cp refers to ceramic pieces, not copper pieces at least what I recall. I do know that ceramic is mentioned.

Stout weapons are a definition from the errata recently:



> A weapon that has the stout property can be treated as a two-handed weapon.




That's all it means.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Aug 18, 2010)

First, I admit, I'm not a Dark Sun fan. It was my least favorite setting, and not much has changed after a cursory read through (for instance, I still think Eberron is the best 4E book yet published).

I will say the monster book is excellent, and I really think the authors are becoming more adept at 4E monster design. 

Re: Stout. Stout weapons are 2 handed weapons that can be used one handed. AFAIK, every stout weapon has been a double-XXXX type of weapon (double sword, etc).


----------



## Wik (Aug 18, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> cp refers to ceramic pieces, not copper pieces.




Yup.  But at other times, they use "gp".  And while I've only skimmed, I haven't seem a reference to that effect.  It's kind of a moot point with me, since I hate the 4e economy rule anyway and will be rewriting the gear costs.  Just kind of a curious slip, as if there were two thoughts on the subject and both camps got their way in the final product.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Aug 18, 2010)

Re: GP vs. CP.

My quick skimming of the economy section basically explained that Ceramic Pieces were issued by the Dragon Kings as a means of economic control, but once you got outside the city GPs were widely used instead.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 18, 2010)

Wik said:


> And I fully agree that this Dark Sun is the best setting released yet.  But that's kind of a loaded question, since I would never run a Forgotten Realms campaign (I'd play it, mind you), and I really don't like Eberron as presented (when I modify it, it's pretty cool, though).



I don't care much for FR anymore (bad blood from the edition wars on the official boards), but Eberron I think is really great and I also like the PoL "default" setting in many ways. So Dark Sun more or less taking over Eberron as my 4E setting of choice is quite an accomplishment.


----------



## Wik (Aug 18, 2010)

Mr. Wilson said:


> Re: GP vs. CP.
> 
> My quick skimming of the economy section basically explained that Ceramic Pieces were issued by the Dragon Kings as a means of economic control, but once you got outside the city GPs were widely used instead.




Haven't got there yet.  Where is all this gold coming from?  

Like I said, it's not a big deal, and I can understand why they did it.  It's a VERY easy problem to fix in my own campaigns.


----------



## Knightfall (Aug 18, 2010)

Mr. Wilson said:


> Re: GP vs. CP.
> 
> My quick skimming of the economy section basically explained that Ceramic Pieces were issued by the Dragon Kings as a means of economic control, but once you got outside the city GPs were widely used instead.



Pfft.


----------



## Wik (Aug 18, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I don't care much for FR anymore (bad blood from the edition wars on the official boards), but Eberron I think is really great and I also like the PoL "default" setting in many ways. So Dark Sun more or less taking over Eberron as my 4E setting of choice is quite an accomplishment.




FR was never my setting of choice, but I do like the 1e products.  And Eberron as written is alright, but it didn't go far enough for me.  When I run it, I put my modern history degree to good use, and really go to town with trade unions, spies, and all that fun stuff.  My version of Eberron is a lot cooler than the "core" eberron.   

the PoL default is not my thing, except for the Astral Sea, which is awesome - and was my "setting of choice" until earlier today when I bought the DS books.  

But yeah, Dark Sun would easily win as setting of choice for me.  Until Gamma World 4e comes out, there's no danger of any setting supplanting it, and even then, it's going to be a close call.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 18, 2010)

I think it's ridiculous it's not out in Australia yet, despite there being a Game Day (for which I have the Dark Sun adventure) on this Saturday.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 18, 2010)

My big question: Does it feel like Dark Sun to you? 

Cheers!


----------



## Scribble (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm Hype still! 

I never read a game book straight through, so I'm still skipping around from section to section of the book, but so far so awesome. 

I was never actually a huge DS fan in 2e. I was kind of stuck in the "All Tolkien All The Time!!!" Mindset back then, so DS really rubbed me the wrong way. 

(I also disliked the fact that it kind of negated a whole ton of material I owned...)

Over the years my love of post apocalyptic "Points of Light" style settings grew (starting with Scarred Lands) and now I'm really digging DS.




			
				Wik said:
			
		

> 1) At times, I seem to be misreading some rules. The rituals section mentions that there's no longer a "religion" skill - am I reading that right?




Don't think you are actually. It says there are no rituals utilizing the religion skill (because there are no divine classes.)

They also say if you want to include one it's probably better to have it be based on an arcane check instead. (With no gods or religions, probably no one will be trained in religion.)




> 2) There seems to be some weird little glitches involving coinage, as if the game designers couldn't decide between "gp" and "cp". Most of the game uses the gold piece standard, which makes sense in a broad situation, but not so much in athas. I can live with it. But there are some parts where prices are in 'cp' - I really don't think they meant that it costs only a couple coppers to pay a sorcerer king's levy. Strange.




The book uses the standard coin names, but indicates  Athas uses Ceramic Pieces that correspond to the worth of the standard D&D coinage.

So the book will say a sword costs say 10 Gold Pieces, but on Athas that's actually 10 Ceramic.

Sorcerer Kings back the ceramic with real gold. (Kind of like the US Dollar used to be way back in the day.)

Yes, the Sorcerer King's Levy costs what would be the equivalent of 2 copper pieces.

Sure it sounds cheap, but it's just the cost to enter a city- It's like a bridge toll.  



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> My big question: Does it feel like Dark Sun to you?




Well, as I said I wasn't a huge fan, but from what little I did play in the setting, and from reading the material over again before this edition came out, it does to me...

Obviously it's not an exact match, since the editions are different, but it feels like they got the overall world tone right.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm loving it so far.  It's faithful to the setting in all the places it's important to me, and when it breaks from tradition, it does so in a pretty classy way.

I've mostly focused on the mechanics so far, and I think they're innovative and awesome. 

The one thing I wished for was more racial feats - especially racial feats for Athasian Dwarves, Elves, etc.  They're different enough from core that IMO it would have helped a lot with their characterization.  Maybe add in a Focus feat or two for Dwarves, some Running stuff for Elves, etc.

-O


----------



## Stumblewyk (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm happy so far.  I haven't read the book cover-to-cover yet (that's what my 1 hour lunch breaks are for this week), but I'm happy.  I'm making a few (minor, in my eyes) tweaks to meet my preferred _flavor_, but it's a solid addition, and it'll mark the first official "canned" campaign setting that I'm running since Ravenloft in 2e.


----------



## dangerous jack (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm just about halfway through the Creature Catalog (not in page order though), but there are some really inspired monsters in there.  The Eladrin (simple but evocative), Silt Horror (tentacles, woo-hoo), Wight Thrall (passing on their strength), Dune Runner Wight (running curse), Oath Wight (aka Dwarven Banshee), and Thrask (serious blood-drinker) have already jumped out at me as needing to be used.


----------



## jaycrockett (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm loving it, but probably just because I loved the original version.  I've gotten my old stuff out and am going through it as much as the new stuff.

Still I think they did an admirable job in general.  Themes are a great way to pull in some Dark Sun concepts without putting out a ton of new classes.


----------



## webrunner (Aug 18, 2010)

I dunno, the sun seems kind of too dark to me, i can't even see if i'm wearing my shades.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 18, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> It's exactly everything I was hoping for. Especially the creature book, which is excellently designed and one of the best monster books I own. The new mechanics, the decision to stick it to certain canon and other decisions they've made were excellent. This is probably the best of the three settings published for 4E by quite a distance.




I don't know about BEST...Eberron is pretty freaking great.  It's just not the new hotness anymore.  

But yeah, the Creature Catalog is great (I LOVE the idea of putting in hazards, traps and exotic terrain in that book...they should do that for the Monster Vaults from now on).

Themes are the best new mechanic to be introduced to 4e by far though.  I want them for Eberron, like, yesterday.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 18, 2010)

Loving it so far. My Tuesday Night group (by request) just started hashing out ideas and characters to re-start our campaign in the setting next week. Our paragon characters in the main campaign are now on reserve for those very rare weekend games.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Aug 18, 2010)

Wik said:


> 10)  Kalidnay.  Not sure whether I think it's suddenly gone up about ten points on the awesome scale, or dropped ten points on the awesome scale.  Really have to think on that one.




  I'm not a _Dark Sun_ fan, but Kalidnay has connections to _Ravenloft_, which I *am *a die-hard fan of. What have they done with it?


----------



## Nork (Aug 18, 2010)

Overall I think it is an OK book for a great setting.

I'd say that it is worth buying, but I wouldn't use it as an example of how a campaign book should be.

1) It was too short.  Honestly, deep down, I'm seriously unhappy that  the Eberron Campaign Guide got 63 more pages.  This isn't purely a "but  they got more" reaction (although a small part of it is), but that the  book on its own merits was too short... by about 60 pages.   Especially since it was a  player's guide + campaign guide combo sharing its page space.  If they  had added 60 pages, every city could have had an entry as long as Tyr's  entry, and still had 35 pages left over.  It didn't feel satisfying, and  was a HUGE knock against the book in my opinion.  HUGE.  Bad enough  that if Wizards does it again, I'll badmouth their campaign settings as  being "too short" in general conversation about the D&D line.  They  very seriously crossed a line with the page count and content.

Rolling the Campaign Guide and Player's Guide into one book was fine.  Adding the page count of a Campaign Guide and a Player's Guide together and dividing by two was an awful formula to arrive at a page count.

Honestly, if I even suspect that they were holding out text content to use for DDI articles, I'm going to seriously unhappy with the company.

2) Honestly, deep down, I'm not happy that DDI articles are  showing up with what are some really nice pieces of art that I think  are clearly better than some of the art pieces that did make it into the  book.  It also makes me feel like they short changed me on purpose.

3) The Dray work pretty well, I'd even consider playing one.  This is in the context me of having a huge dislike for Dragonborn.

The Eladrin are fine, and they fit into the setting well as presented.

The Tiefling seem like a ham-fisted shoe-horning that needed more work,  especially since divine/infernal beings inherently beg questions that  does the setting no favors.  

I totally support the use of Goliath mechanics since large creatures are  a menace, but frankly, they did more than use Goliath mechanics, they  completely replaced half-giants with Goliaths, right down to the  artwork.  It wasn't a re-skinning, because, they literally did not  re-skin them.  

I also think they cut too far and too lazily on Thri-Kreens.  Their "the  greatest enemy of a centaur is a ladder, so we made them humans in bug  suits" argument holds no water with me.  Thri-kreen worked in the  original setting, and frankly, I don't think anyone has difficulty  imagining a slightly downsized thri-kreen getting up a ladder, or into  whatever spaces that a traditional adventure would take players.

4) All the rules were fine.  The defiling, the wild talents, the  breakable weapons, the alternate advancement, the "gp worth of favors"  system, all looks like it will work well enough.  

The "gold is the standard outside the cities" is pretty lame though.   They should have said "barter" is the standard outside the cities.   Especially when they go and have a section on Walis and mention how  little gold actually gets mined there.

5) I think themes are a really good thing. Too many  players need some sort of "permission by rules" to add 'character' to  their characters, and one of the major complaints that I've seen leveled  against D&D is that characters are just a "race and class combo".   The major validity of that complaint rests on can vs will.  People can make their characters interesting, but too often they will just roll a halfing rogue with no background and call it a character.   I think having  people selecting a race, class, theme combo will help address those  complaints, as a halfling rogue pirate or a halfling rogue merchant is more palatable.

6) I really REALLY liked that each city got a map.  Best part of the  book.  That being said, the Tyr map was a let down.  It is all sorts of  out of proportion compared to the other city maps.  Which is  exceptionally disappointing for the city that most adventures will be  happening it.  

7) The map of the Tyr Region on the other hand is excellent.  The  addition of a lot more features and points of interest really makes it a  better tool and prop.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 18, 2010)

webrunner said:


> I dunno, the sun seems kind of too dark to me, i can't even see if i'm wearing my shades.




Hey, Piratecat changed my Penny Arcade comic into a link because it has profanity? What's up with THAT?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 18, 2010)

I am very satisfied with the CS, though Amazon has not been kind enough to send me the adventure or the creature book yet. 

Overall, I think there was the right amount of both crunch and fluff, and they really made the cosmology fit well with 4E, and it makes mroe sense than it did in 2E, where it seemed very contrived. 

Also, good job fitting in as many races as possible, and giving sidebars for a player who MUST play a gnome or whatnot. 

As for more history, yes, it would have been nice, but there is enough there to run games, and I'm sure DDI will fill in the gaps for most 4E players. 

But then again, I knew the 2E setting pretty well, so I have most of the background.

I am very happy with where they set the timeline also. Just after Tyr is freed is the best time. 

The only thing I would have preferred to see was a bit more on the wastes. The focus is on the cities, which is fine, but the wastes could have used a bit more fleshing out. 

Still It is an A job.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 18, 2010)

OK, reading more...  Seriously WotC??!?!  MORE "page xx" errors?  I mean, you _have _to have at least one editor on-staff, right?

-O


----------



## hvg3akaek (Aug 19, 2010)

Obryn said:


> OK, reading more...  Seriously WotC??!?!  MORE "page xx" errors?  I mean, you _have _to have at least one editor on-staff, right?
> 
> -O




yeah, that's pretty poor.  And it's nothing that a "search [xx]" wouldn't have found!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 19, 2010)

Nork said:


> I totally support the use of Goliath mechanics since large creatures are  a menace, but frankly, they did more than use Goliath mechanics, they  completely replaced half-giants with Goliaths, right down to the  artwork.  It wasn't a re-skinning, because, they literally did not  re-skin them.



I completely did not think they would use Goliath art for half-giants. Really baffled me. Makes me think they believe Dark Sun customers would be too stupid to figure out what they did with regard to goliath mechanics with half-giant art.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 19, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> I'm not a _Dark Sun_ fan, but Kalidnay has connections to _Ravenloft_, which I *am *a die-hard fan of. What have they done with it?




Its only a couple of paragraphs, but it keeps the gist of the original story (the details are purposefully left vague).  Kalidnay is now a shadowy, undead infested ruin, but a version of the city exists in the Gray (the Shadowfell), so its presumably a Domain of Dread and the Mists still draw travelers into it.  The biggest change seems to be that Kalid-Ma and Thanok-An were married and the section offers a couple of possibilities as to why the city was drawn into the Gray, which I guess deviates from the official 2e DS/RL setting canon.


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 19, 2010)

I really enjoy the books, but I think if I was new to the setting that the DM part would be too short for me. And, the art is ok to good, but it needs to be grittier to evoke the world more. I really like the books, but something is lacking in the DM section for me.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 19, 2010)

I've read through and reviewed both books.  It feels like Dark Sun to me.


----------



## MerricB (Aug 19, 2010)

Crothian said:


> I've read through and reviewed both books.  It feels like Dark Sun to me.




Good to hear. 

Cheers!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 19, 2010)

Wik said:


> Really, I'm just curious what everyone thinks of the new setting.



I was never a big fan of Athas.  Of course, I was never that enthused about published settings, in general. That I don't care for psionics, either, doesn't help.  I'm familiar with it from the early version, when they made quite a push in Dragon Magazine, including Athasean items/critters/fiction/etc.  I did play in a non-D&D game using the setting, which didn't suck.  

For the new version, my exposure is limitted to a few sessions of D&D Encounters.  It's not bad, but there are some vague inconsistencies.  Like, why is metal rare on an extremely arrid magically-lifeless desert world?  You'd think wood would be the rare thing.  

The Psionic classes are not as bad as prior eds, but deviate pointlessly (if slightly) from the standard at-will/encounter/daily progression.  Instead of dailies, psis get encounter-resource 'power points.'  Whatever.

The psion in Encounters is really underwhelming, the battlemind OK, and the Ardent actually a pretty good Leader.  Again, from limitted experience.


----------



## Siberys (Aug 19, 2010)

I'm digging it. Not my favorite - Eberron still holds that honor - but it's a VERY close second. I totally want to run a Dune-esque political intrigue/kanly type game. Athasian Minstrels were MADE for it. I'm fairly certain literally, too.

The only thing I'm disappointed about is the picture of the Mekillot. It looks really... dumb, I guess. 2e Mekillot was cooler, IMO. Big armored horned chameleon-thing > giant lizard-lump. :/


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 19, 2010)

I actually got this stuff. It has me interested in 4e now. I think they did a very good job.

I like the Campaign Setting being sparse. After all, you only need enough to give the feel and then the DM should do the rest anyway. I don't want them to tell me too much, because then I'm constrained.

I'd have preferred if they left Kalak alive to be taken out by the PCs. That would have been more interesting.

They also didn't give stats for Tithian or whatever his name is. The King of Tyr. He's just a mortal schlub... of course you need his stats! If the PCs want to take over a city-state, well, here's iron-rich Tyr with its huge ziggurat and everything controlled by a creampuff; why go over to Nibenay and jack with that hero-stomping half-dragon sorcerer king when you could just lay this local clod out with your bronto-bone truncheon and call it a day?

Unless it assumes that King Tithian is actually nice and the nice old PCs won't want to take him out. Wrong-o. That is very un-Dark Sun.

In general, though, it seems full of awesome and win. The creature book seems to rock, although I'm not in a position to critique 4e mathematics.

Oh, Marauders of the Dune Sea is pretty stupid. It amazes me that WOTC, owners of Dungeons and Dragons, and having access to both a budget _and the internet_, is unable to find anybody who can actually right a coherent adventure. It's pathetic, really.

Overall, I had to reward WOTC with my custom for actually publishing Dark Sun. It's not that tired old "generic fantasy" stuff, not even with a twist. It draws on the rich traditions of sword and sorcery and sword and planet. It is a worthy setting and I think that overall WOTC appears to have done a worthy job with it.


----------



## AntlerDruid (Aug 19, 2010)

I have all the Dark Sun books now too.

I think they did a fantastic job with the Campaign book.

The new Wild Talents are just awesome....they should have been given to the Psion as class powers in the first place.

The new Themes - wow! Love them! Glad to see they will be making themes core too. My favorites are Templar, Noble Adept and Veiled Alliance.

I think the new Battlemind build is more exciting then the ones they had in PHB3 and Psionic Power.

While many forum posters are saying the new Pact is kinda weak, I still like it. I also think the new Warlock powers are very cool.

I also like the art - definitely to me the best art they have had in one of the hardcover books while Psionic Power had the worst.


Only thing missing for me is I would have liked to see some psionic powers that are devoted to survival/travel/wilderness.


----------



## Stormtalon (Aug 19, 2010)

Love the setting, but then again, I'm a long-time fan of it.  Couple of quibbles -- I *hate* *hate* *hate* some of the Thri-kreen art: back cover of the CS, p23 at the race entry itself -- no no no no no no NO!  p33 (Thri-kreen reaver) is better, p60 (Guardian of the land) even better & p73 (Sand reaver) best of all.  Can you tell I'm a big fan of the bugs?  

Sorry, got off on a bit of a rant, there.  I'm better, now.  The system backing for the world is solid, the alternate rewards and fixed enhancment bonus progression both rock (and I'm hoping the latter is an easy toggle in the Character Builder soon), and all the class options are solid and flavorful.

Did I mention that some of the thri-kreen art pieces truly _suck_?


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 19, 2010)

Creature Catalogue is 7 shades of awesome. Maybe a couple of bad art pieces, but that's about it.

Campaign Guide was really good as well. Felt like DS - definitely, and the crunchy parts are top notch. 

I wouldn't have minded a couple or 50 more pages of fluff, but this will definitely do and let me make my own Dark Sun.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 19, 2010)

Askanipsion said:


> While many forum posters are saying the new Pact is kinda weak, I still like it. I also think the new Warlock powers are very cool.
> .




Well, I do not mind it at all. A 1st level Dark Sun warlock can do insane damage. 

I also like the new Shaman build. The creature disappearing a lot is a cool effect. 

The Arena fighter one can get insane by late paragon, when you have a high-crit(axe) At-will on an OA(Heavy Blade) damage on a miss(hammer) toothpick or some such. 

What weapon group is a toothpick again.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 19, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> Oh, Marauders of the Dune Sea is pretty stupid. It amazes me that WOTC, owners of Dungeons and Dragons, and having access to both a budget _and the internet_, is unable to find anybody who can actually right a coherent adventure. It's pathetic, really.



_Seriously._

I guess I'll use the poster map at some point, and maybe that ruin would work if I'm starved for ideas some night, but this is one of the worst adventures WotC's put out to date.  It's surprising, given that they've really been on an upswing, of late.  (Vor Rukoth, for example, is one of the best sandbox adventures I've seen in a while.)

But no.  Much like H3 and P3 it's another "Hey, guys, here's encounters in a line!" adventure.  The Free RPG Day adventure is much, much better.

On the plus side, I dangled the campaign setting in front of my players tonight during our high-paragon game.  My players were sold almost immediately - even the guy who had some bad experiences with Dark Sun in 2e.  We're going to get to a good pausing point, play some Paranoia as a palate cleanser, and then dive into some character-driven, personally-scribed Dark Sun fun.

-O


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 19, 2010)

Can someone describe Marauders to me? I haven't had time to read it as I've been digesting so many other things and writing for my other three games.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 19, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Can someone describe Marauders to me? I haven't had time to read it as I've been digesting so many other things and writing for my other three games.



[sblock]Get a quest to find a magic macguffin which is one part of a three-part magic macguffin before the adventure begins.  Get randomly beat down in an encounter unrelated to anything else that's going on as a setup for ... the adventure conclusions sidebar.  Trek through the desert in a series of set encounters and a skill challenge or so.  Go through a long and completely linear dungeon, which btw has running water and mostly kill hej-kin.  Find the magic doodad.  Face more encounters when you leave.  The end.  And everything is condensed way down, with hardly any narrative or exploration or anything, so they were pushing the page limit despite there being probably a half-dozen totally unnecessary encounters.

The only halfway clever part is that you meet another party of adventurers looking for the same mcguffin.
[/sblock]

It's generic and almost completely lacks Dark Sun flavor.

-O


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 19, 2010)

ArcaneSpringboard said:


> I don't know about BEST...Eberron is pretty freaking great.  It's just not the new hotness anymore.




It's not really about being new to me, but just how I can use the setting and the concept of "Can I make this feel really different to any other campaign I've run?". Eberron I feel has a distinct flavor and uniqueness to it. Dark Sun does as well. Something like FR I don't really get that same feeling from, which is why when I made the decision about running my third game I went with the default Point of Light setting over Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 19, 2010)

Obryn said:


> [sblock]Get a quest to find a magic macguffin which is one part of a three-part magic macguffin before the adventure begins.  Get randomly beat down in an encounter unrelated to anything else that's going on as a setup for ... the adventure conclusions sidebar.  Trek through the desert in a series of set encounters and a skill challenge or so.  Go through a long and completely linear dungeon, which btw has running water and mostly kill hej-kin.  Find the magic doodad.  Face more encounters when you leave.  The end.  And everything is condensed way down, with hardly any narrative or exploration or anything, so they were pushing the page limit despite there being probably a half-dozen totally unnecessary encounters.
> 
> The only halfway clever part is that you meet another party of adventurers looking for the same mcguffin.
> [/sblock]
> ...




I like how one of the main adventure hooks is a note calling on all adventurers or whatever... on Athas, where most people can't read.


----------



## Thrael (Aug 19, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> The Arena fighter one can get insane by late paragon, when you have a high-crit(axe) At-will on an OA(Heavy Blade) damage on a miss(hammer) toothpick or some such.




How so? By RAW you can just share +attack and +damage feats with your other arena weapon (which is kinda sad, it won't let you use your expanded crit range feat for the other so it is best to still use the same category for both). Unless you're house-ruling a single weapon to be an axe, blade and hammer in which case it didn't need an Arena Fighter to begin with. Improvised weapons don't belong to any group (PHB1).

Arena Battle Rhythm is probably the best feature. This build is for a perfect Str/Dex Two-Weapon Fighter.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 19, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> I like how one of the main adventure hooks is a note calling on all adventurers or whatever... on Athas, where most people can't read.



Maybe that's a change demanded by 4e, if you use 4e then everyone now is literate. Sort of like how 4e requires half-giants to change skin color to have stripes.


----------



## OchreJelly (Aug 19, 2010)

It's addressed in the CS that most of the uneducated populace of Athas is illiterate.  The setting assumes that player characters are the exception to this rule and provide backstory examples as to why your character may be literate.  They also stress that if you want your Mul, or half-giant half-wit to be illiterate, then more power to you!


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Aug 19, 2010)

I've been coordinating and running a table for the D&D Encounters Dark Sun adventure.

The Encounters format and this adventure in particular leave a lot to be desired. But in my opinion the new mechanics, the races and classes (and themes), and the setting descriptions have done a great job. 

The game feels like a blasted world where survival is a challenge even when you aren't being chased by a powerful primal shaman and his hirelings or captured by a tribe of evil hobbits that plan to eat you.

The Campaign Setting Book feels about 75% done:


There are "page [xx]" typos. Simply inexcusable from a major publisher. Michele Carter, Greg Bilsland, M. Alexander Jurkat, Ray Vallese, and Kim Mohan (the credited editors) should be ashamed and embarrassed when even one of these gets through.
A lot of the little incidental art scattered through later chapters is just plain bad. Also, no one knows how to illustrate thri-kreen.
There are waaay too many small portraits of characters doing stuff throughout the rest of the book. There is not enough world building, setting defining medium-sized (like half-page or so) pieces. Which leads to:
The book feels very light on art, especially in later chapters like "Atlas of Athas" which contributes to the next point:
It feels short. The original Dark Sun had something like a dozen books and boxed sets released with three years of its release full of stuff to draw from. I expected more detail about everything: only four new rituals? the entirety of the forest ridge gets two pages? twenty pages of advice to DMs?
But a lot is really good:


It has the polished layout we expect from 4E at this point.
Though the art is a mixed bag, there is some really good stuff here. The splash page art at the beginning of chapters  is mostly really good. The portraits in the Races and Themes chapters  are mostly good. I love the city maps.
I love the pictures on p139 and p183. I wish they were larger and there were more like them.
I love the themes, muls and thri-kreen. They have "felt right" the ten sessions I've played with them. I don't have a problem with goliaths being plopped in for half-giants. In fact, I am likely to retcon goliaths in my games in other worlds as being descended from half-giants from Athas.
The few pages for DMs are pretty well done. The adventure looks lame, though.
The new mechanics unique to Dark Sun are just right. I like survival days, sun sickness, and weapon breakage.
So, I'd say WotC has succeeded in bringing Dark Sun to 4E.

It's a strong setting despite some failures in execution and presentation. Players will enjoy creating and running unique characters. DMs will enjoy new and unique ways to kill those players.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Aug 19, 2010)

$40 MSRP, though. Dang. Plus $20 for the Creature Guide. That is a lot of money, IMO. 

Amazon has them discounted to about $40 combined, which helps my pocket  book if not my FLGS. It amazes me that WotC lets anyone sell their brand new premier releases at a 33% discount the first week they are available for sale. 


All three items should have been packaged together as a $30 boxed set.  Maybe $40 if they came with a few of the Athas dungeon tiles. (They  could leave out the "3d" tiles. Please.) 

Though then Dark Sun might have  felt slighted compared to Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Still, I think I  would have preferred it. 

And packing more goodies in means more sales for retailers and (I would think) more money for WotC than players just waiting for everything showing up in DDI for their $6/month.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Aug 19, 2010)

Final thought:

Hairless male dwarves but hairy dwarven women, goliaths as half-giant stand-ins, feral evil hobbits...

But no gnomes?!

WotC needs to bring some gnome lovers in house and rectify this situation asap. Combined with the lack of gnomes in Essentials, they have finally gone too far!

Gnome lovers, we must not stand for this!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 19, 2010)

You need to come up with a better rallying cry than 'gnome lovers,' but, yeah, I'm with you.  The gnome has always been a cool but under-apreciated race.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Aug 19, 2010)

It's Athas.  Gnomes are *dead*.

This is coming from a "gnome lover", mind you.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 20, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> $40 MSRP, though. Dang. Plus $20 for the Creature Guide. That is a lot of money, IMO.




Yeah.  I got the Dark Sun guide, Psionic Power, the Dresden Files world book, and The Scarlet Empress Returns for Exalted, all in one trip.

$152.

Ow.

The clerk at Dream Wizards, though, looked happy as a clam, especially when my friend then spent his $123.

Brad


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 20, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> I like how one of the main adventure hooks is a note calling on all adventurers or whatever... on Athas, where most people can't read.




I can't help but think that I'd use this hook as a trap...  Someone is hunting illegal literates, and this is how he lures them in.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 20, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> Gnome lovers, we must not stand for this!





Looks like the sorcerer kings missed a few gnome lovers, even if they got all the gnomes.


----------



## Stormtalon (Aug 20, 2010)

Looking more at the DSCG, I'm very, very tempted to make a Thri-Kreen Bloodbond Seeker, using chatchkas for fun and mayhem....

A quick reflavor of some of the powers and I'll have a mobile, desert-prowling controller of DOOM!


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Aug 20, 2010)

Never knew much about DS until now (I've always been a PS fan), but I'm totally psyched to play a dray usually-preserver sorcerer with a southern drawl. One of my group members is a DS fan and has promised to run it for us...sometime in the next few months. I only have one comment...

DS falls right in with most D&D settings with regards to tacky names. C'mon, mul? Thri-kreen? Are ya kidding me? Well, it is D&D after all.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Aug 20, 2010)

as I recall it Thri-kreen predate dark sun as monsters. 
Mul as a name for a sterile half-breed makes sense especially iirc and they were largely slaves so being disparaging suits.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2010)

Mad Hamish said:


> as I recall it Thri-kreen predate dark sun as monsters.



Indeed they do.

Monster Manual II for AD&D (1e) to be precise!  And perhaps in an adventure even before then, though I couldn't tell you which one.

Although they hadn't gotten their names yet, they have chatkchas ("throwing wedges") and gythkas (just called "polearms" with a note about them working as glaives and spears).  Also, they had an established taste for elves even back then.

-O


----------



## Ahrimon (Aug 20, 2010)

Mr. Wilson said:


> Re: GP vs. CP.
> 
> My quick skimming of the economy section basically explained that Ceramic Pieces were issued by the Dragon Kings as a means of economic control, but once you got outside the city GPs were widely used instead.




I"m just going to run it as everything is cermic peices.  They're just colored differeantly and with differant stamps on them.  Copper peices, silver peices and gold peices are just differant color stains in the glazing process.  =)


----------



## Troy70 (Aug 20, 2010)

I think WOTC did a great job with Dark Sun.

Love the art work.

Too bad that the CB will not get updated with DS until Sept 21st.

I never got to play in 2ed Dark Sun.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 20, 2010)

For those familiar with the previous Dark Sun 2nd Ed stuff, how far on is the history of the setting?

Can you adapt earlier adventures? Seems this is set post "Freedom" adventure but what about the other published adventures for the setting?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 20, 2010)

Ahrimon said:


> I"m just going to run it as everything is cermic peices.  They're just colored differeantly and with differant stamps on them.  Copper peices, silver peices and gold peices are just differant color stains in the glazing process.  =)




Thats kind of how they explain it in the book too.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 20, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> For those familiar with the previous Dark Sun 2nd Ed stuff, how far on is the history of the setting?




It's pretty much the same as in previous editions, but they don't go into much depth; it's largely confined to a single sidebar in the CS, the Dragon of Tyr entry in the Creature Companion, and a few smatterings of lore scattered throughout both books.  I don't believe they mention the Blue Age at all, as well as what caused the transition from the Blue Age to the Green Age, they only allude to the halfling's previous dominance, and Rajaat's ultimate motivation for the Cleansing Wars is not explored.  The biggest change to the setting history would be the addition of the Dawn War; during that time, the primordials vanquished the gods, which introduced the flaw in magic that would lead to defiling, ushering in the Red Age (I don't have the CS in front of me, so I may be misquoting specifics or jumbling the exact timeline).


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 20, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> Gnome lovers, we must not stand for this!



The gnomes are already standing, I think--it's kind of hard to tell.


Some questions:
Is walking around in broad daylight painful? 

Are there rules for environmental hazards? 

And what percentage of the monsters are psionic?


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 20, 2010)

Shroomy said:


> It's pretty much the same as in previous editions, but they don't go into much depth;( snip stuff) (I don't have the CS in front of me, so I may be misquoting specifics or jumbling the exact timeline).




Thanks but I was more talking about how far on from the initial time line.

For example in the original Dark Sun there was an adventure called Freedom about the liberation of Tyr from it's Sorcerer-King, but in 4th Ed, the Sorcerer King of Tyr is already dead. So you can't go coverting Freedom to run in 4th Ed.

I was wondering home many other adventures from 2nd Ed are similarly effected.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 20, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> Some questions:
> Is walking around in broad daylight painful?




Yes, it can be really hazardous if you don't take the proper precautions or run out of survival days (the abstraction for the food, water, and desert survival gear you'd need).  There's a new, nasty disease called sun sickness that can really mess with you. 



TarionzCousin said:


> Are there rules for environmental hazards?




Yep, there's an entire chapter in the Creature Catalog describing specific environment hazards and terrain types found on Athas.



TarionzCousin said:


> And what percentage of the monsters are psionic?




The majority of them do have some sort of psychic abilities.  Basically, if it had psionic abilities in previous editions, it stands to reason they'd have some sort of ability with a psychic, charm, fear, or illusion keyword.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 20, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Thanks but I was more talking about how far on from the initial time line.
> 
> For example in the original Dark Sun there was an adventure called Freedom about the liberation of Tyr from it's Sorcerer-King, but in 4th Ed, the Sorcerer King of Tyr is already dead. So you can't go coverting Freedom to run in 4th Ed.
> 
> I was wondering home many other adventures from 2nd Ed are similarly effected.




I didn't follow DS after the first few 2e supplements so others may be able to give you more details, but the 4e version of DS is set in the aftermath of Kalak's death (probably a few months aftewards) and I don't believe the other events detailed in the _Prism Pentad_ series have happened.  All of SKs are still around, that's for sure.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 20, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Thanks but I was more talking about how far on from the initial time line.
> 
> For example in the original Dark Sun there was an adventure called Freedom about the liberation of Tyr from it's Sorcerer-King, but in 4th Ed, the Sorcerer King of Tyr is already dead. So you can't go coverting Freedom to run in 4th Ed.




Why not?  It'd be an awesome introduction to a Dark Sun campaign, and it'd give the PCs some initial investment in the campaign setting.

I think I know what my next project is...  Converting that adventure.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 20, 2010)

I am completely delighted with the job they did on DS4e. It is better than I hoped.  I only have minor quibbles.

1. The mount traits aren't done well. They completely lost the mechanical benefit of the different mount types. Kanks are like Athasian camels. They don't require as many resources on long trips in the desert. Inixes had carrying capacity well higher than everything short of mekillots. They used to be bigger and able to carry multiple riders in a Howrah. Mekillots don't seem to have enough dragging capability to pull an argosy anymore. They also shrunk.

2. Muls and dwarves are hairless - always. Muls are sterile - always.

3. Male half giants have long braided hair, unless they cut it off. Half giants could stand to be a foot taller on average and a few hundred pounds heavier. They should look bulkier in the artwork.  The males in particular look too much like muls right now and they aren't much bigger. They should stay medium size though. 

4. The mention of elf overland run speed is a mechanical benefit. It shouldn't be buried in flavor text where it is hard to see. (They can run 40miles/day. Faster than many of the mounts.)

5. Tieflings are pretty pointless. They don't have much function except as one more race of desert raiders. They needed a better backstory like the eladrin and dragonborn got.

All of my quibbles are easy to fix DM-side. All in all I am spectacularly pleased.


----------



## bert1000 (Aug 20, 2010)

Over I think they did a good job but not wowed.

Pleased:
* it's dark sun and they didn't change any of the big tropes
* mechanics are very good.  love themes, wild talents
* don't have it yet, but likely will love the creature catalogue since I think WoTC has been doing some pretty good monster design lately
*liked how they stuck with the themes for the city states, but got a little away from direct transports of real world history.  in 2e (esp. veiled alliance), I almost felt like this was what happens when you play out Civ for 2000 years...

Not so great:
* art direction.  as others have pointed out, the art itself is not bad but it doesn't convey the setting as well as I would have liked.  1/2 the artwork looks like stock pieces with no DS connection.  the other half is inconsistent.  needed more landscapes, city scenes, action scenes, etc.  (Why have the wyvern looking thing in one of the 2 page spreads instead of a Gaj?)  I don't need Brom incarnate, but some other consistent style vs. standard 4e would have set it apart.  Also, I like catalogue type art work in my campaign guide.  For instance, there were great pictures of the clothing styles of people living in Gulg and Nibenay in the old box set.  Those are the types of artwork that really enhance things for me.  It would be great if each city got a blimp overhead view plus "citizens" portraits.

*felt really abridged.  Dark Sun races could have had a whole page each in my book.  For instance, if I didn't own all the 2e stuff, reading the few paragraphs on Halfling really wouldn't have given me a good feel for the race.  I am ok with leaving things vague and not defining a lot of “why” but could have used more “what”.  Thought Eberron guide had many more plot hooks in it.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Aug 21, 2010)

The residents of Athas are going to be very surprised when my players find and assemble the pieces of The Gate Wheel.

For on that day the primal barrier barring the return of gnome-kind to their true home will be unlocked.

On that day the fleet of gnomish spelljammers entering from the Astral Sea will darken the sun.

On that day the reckoning brought upon the sorcerer-kings will be terrible, as will it be upon the disgusting halflings who enabled the gnomish genocide.

On that day the gnomes will usher in the new Green Age, terraforming the blasted landscape into the pastoral homeworld they have been denied for so many aeons.

On that day...


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 21, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> On that day...



... the Sorcerer Kings will rise up as one--in unheard-of and unthinkable cooperation--and blast the little buggers from the skies. Their charred bodies will plummet to the ground, fodder for hundreds of halfling feasts. The very fabric of space-time will be rent asunder as the Feywild is forever separated from the Material Planes. 



/actually, a gnomish invasion sounds cool, if a bit silly.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 21, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> Thanks but I was more talking about how far on from the initial time line.
> 
> For example in the original Dark Sun there was an adventure called Freedom about the liberation of Tyr from it's Sorcerer-King, but in 4th Ed, the Sorcerer King of Tyr is already dead. So you can't go coverting Freedom to run in 4th Ed.
> 
> I was wondering home many other adventures from 2nd Ed are similarly effected.



Sure you could.  Honestly, if you have Freedom, you have all the Tyrian flavor you need.

Kalak's death is considered recent history, but it's your game.  Place it when you want.  Heck; Kalak's stats are even in the creature book, should you need them.

-O


----------



## theskyfullofdust (Aug 21, 2010)

Question for those that have the books: how did they flavour the inclusion of the eldarin and dragonborn (who are Dray, yes?), and how did they not do the same for the tief's?


----------



## Stumblewyk (Aug 21, 2010)

theskyfullofdust said:


> Question for those that have the books: how did they flavour the inclusion of the eldarin and dragonborn (who are Dray, yes?), and how did they not do the same for the tief's?



They made an effort to include the Eladrin and Dragonborn.  Dragonborn are the Dray, which were already established in the Dark Sun mythos.  Eladrin, while a _bit_ of a shoehorn, work - they're still creatures of the Feywild, but the Feywild is a nasty place, just as tortured as Athas, and Eladrin blame Defilers (and arcane casters as a whole) for the destruction of their homeland.

Tieflings on the other hand?  They get about 2 paragraphs, that basically amount to "they're really mean people who prowl the wastes attacking settlements and travellers.  Oh, and they made a pact with a dark power way back in their history that no one understands or remembers, but it helps them survive."

So...they're savage Tieflings from PoL then?  Thanks, Wizards.


----------



## Siberys (Aug 21, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Sure you could.  Honestly, if you have Freedom, you have all the Tyrian flavor you need.
> 
> Kalak's death is considered recent history, but it's your game.  Place it when you want.  Heck; Kalak's stats are even in the creature book, should you need them.
> 
> -O




Really? I didn't see him on my pass through...


----------



## Obryn (Aug 21, 2010)

Siberys said:


> Really? I didn't see him on my pass through...



I'm going by hearsay, mind you, but he was in the list of sorcerer-kings with levels and roles that I read.  

Amazon still has my own copy in release limbo.

-O


----------



## Siberys (Aug 21, 2010)

Going through, it doesn't look like he is. Still, though - it shouldn't be too hard to stat him if you need him.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 21, 2010)

Kalak is not in the creature catalog, but it would be easy to stat him out based on the other SKs in there if you required it.


----------



## kunadam (Aug 21, 2010)

This incarnation of DS - as explained by WotC earlier and actually done so in the book - starts when Kalak is defeated and the rest of the history is up to the DM's. Even back in 2e, I disliked the word that the Prism pendant turned DS into.

As previously said, the artwork are crap. Not by themselves, but they do not have DS feel to them.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2010)

kunadam said:


> As previously said, the artwork are crap. Not by themselves, but they do not have DS feel to them.




Just out of curiosity- is it that the art doesn't feel like it represents the world described in the book... Or that it isn't like the art of Brom... Or something else?


----------



## Wik (Aug 21, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Just out of curiosity- is it that the art doesn't feel like it represents the world described in the book... Or that it isn't like the art of Brom... Or something else?




Well, for me, it's that the art is too much like other D&D art - really, it's art that is inspired by action movies, as opposed to being inspired by, say, westerns.  

There is also a fair share of recycled art.  And art that, while it was made for this book, you can tell was produced so that some point in the future it could be recycled in a non DS book.  

There is too much art consisting of people doing random things, and not enough art of say, people in wastelands.  

Much of the items and armour depicted in the books are not crazy mish-mashings of non-metallic materials, but instead look exactly like the armours and weapons in "core" 4e, only with a different colour.  

And the art is not grim.  It's heroic, in the same way the normal D&D art is heroic.  

My two cents, at least.  But then, feel free to ignore me.  I've said it in other threads, too - I'm not a fan of wotc art to begin with, so the fact that I don't like the art here is no surprise.


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 21, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Just out of curiosity- is it that the art doesn't feel like it represents the world described in the book... Or that it isn't like the art of Brom... Or something else?




There isn't a united feel to the art, in virtually all the illustrations it is a single character without any (or at least very minimal) background so they don't feel placed in the setting. Actually you really get no idea what the setting looks like. For all you know Athas could be a water world, if it wasn't for a few illustrations in the Atlas chapter towards the back.

This is made worse by the items and clothing of some of the characters. The Arms-Troubadour (pg 40) metal rapier, metal ringed armour. Gladiator (pg 50) metal helm, greaves, and what is meant to be a Tortoise blade, looks to be a metal shield with metal blade, still her other sword looks better. Mind General (pg 56) metal longsword, and a few others look like they could be from any D&D setting.

The quality of art work is pretty good on the whole however, it's just it doesn't really tell you anything about the setting a lot of the time.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2010)

Wik said:


> My two cents, at least.  But then, feel free to ignore me.  I've said it in other threads, too - I'm not a fan of wotc art to begin with, so the fact that I don't like the art here is no surprise.




Oh- I wasn't attempting to even infer a value judgement or anything. I was honestly just curious.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> There isn't a united feel to the art, in virtually all the illustrations it is a single character without any (or at least very minimal) background so they don't feel placed in the setting. Actually you really get no idea what the setting looks like. For all you know Athas could be a water world, if it wasn't for a few illustrations in the Atlas chapter towards the back...
> 
> The quality of art work is pretty good on the whole however, it's just it doesn't really tell you anything about the setting a lot of the time.




I would say I get the feeling they commissioned some art specifically for the setting, then supplemented that with other art they had that felt "close enough."

As for the character close ups... Yeah I agree- it's what I think I find most disappointing about WoTC art in general; no (or every limited) backgrounds.

Backgrounds always make my mind wander, and seem to give the characters a sense of purpose other then posing (at least to me.)  I think thats why I always liked Elmore- his backgrounds were often more striking then the characters in them, and always had a way of making me feel like I was there.


----------



## Wik (Aug 22, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Oh- I wasn't attempting to even infer a value judgement or anything. I was honestly just curious.




Fair enough.  Just figured I'd give my perspective on it, and also explain where I'm coming from.  But yeah, personally, I would say the art is the worst part of the book.  And this is coming from someone who never really liked the original DS art particularly much, either (Brom be damned).


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2010)

I looked this over in the store. I was never a huge Dark Sun person, but it was really cool and different and tapped into that real swords-and-sorcery vibe and I think as a setting it deserves respect. I think the 4e version shows that respect, but they aren't afraid to change things, and I think a newcomer would have an easier time digesting the setting than someone who knows the origional.

* Picky details to fret over: Avengions and Dragon Kings are purely arcane now, not the union of psionic and arcane ability they were. Half-giants now look like goliaths (i.e. Vin Diesel) when some simple directions to the art team could have made them more giant-like. Muls and dwarves have been excised of anything that might offend the delicate sensibilities of Hooters patrons.
*Hambone connected to the shoehorn: Eladrin as a hidden race of psis who hate arcane casters? I don't quite get it. And tieflings seem like they just wandered off a spelljamming ship after getting drunk and lost on their way to another setting.
* Themes are very cool. If something like that had been introduced early on, I might have been more tempted to actually give 4e a try. I'm a sucker for layers; enough flavor can make anything edible. 
* On the other hand: Trh-kreen with their encounter powers for their claws and the ability to drag opponents around several squares kind of embody everything about 4e that does not overlap with my personal vision of what D&D looks like. I can sort of dig that "I have claws" might not be a meanginful distinction in many game systems, but I've never really been able to handle that in a D&D type setting where claws are so frickin' boss for most monsters. Too much GURPS as a wee lad, I suppose.


----------



## giant.robot (Aug 22, 2010)

I have been a Dark Sun fan since the 2E era. It was an interesting departure from the sword and sorcery fantasy, more John Carter of Mars than Lord of the Rings. It really let me rethink how to play the game since the things I was familiar with no longer behaved the same way. 

For the most part I think the 4E version is pretty good and I've really enjoyed playing the D&D Encounters running it. It maintains a lot of the harshness and brutality of the original but I think still manages to stay pretty balanced. I liked that they use character themes instead of new classes to represent the Dark Sun specific classes like Gladiator and Templar. I've seen people talking about power creep with themes but Dark Sun used to recommend (if not require) players start with level 3 characters. Themes help bring first level characters up to a point where they can reasonably survive encounters. In terms of gameplay I'm really happy with the Dark Sun books.

Now to my gripes since they're a bit more specific than my praises and have more to do with the presentation than the gameplay elements. 

I completely agree with everyone else about the generic artwork. While the original Dark Sun was defined in part by Brom's artwork I don't expect WotC to just dust off old pieces and reprint them. Nor do I expect them to tell their current artists to simply copy Brom's work. That being said I find the current artwork to be not only uninspiring but a bad fit for the setting. As others have mentioned much of the art doesn't correspond to the copy or even the general description of the setting. Folks are running around in generic fight scenes bedecked in metal gear. Even the black and white line art in the original books did a better job setting the scene than the fully color photographic art in the new book.

Besides the art just being bad it also doesn't help you visualize the world. If you look at Brom's cover artwork for the Prism Pentad novels not only do they show some crazy characters but some really detailed background scenes. A cursory look at those covers alone help you get a good visualization of the Dark Sun setting. Even the few bits of art in Dungeon and Dragon magazines for their 3E Dark Sun conversion are more effective than most of the art in the new book. I hate to harp so much on the artwork but it's the book(s) major downside. I don't think players completely new to the Dark Sun setting will have as good of a handle on the game world as people who are familiar with the 2E version.

Besides the artwork I am really disappointed WotC didn't do three Dark Sun books. I think they really good have used a Campaign Setting, a Player's Guide, and the Creature Catalogue. I think they did a pretty good job of squeezing roughly ten splat books worth of setting materials from 2E into the hundred or so pages they had available in the Campaign Setting. Had they put the new races, powers, and themes into a Player's Guide they would have had a lot more room in the Campaign Setting for more artwork to match the copy even if it wasn't as good as what was in the old books. They wouldh ave also had more room in a dedicated Player's Guide to give a lot more guidance to players on how Dark Sun characters would play differently from their counterparts in other settings. I think the FR and Eberron books should have been the model used for Dark Sun. 

Overall I'm glad my peeves with Dark Sun turned out to be with the presentation rather than the gameplay or fluff. I was not really happy with how 4E Forgotten Realms turned out ("everyone is dead LOL, except Elminster") so I was skeptical about Dark Sun. I enjoyed the setting in the 2E days and wanted a 4E version to be good. I want new players to get the same enjoyment out of the setting as I did when I first played it. Dark Sun being good gives me a lot of hope for the Ravenloft Campaign Setting coming next year. Dark Sun coincided with the PHB3 and psionic characters (which are integral to the setting) while Ravenloft will coincide with the Heroes of Shadow book and the Shadowfell boxed set.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 22, 2010)

Hey, I know this is kind of 5 pages too late, but about this:



> Yup. But at other times, they use "gp". And while I've only skimmed, I haven't seem a reference to that effect. It's kind of a moot point with me, since I hate the 4e economy rule anyway and will be rewriting the gear costs. Just kind of a curious slip, as if there were two thoughts on the subject and both camps got their way in the final product.




Sidebar, Page 14. Basically, "we used the standard abbreviations, but keep in mind that coins are actually ceramic bits, not precious metals. Metal coins exist and can be used to deal with folks who don't honor the S-K's ceramic bit sysetm, but unless you're a merchant house or a dune trader or something, you're going to attract unwanted attention."

Pretty reasonable, IMO.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2010)

4Ed Dark Sun is the proverbial straw for me.

Too many changes that didn't need changing: Half-Giants becoming Goliaths; Thri-Kreen losing the martial use of one set of arms...completely at odds with their history AND some of the MAJOR pieces of current art; yet another set of mechanics to fiddle with your PC.

Etc.


IOW, I have spent my last dime on 4Ed.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 22, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 4Ed Dark Sun is the proverbial straw for me.
> 
> Too many changes that didn't need changing: Half-Giants becoming Goliaths; Thri-Kreen losing the martial use of one set of arms...completely at odds with their history AND some of the MAJOR pieces of current art; yet another set of mechanics to fiddle with your PC.
> 
> ...




Just goes to show you different strokes for different folks I guess... Cause most of the stuff you list as negatives I see as positives (and not changes that didn't need changing.)

 Hope you find something that works well for you!


----------



## Obryn (Aug 22, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Just goes to show you different strokes for different folks I guess... Cause most of the stuff you list as negatives I see as positives (and not changes that didn't need changing.)
> 
> Hope you find something that works well for you!



Ditto.   For one thing, one of the awesome things about RPGs is that they don't have a display screen.  So half-giants and thri-kreen look like however they look like in my mind - and totally differently from how they look in my players' minds, too.  I like them more mantis-shaped, too, but if I want them to be, poof! They are.  I can always find 2e artwork, if I need to show something to my players.

I love the themes.  It's a pretty sweet way to tie my players' characters into the setting with minimal fuss.  Also, it's a great way to implement some things that might otherwise have required whole new classes - Athasian Bards, Templars, and Elemental Clerics, for example.

But - you like what you like.  I hope you find better gaming in other games!

-O


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2010)

Not exactly what I meant about the Bugs- I meant that the mechanics state that their secondary arms are too weak to wield weapons (sucky change, IMHO) but the back cover shows one wielding a bow and axe simultaneously.  IOW, in accord with previous, non-4Ed Bugs.

And it didn't have to be that way.  Instead of being unable to wield weapons- not even a dagger?  Really?- they could have been treated as arms belonging to a Small creature- as per PHB1 p44.  No worries about twin-2Hd weapon wielding- at best, you'd get a single 2Hd weapon and some smaller ones...

As for finding things I like, 4ed is good enough to play, but I won't be DMing it nor buying any more product.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 4Ed Dark Sun is the proverbial straw for me.
> 
> Too many changes that didn't need changing: Half-Giants becoming Goliaths; Thri-Kreen losing the martial use of one set of arms...completely at odds with their history AND some of the MAJOR pieces of current art; yet another set of mechanics to fiddle with your PC




I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. I think the new setting is fantastic and common sense changes were made, like making Half-Giants and Goliaths the same thing in that setting. Themes I feel are the single best addition to all of 4E and are a concept I really love. Thri-Kreen not being able to wield multiple weapons (four) is again, another common sense interpretation and a good one from a balance point of view. They are already extremely good for numerous builds from simply being able to hold multiple weapons while we're at it.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not exactly what I meant about the Bugs- I meant that the mechanics state that their secondary arms are too weak to wield weapons (sucky change, IMHO) but the back cover shows one wielding a bow and axe simultaneously.  IOW, in accord with previous, non-4Ed Bugs.



Well, getting extra attacks is a no-no, but functionally, having a bow in the weak arms is the same as switching 1/turn as a free action. 

To clarify, because the exact wording matters here, it's once everyone's turn, including your own.  Gith running past you?  Switch to the sword.  Warlord letting you shoot?  Switch to the bow.  Only in rare cases will this be different from wielding all of them at once.



> And it didn't have to be that way.  Instead of being unable to wield weapons- not even a dagger?  Really?- they could have been treated as arms belonging to a Small creature- as per PHB1 p44.  No worries about twin-2Hd weapon wielding- at best, you'd get a single 2Hd weapon and some smaller ones...



This would have been fine, too - but mechanically, it's so close in non-abusive practice, that I think the official way is a tad safer.  If you have, effectively, three off-hands, I think there are some rules oddities you could exploit.

-O


----------



## mgbeach (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 4Ed Dark Sun is the proverbial straw for me.
> 
> Too many changes that didn't need changing: Half-Giants becoming Goliaths; Thri-Kreen losing the martial use of one set of arms...completely at odds with their history AND some of the MAJOR pieces of current art; yet another set of mechanics to fiddle with your PC.
> 
> ...




If those things stick in your craw, then change them for your game  Nothing is set in stone. I think they did a great job all-in-all migrating the setting to 4e, and as stated, things I wish were different will be when I play.


----------



## Wardook (Aug 23, 2010)

I have played the other two editions of DS, so I am a fan of DS. Have not been impressed with 4e and was dreading the mutilation of DS by WotC. 

I have felt that 4e lacks imagination, my opinion, not trying to start anything. 

Don't like the new FR or Eberron, very blah to me. I am trying to start something now, Eberron fanboy.  In a RPG setting is everything and rules are secondary. 

The new Dark Sun setting shows a large amount of creativity. They have manged to keep the best of past editions of DS and make them fit well into the 4e rules. The new DS shows imagination and sparks mine.

Some new mechanics bring depth and more character to the heroes. Depth can not just be a function of roleplaying it needs a foundation in the rules set. 

4e isn't quite my D&D yet, but it's getting there.

I will be running and playing 4e DS, where as, a month a go I was just doing Pathfinder. 

Perhaps D&D will win an ennie next year.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Well, getting extra attacks is a no-no, but functionally, having a bow in the weak arms is the same as switching 1/turn as a free action.
> 
> -O



Actually, the bow is in the strong upper hands, drawn and ready to fire- the axe is in the weaker hands, in perfect position do a horizontal strike, should the need arise.





mgbeach said:


> If those things stick in your craw, then change them for your game  Nothing is set in stone. I think they did a great job all-in-all migrating the setting to 4e, and as stated, things I wish were different will be when I play.




Not an option- there is nothing that could make me RUN 4Ed.  Play, yes; run, never.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

> This would have been fine, too - but mechanically, it's so close in non-abusive practice, that I think the official way is a tad safer.  If you have, effectively, three off-hands, I think there are some rules oddities you could exploit.




And to me, it's another flavor sacrifice 4Ed made at the altar of balance.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And to me, it's another flavor sacrifice 4Ed made at the altar of balance.




Which is a good thing. Flavor shouldn't dictate rules, rules should be dictated by the system and then things fit around that. While wielding 4 weapons is fluffy, it's horrifically overpowering and directly breaks the way the game works. As it is, you can already get a LOT of use out of the other two arms as a Thri-kreen, particularly Brawler fighters who are flat out superior to a non-Thri-kreen brawler fighter (due to always having a hand free for grabs due to the lower arms). 

Not to mention they can rapidly change to a ranged weapon/melee weapon as the need arises right out of the gate. Making them extremely flexible. It is a good, balanced addition that fits with everything else in the game and doesn't break it. That's good design. Bad design is throwing all manner of crap at a wall, hoping it sticks and somehow balances out.

Because it doesn't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Which is a good thing.




In your opinion, perhaps, but the sentiment is clearly not universal.

IMHO, a single race with extra usable limbs- correctly done- would not move 4Ed into RIFTS territory.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IMHO, a single race with extra usable limbs- correctly done- would not move 4Ed into RIFTS territory.




But they did do it correctly, that's the problem with your argument in a nutshell. You just want to have something that is completely overpowered. What they did do is both fluffy and not overpowered. That's really the core point of the matter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> But they did do it correctly, that's the problem with your argument in a nutshell.




I disagree.  A bald assertion of your opinion that they did it correctly does not make it so.


> You just want to have something that is completely overpowered. What they did do is both fluffy and not overpowered. That's really the core point of the matter.



The secondary arms could have been capable of wielding weapons without being overpowered.

Treating them as size Small too much for you?  What about not being able to single-handedly wield anything heavier than 1-2lbs with those secondary hands, and having to use both of them for any single-handed weapon that is heavier (with no damage boost)?  That would eliminate them getting any real huge boost in damage potential.

And that way, you could have a Thri-Kreen such as depicted _*on the cover of the freakin' book!*_  (I really hate bait and switch.)

The official 4Ed version of Thri-Kreen?  Blech.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I disagree.  A bald assertion of your opinion that they did it correctly does not make it so.




So are your assertions they changed things that didn't need to be changed. Funny how it works like that isn't it?



> The secondary arms could have been capable of wielding weapons without being overpowered.




Nope.



> Treating them as size Small too much for you?




Yep.



> What about not being able to single-handedly wield anything heavier than 1-2lbs with those secondary hands, and having to use both of them for any single-handed weapon that is heavier (with no damage boost)?




Alternatively, they can hold any weapon you want and have a free action to quickly change one weapon to the main hands that can when and if required. Allowing a total of almost 3 different weapons to be held at once and rapidly switched if the situation ever called for it.

I mean that is totally what I would - oh wait. That's what wizards did!



> That would eliminate them getting any real huge boost in damage potential.




There are lots of problems with the term "wield" that you seem unaware of. For example, you do not actually ATTACK with your other weapon. You WIELD it for benefits that require that, but without needing to ever use it and so that is what causes the problem that just being able to hold the weapon avoids. Qualifying for feats that need you to wield a second weapon and wearing a shield for example at the same time. The damage of the second weapon is irrelevant, because you're taking items and feats that all add damage to your *main* weapon AND having a more defensive advantage like a shield in your other hand. For example, you could take a two handed weapon, hold a dagger and then take the two weapon fighting feats. You never use the dagger, it's an irrelevant thing but due to giving it the magic "wield" it opens up a whole lot of stuff that two-hander couldn't get.

That's why you don't let them do it.



> The official 4Ed version of Thri-Kreen?  Blech.




Your version of the Thri-Kreen? Absolutely awful. 

On the other hand I find the 4E one an interesting, very good and balanced addition to the game. I think they handled the multiple arms extremely well when it could have been utterly awful.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 23, 2010)

I had some more thoughts on the Eladrin, and I have to say, I think it would have made a lot more sense to make the Eladrin the one race with an surviving preserver tradition. They could still be wizards, it would add to their secrecy, and it would offer a rationale for their veiled agents abroad (keeping tabs on the dragon kings and questing for the Avengion, of course). 

I guess on the positive side, an Eladrin Battlemind offers a reason to break out the old Dark Traveler miniature. 

But seriously. Psionic fey spies who hate wizards? Just doesn't really work for me. 

On the thri-kreen issue above... What bothers me about the (IMO unnecessary) change to thri-keen concerning arms is that they could have left the abilities essentially the same and offer a free handle action or two per turn to cover having multiple arms. Then you just throw in some encounter powers that allow you to wield and attack with extra weapons. Ta-da. See? I could be a 4e designer.  Seriously, 4e is abstract enough that the mechanics could have been bent to match the fluff. Weak, noncombat extra arms are the opposite of awesome.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, the bow is in the strong upper hands, drawn and ready to fire- the axe is in the weaker hands, in perfect position do a horizontal strike, should the need arise.



Sure!  And mechanically?  That's almost indistinguishable from what happens.

Your way: Kreen is wielding a bow and an axe.  He evidently shot the bow on his last turn, and is watching for someone to provoke an OA with the axe.

Official way: Kreen is wielding a bow, with an axe in his weaker hands.  If someone provokes an OA from him, he can swap weapons as a free action on the provoker's turn, and make that OA.

I think the limitation is there because there are quite a few weapons and implements which give bonuses from just "wielding" them.  If they have two extra wielding hands, the bonuses could stack up - shield bonuses from some weapons, curse effects from some rods, etc.

-O


----------



## darjr (Aug 23, 2010)

I think the cover fits. Just because the arms are not strong enough to wield a weapon doesn't mean it isn't strong enough to carry that weapon. But if you don't like it, you don't like it.

The pregen does have a 'Thri-Kreen Claws' power that I think could be the smaller hands making an attack as well as the feet or main hands. Not a weapon power, I think, but cool.

I liked what I saw on the pregen, the natural jumper and minor shift just seemed to add to the bug twitteryness. Oh, stags grace gave me a vision of a weird mantis like head swiveling around to keep an eye on one enemy like her head was on a gyroscope.


----------



## Gloomshroud (Aug 23, 2010)

Obryn said:


> OK, reading more...  Seriously WotC??!?!  MORE "page xx" errors?  I mean, you _have _to have at least one editor on-staff, right?
> 
> -O




I actually emailed them on this one. They said that I could return it for a full refund if I wished. Fair enough. I'll deal with the errors. 

Just to toss in my two bits, I've been a big fan of DS since I started playing many years ago. Yes, I feel that this incarnation of it has its problems, but 2nd Edition did too. Point is, it's Dark Sun: Nuff Said


----------



## Bagpuss (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not an option- there is nothing that could make me RUN 4Ed.  Play, yes; run, never.




Weird, everyone in our group that has DM'ed 4th Ed finds it much easier and more enjoyable to run than 3rd. As a player some don't like it as much, but as a DM even the ones that dislike it as a player prefer it to 3rd Ed as a DM.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> So are your assertions they changed things that didn't need to be changed. Funny how it works like that isn't it?



My apologies- its clear you're thinking I'm asserting facts- I'm just stating my opinion.

So, to clarify:
There are changes in 4Ed that- IMHO- were poorly handled, and as such, leave a bad taste in my mouth.  Enough have been made- and the 4Ed Dark Sun races are merely the latest exemplars- that a trend has been established which has resulted in my deciding not to spend any more money on 4Ed.

And as "Group Librarian"- by my own decision- I've spent a bit on the game...a lot more than I thought I would after getting my pre-ordered Core 3.



Bagpuss said:


> Weird, everyone in our group that has DM'ed 4th Ed finds it much easier and more enjoyable to run than 3rd. As a player some don't like it as much, but as a DM even the ones that dislike it as a player prefer it to 3rd Ed as a DM.




Its not about ease, its about whether the game does what I want how I want.  HERO does.  3.X does.  Many games do.

GURPS doesn't, and neither does 4Ed.

But all of the above are, to me, enjoyable as a player.  I'm currently having a blast playing my Dwarven Starlock (multiclassed Ranger).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Sure!  And mechanically?  That's almost indistinguishable from what happens.
> 
> Your way: Kreen is wielding a bow and an axe.  He evidently shot the bow on his last turn, and is watching for someone to provoke an OA with the axe.
> 
> ...




As I recall, the Bug's bow has not been fired- the arrow is still nocked.

My way the Bug _doesn't_ have to swap- which, personally, I don't think should be a free action- AND doesn't get a damage bonus if the weapon is Versatile.  He _IS _ready to attack at range or in melee.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> On the thri-kreen issue above... What bothers me about the (IMO unnecessary) change to thri-keen concerning arms is that they could have left the abilities essentially the same and offer a free handle action or two per turn to cover having multiple arms. Then you just throw in some encounter powers that allow you to wield and attack with extra weapons. Ta-da. See? I could be a 4e designer.  Seriously, 4e is abstract enough that the mechanics could have been bent to match the fluff. Weak, noncombat extra arms are the opposite of awesome.




While Feats or some such to return the secondary arms to combat utility would still be less than ideal, IMHO that would have been infinitely more palatable than what was delivered.

IOW, it would have been good enough to match the art and the history of the race in the game...and would have shut my grognardy ass up on that point.

And no- a subsequent release featuring such a Feat isn't acceptable either: WotC knew or should have known that a lot of people like Thri-Kreen with 4 combat-capable arms, and should have provided a way to deliver that in the race's "alpha" release.


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 23, 2010)

Isn't this thread supposed to be about what people think of the new DS material and not 4e in general?


Personally, reading this thread has me seriously excited about DS. Of course, even if I acquire the books, there are those pesky obstacles of finding time and finding players and/or a DM...

Anyone else think we should earn money by playing DnD?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While Feats or some such to return the secondary arms to combat utility would still be less than ideal, IMHO that would have been infinitely more palatable than what was delivered.
> 
> IOW, it would have been good enough to match the art and the history of the race in the game...and would have shut my grognardy ass up on that point.
> 
> And no- a subsequent release featuring such a Feat isn't acceptable either: WotC knew or should have known that a lot of people like Thri-Kreen with 4 combat-capable arms, and should have provided a way to deliver that in the race's "alpha" release.




They ARE combat capable with their secondary arms- Just not weapon capable.

And I still think this is a good idea. Lets you play a race with a second set of arms that serve some use, without being TOO good.

If they want to increase the power further then yeah they do so through a feat, or new powers.

Since there's only so much room for styles of benefit increase then  if increasing the utility of the secondary arms in other ways that are different then the theme they went with in the book,  then yes it should be reserved for an article expanding on Thri-Kreen.

But that's just a difference in opinion I guess- so again to each his own.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

Scribble said:


> They ARE combat capable with their secondary arms- Just not weapon capable.




That simply falls short of acceptable to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 23, 2010)

tyrlaan said:


> Isn't this thread supposed to be about what people think of the new DS material and not 4e in general?




It is: Dark Sun disappointed me- on a mechanics level- enough that my 4Ed buying days are over.



> Anyone else think we should earn money by playing DnD?




[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dream-Park-Larry-Niven/dp/0441167306"]Larry Niven and Steven Barnes do[/ame]...sort of.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That simply falls short of acceptable to me.




Like I said- to each his own.


----------



## OchreJelly (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm really enjoying what I have read so far.  I only played a session or 2 of 2E DS, and the computer game, but I really remember liking the setting.  Some of my favorite bits:
- how dangerous it is to travel.
- I enjoy settings where "evil has won".  I enjoyed Midnight for similar reasons. 
- The themes provide both great RP hooks and mechanics.  
- Alternate treasure support.
- Arena battles!  I loved that section and it just started giving me ideas.  That's the best thing a sourcebook can do IMO.  

For some minor quibble, I'm having a bit of trouble with the poster map key.  So many of the keys are so close in color or pattern that I have a hard time differentiating them.  Am I looking at rocky barrens or rough scrabble?  Maybe I should just get my eyes checked .  The art hasn't bothered me overall except that one lady gladiator pic just doesn't look like it belongs.


----------



## giant.robot (Aug 23, 2010)

Something I'm puzzled by with Dark Sun is the lack of any miniatures to go along with the setting. I would have been fine with just a fixed set of minis like the Beholder boxed set that is coming out. I liked the Desert of Athas tile set but I was hoping for minis as well. Races like the Thri-Kreen and the non-metalic armor of the setting I think could have used some visualization in the form of a miniatures set. When I do use minis I like having minis for PCs that are at least similar to a character's description (so they're easy to keep track of on the table).


----------



## Scribble (Aug 23, 2010)

Hey this is pretty cool about the Creature Catalog.

I was reading the entry for Tareks, and in the encounter section it said to create more Tarek varietals (can you tell I like wine?) simply take an orc and replace the bonus to speed while charging and Warriors Surge with the Tarek's  Deathless Warrior power...

Just thought that was pretty cool... "Here's how to make use of stuff you already have."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2010)

I have also been somewhat dismayed at the lack of availability of minis depicting PC races unique to 4Ed and its settings.  I can't tell you how many people I've helped find Goliath or Deva-esque minis; now we need to track down Bugs and more common races with a "Dark Sun" aesthetic.

Have any been announced?


----------



## Henry (Aug 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have also been somewhat dismayed at the lack of availability of minis depicting PC races unique to 4Ed and its settings.  I can't tell you how many people I've helped find Goliath or Deva-esque minis; now we need to track down Bugs and more common races with a "Dark Sun" aesthetic.
> 
> Have any been announced?




The good news: There have been at least a couple of D&D minis, the Thri-Kreen Barbarian, and Thri-kreen ranger, released in past sets. 

The bad news: Both of them are apparently rares and re-sell for a good 15 bucks and up.

The better news: Reaper minis has "Zizzix, the mantis warrior" for $4.00 and he's a dead ringer.


----------



## darjr (Aug 24, 2010)

the new mini set has a thri-kreen.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2010)

I own a Bug monk, as I recall...but then again, I'm posting from a "social event."

(Upon further reflection, I'm probably mis-remembering a Trog monk.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2010)

You know, there was something else I'd have liked to have seen in this release.  

So far as I can tell, each of the previous settings books had the "native" races, plus some info on how to work the other 4Ed player races into your game, with each successive setting incorporating at least a paragraph about races from previous ones that would be extremely rare in it.  (Whether the errata releases incorporated similar paragraphs for including the later races into the previous, I don't know.)

Dark Sun left out one I thought would have been fascinating: Warforged.  Yeah- they're metal...think about what you could do with that from a RP perspective.  On Athas, a typical Warforged PC would be hunted like the Hulk.  Or from a DM's perspective, they could have been part of why Athas was so metal poor...

Not so much a glaring failing, just something I'd like to have seen.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Aug 24, 2010)

giant.robot said:


> Something I'm puzzled by with Dark Sun is the lack of any miniatures to go along with the setting. I would have been fine with just a fixed set of minis like the Beholder boxed set that is coming out. I liked the Desert of Athas tile set but I was hoping for minis as well. Races like the Thri-Kreen and the non-metalic armor of the setting I think could have used some visualization in the form of a miniatures set. When I do use minis I like having minis for PCs that are at least similar to a character's description (so they're easy to keep track of on the table).




Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

You are presupposing anyone inside WotC talks to anyone else inside WotC they are not currently on a project team with!!! D&D guys have no idea what those wacky minis guys do with their free time or why they are still putting out men riding on horses, when clearly it's the female demographic that gives a sh--, uh, likes horses.

Also, WotC never made minis and never will make minis. You must be confused.

If you need minis for 4E you use whatever tokens--like those found in several D&D Essentials(tm)(r)($)()(x-P)(Y) boxed sets you can find at Amazon or Target or 4sharingtorrentz.web--you can get your hands on and 1" square grid paper printed out from a website your DM googled 15 minutes before the game started.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (I really hate bait and switch.)



You're suggesting they put that into the cover image to falsely entice you to buy the book on the assumption that thri-keen could wield more than two weapons?


----------



## epochrpg (Aug 24, 2010)

Thri-Kreens were disappointing to say the least... though a Thri-Kreen monk could be interesting.  I think it's just silly that a better way of representing multiple arms was somehow impossible for them- they could have given them instead a racial at-will that was a burst 1 square around them to represent being able to attack multiple foes at once.  There are classes that already get that type of ability, so it wouldn't be a big deal.  Or they could have gotten the "two weapon fighting" feat for free.  Neither of these would offset the balance, and the latter is really easy to do.

I do think Muls seemed awesome, especially how they can take human or dwarf feats (pick one set).  I think I'd end up playing a Mul Warden/Druid who hunts down defilers.

Edit: and where are the Aarakora?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't allow Warforged or Sharmind Characters in my - soon to start - 4E DS campaign simply because they don't need food and water. That would make it too easy to survive in the Wastes of Athas. 

On the other hand, a Revenant hailing from Giustenal, hmm...

epochrpg: Aaracokra are in the DS Creature Catalog, sorry no race stats.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> You're suggesting they put that into the cover image to falsely entice you to buy the book on the assumption that thri-keen could wield more than two weapons?




While that is indeed the literal use of the term, I was more implying that the dichotomy existed and that WotC didn't care enough to correct it by using different art.

There is simply no excuse for an RPG to have cover art depicting a PC or NPC doing something that cannot be done in the rules.  ESPECIALLY when it involves a rules change from previous editions.

It raises certain expectations and then negates them in a fairly negative way.  That's NOT good marketing, and it shows a lack of respect for your consumers.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It raises certain expectations and then negates them in a fairly negative way.  That's NOT good marketing, and it shows a lack of respect for your consumers.




Or conversely that you're making a mountain out of a molehill maybe?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 24, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!
> 
> You are presupposing anyone inside WotC talks to anyone else inside WotC they are not currently on a project team with!!! D&D guys have no idea what those wacky minis guys do with their free time or why they are still putting out men riding on horses, when clearly it's the female demographic that gives a sh--, uh, likes horses.
> 
> ...




Needs more exclamation marks. 

I also like that you think torrenting tokens is a good idea - why, of course you only mean those non-existent torrents for homemade tokens, right? It´s good that nobody on these boards creates art for tokens for a living. Oh, wait... 

Oh sorry, you were talking about torrenting the whole box. Got that mixed up.


----------



## Henry (Aug 24, 2010)

Two minor points, DA:


Dannyalcatraz said:


> There is simply no excuse for an RPG to have cover art depicting a PC or NPC doing something that cannot be done in the rules.  ESPECIALLY when it involves a rules change from previous editions.



Who's to say you can't actually HOLD a weapon in each hand? Certainly not the rules. Hell, in 3E it was perfectly valid for a normal humanoid PC to hold a weapon in each hand, and alternate attacks each round with no penalty - with no handedness in 3E, a fighter with a +10/+5/+1 and a sword and dagger could attack with the sword, attack with the dagger, then attack with the sword -- with no penalty. In 4E, it's a major problem that the Thri-kreen is HOLDING two sets of weapons, even if he's not necessarily attacking with them each round? I don't expect to change your mind or anything, I just have to disagree there.




Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dark Sun left out one I thought would have been fascinating: Warforged.  Yeah- they're metal...think about what you could do with that from a RP perspective.  On Athas, a typical Warforged PC would be hunted like the Hulk.  Or from a DM's perspective, they could have been part of why Athas was so metal poor...




In my opinion I wouldn't have found it fun to waste book space talking about how to be a character who wouldn't survive getting assassinated in the first adventure by his own party, if not cityfolk or desert raiders. You might as well be made of a big container of water, or one walking piece of inix-jerky... 

Come to think of it, you'd be better off teaming up with the desert terrors against the adventurers!


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> While that is indeed the literal use of the term, I was more implying that the dichotomy existed and that WotC didn't care enough to correct it by using different art.
> 
> There is simply no excuse for an RPG to have cover art depicting a PC or NPC doing something that cannot be done in the rules.  ESPECIALLY when it involves a rules change from previous editions.
> 
> It raises certain expectations and then negates them in a fairly negative way.  That's NOT good marketing, and it shows a lack of respect for your consumers.




I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Just saying you don't like 4e or you don't like 4e DS is one thing. You're saying that cover art has to totally and accurately depict something in the book and you dont like it because of that? That's absurd. It isn't a textbook, and even they don't do that. Half of the old DS stuff didn't do that either. Hey use artwork that is reminiscent of the subject matter but looks good.

If you see an auto brochure with a bikini-clad woman leaning on a car, most people are bright enough to realize that the woman doesn't come with the car. She's there to attract your attention.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 24, 2010)

Tzarevitch said:


> If you see an auto brochure with a bikini-clad woman leaning on a car, most people are bright enough to realize that the woman doesn't come with the car. She's there to attract your attention.




You have no idea how sad I was when I found out my new car doesn't come with that hot blonde model in the picture.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 24, 2010)

Tzarevitch said:


> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Just saying you don't like 4e or you don't like 4e DS is one thing. You're saying that cover art has to totally and accurately depict something in the book and you dont like it because of that? That's absurd.



Does it have to make sense to you? It is his opinion. Sounds like you are getting all filled with umbrage because his opinion differs from yours. *That's* absurd.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2010)

Henry said:


> Who's to say you can't actually HOLD a weapon in each hand? Certainly not the rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




IMHO, the Thri-Kreen depicted on the cover art (repeated in the Races chapter) is not "holding" his weapon- it is clearly in a 2-handed grip readied for a horizontal striking.  IOW, wielding.

Hold your hand over the top arms/torso of the Bug depicted, leaving the lower arms uncovered. You can't tell me it doesn't look like that weapon is going to be swung in a deadly arc as soon as a target steps in range because that is precisely what it looks like to me.  YMMV, of course, but to me, that's wielding.


----------



## GrandMasterofFlowers (Aug 24, 2010)

As to the point of using Thri-keen minatures, i usually end up using the Mezzodaemon fig for my thri-keen.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2010)

Tzarevitch said:


> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Just saying you don't like 4e or you don't like 4e DS is one thing. You're saying that cover art has to totally and accurately depict something in the book and you dont like it because of that? That's absurd.




Its not absurd at all.  That isn't about "total accuracy," its about misrepresentation- intentional or negligently.

I'm saying that since their introduction, Bugs have been fully able to use their 4 limbs, no qualifiers.  They could use 4 weapons, they could use 2 2hd weapons, a 2hd weapon and shield, etc.  Someone like myself who has experienced them in that form thinks "Cool- the Thri-Kreen remain unchanged!"...only to find that they get nerfed.



> Half of the old DS stuff didn't do that either.



I just checked my DS inventory and didn't see anything that showed someone doing something disallowed by the rules.  If you know of such, point it out to me.



> If you see an auto brochure with a bikini-clad woman leaning on a car, most people are bright enough to realize that the woman doesn't come with the car. She's there to attract your attention.



Ah, but context matters!

Having had _zero _cars with bikini-clad models on them, I don't have any such expectation of finding one anywhere near my car...unless I'm giving one a ride to/from the pool or beach.  (Besides, I buy "boring" cars- if a model were on one, most people would go "Car?  What car?")

Having seen_ numerous _ranged/melee, 4-weapon or double 2Hd fighting Thri-Kreen in action in Dark Sun, I had a genuine expectation that the one on 4Ed's cover would be representative of the fact that this had not changed.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Aug 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IMHO, the Thri-Kreen depicted on the cover art (repeated in the Races chapter) is not "holding" his weapon- it is clearly in a 2-handed grip readied for a horizontal striking.  IOW, wielding.



  I just looked at the piece in question, and I know this is just my interpretation (but that goes to show you that not everyone who looks at the piece is going to see it the same way), but it looks to me like the Thri-kree is holding a 2h axe in his lower arms *which are far too short to swing the axe in the first place*.

As a viewer of the piece without a proverbial horse in this race, I have to say the art holds up with the description of the Thri-kreen's lower arms in the text. =/

But that's just me.

Edit:  However, having known of Thri-kreen capable of attacking with weapons in their lower arms in previous editions, I can absolutely see how someone expecting a Thri-kreen to still be capable of doing so would see the art differently.  It depends on what you expect to see, methinks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2010)

And I'm not asserting that my way is the only way to see it.

This, to me, is no different than the change in the alignment system- some think its great, to others its an abomination, and to others, its meh.  IOW, its a change that will be perceived differently by different gamers depending upon their expectations, their likes & dislikes from previous editions.

For me, the Thri-Kreen nerf is _yet another _change I don't like.  It isn't in and of itself enough to turn me off from the game, but arrayed with other changes, makes 4Ed into a game I'll play in from only one side of the screen.

Its like Stumblewyk says- its a matter of expectations.  Dark Sun didn't live up to mine.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 24, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I'm not asserting that my way is the only way to see it.




I don't think the fact that you see the picture as inaccurate is really a problem. Everyone sees whatever they see in art...  (Lord knows there's been a TON of artwork throughout the editions, that seems inaccurate to me if based purely on the rules... Don't even get me started on the books..)

 For ME at least it's this part:



Dannyalcatraz said:


> There is simply no excuse for an RPG to have cover art depicting a PC or NPC doing something that cannot be done in the rules.  ESPECIALLY when it involves a rules change from previous editions.
> 
> It raises certain expectations and then negates them in a fairly negative way.  That's NOT good marketing, and it shows a lack of respect for your consumers.




Dislike art, dislike the game, whatever to each his own... But to say that because your view of the artwork doesn't match what can be done by the rules in the game mean WoTC is lacks respect for its customers...

This just smacks of someone grasping at straws for any way possible to make WoTC look bad in some way.

If that's REALLY your view... Color me mystified man.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Dislike art, dislike the game, whatever to each his own... But to say that because your view of the artwork doesn't match what can be done by the rules in the game mean WoTC is lacks respect for its customers...
> 
> This just smacks of someone grasping at straws for any way possible to make WoTC look bad in some way.
> 
> If that's REALLY your view... Color me mystified man.




My MBA is in marketing of Sports & Entertainment...from the USA's #2 program.  One of the things we talked about ad nauseam is consumer psychology.

Advertising and product packaging is designed with the very specific purpose of attracting consumers.  Everything about it is a conscious effort to manipulate your psyche into making a purchase.  Otherwise, Dark Sun would have had a B&W cover with something like "Dark Sun for 4ED D&D" on its cover and nothing else.  (As would basically every other product.)

So when you advertise or package your product in such a way that it is misleading- intentionally or negligently- it means you don't care enough about your customers' potential reaction to said strategies as long as you continue to sell product.  IOW, the bottom line is more important to you than what we call "corporate goodwill."

I know how much time it takes to do pro-level artwork and how much it costs- its a sideline for me (print/logo/physical objects).  While the cost of commissioning a new piece of art (or asking for a fix of the original) with a Bug with, say, one or more implements in its secondary hands would be non-trivial, it was also eminently recoupable, a drop in the proverbial bucket.

WotC saw the art and knew or should have known there was a divide between the perception the cover could generate and the game's actual mechanics, at least in terms of Dark Sun legacy consumers.  Instead of paying that (or another) artist for more a cover piece more congruent, they moved forward.  $$$ won; expectations were manipulated and they reaped the financial benefit.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 25, 2010)

You are being obscenely silly.

The rules say he can hold a weapon in those arms. The art shows them holding weapons in those arms. The rules allow you to rapidly change weapons (free actions happen VERY fast) and so he can quickly change to attack with any weapon he wants.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> You are being obscenely silly.




You're being insulting.  My opinion is my opinion.  To my eyes- not yours, obviously- that axe is not being "held", it is being "wielded."

And for those who worship RAW:


> *Dark Sun p22*
> In combat, thri-kreen hold weapons or shields in their upper limbs, since the middle pair lacks the strength for this purpose and using both sets of limbs would be awkward and unwieldy."




The only phrase there for "for this purpose" to refer to is "hold weapons <snip>..."...meaning per that sentence, the Bugs cannot even "hold" weapons or shields in combat with those secondary arms.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 25, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You're being insulting.




It's my opinion that you are being over dramatic and obscenely pedantic - especially because the rules IMO fully support the art anyway. You're being obscenely silly because you're trying to claim this is some kind of "false advertising", which implies deliberate deception on Wizards part. That is honestly a really hilarious claim, because we've known for some time exactly how they were going to handle Thri-kreen and multiple weapons. Also there is always the point that holding a weapon =/ attacking with it. But it doesn't mean by fluff it doesn't absolutely nothing, it's just not used to make primary attacks with.

*Admin here. Even more than insulting, you're in violation of "Wheaton's Rule." Everyone on this site should read their posts and ask themselves, "Will someone reading this reasonably think I'm being a dick if I post it?" If the answer is yes, don't hit submit. Fairly simple. In this case, you're deliberately being insulting and trying to get away with it. We don't have a lot of patience for that passive aggressive nonsense. I don't care if you (or anyone else) are correct or you think another poster is wrong; discuss the topic with them politely, or don't post.

If this is in any way unclear, PM me. 

- Piratecat*



> To my eyes- not yours, obviously- that axe is not being "held", it is being "wielded."




"Wielded" means attacking with in 4E. In the particular art in question he is not attacking with the axe, he is attacking and hence "wielding" the bow only. If anyone came close with a simple flick of his arms he would put the bow into the safer smaller arms and be prepared to whack anything that came near easily. Then he would axe them straight to the face. This is what the rules clearly and in a perfectly balanced manner completely support. There is no false advertising. 

You would have a valid point only if he was hitting someone else with the axe AND attacking with the bow. But that is not happening, hence only one weapon is being 'wielded'.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> It's my opinion that you are being over dramatic and obscenely pedantic - especially because the rules IMO fully support the art anyway.




I disagree.

Not only do I think the art does not reflect the rules, _I just pointed out_ that the rules state that Thri-Kreen cannot hold weapons in their secondary arms.



> You're being obscenely silly because you're trying to claim this is some kind of "false advertising", which implies deliberate deception on Wizards part.




No, not at all.

I actually said that they could have been negligent as well.  As in, there is no deliberate deception on their part, but they could still be culpable for the misperception- negligently misleading advertising is also considered "false advertising" in certain jurisdictions.

Not that I'd sue over something like this.




> "Wielded" means attacking with in 4E.




That is wrong by RAW.  "Wielding" is used in the sense of having a weapon _ready_ to attack, just like in previous editions.  And in addition, they occasionally conflate "wielding" and "holding."  For example:



> *PHB1, p270*
> Simply wielding a weapon in each hand doesn't allow you to make two attacks in a round.  If you hold two melee weapons, you can use either one to make a melee attack.




In this example, "wielding" and "attacking" are clearly 2 different things...but "wielding" is used interchangeably with "holding."  Note: this does not mean that "wielding" = "holding", only that WotC gets sloppy with language on occasion and sometimes uses the terms interchangeably.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 25, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is wrong by RAW.




Nope. "Wield" means attacking with, hold does not. For example, I can hold two staffs at once by RAW. They are two handed weapons, so I cannot "wield" either as a weapon to attack with. Due to the fact the staff as an implement doesn't require me to hold it with two hands, I can still wield it as an implement and attack through it - despite the fact I can't actually use it as a weapon. Here we see how the RAW completely proves my point. To "Wield" the staff I need two hands if I want to use it as a weapon. I can HOLD it as much as I feel like. To "wield" the staff as an implement, it doesn't matter if I have two hands and so I can happily do so one handed. Here we can see where the clear distinction in the rules between "wield" and attacking with a weapon is different to simply holding it.

So I can hold two staffs perfectly, when I attack with it I am wielding the implement for purposes of effects (like getting the damage bonus from staff of ruin). I cannot use the weapon as a staff, as I do not have two hands but - yep - I can hold the thing as much as I like.

So "Wield" and "Hold" in 4E do actually mean different things. Also the text you quoted is in reference to attacking, where they use the term "wield" and then they put out if you hold two weapons you need to choose the weapon you are actually attacking with. Either way, I am going to talk about the awesome things that I'm doing in my dark sun game and ceasing with this. Feel free to sue wizards for their terrible false advertising.

-------------------------

So in my Dark Sun game I have planned for the PCs to actually be present both during and in the aftermath of the period where Kalak is killed. To give it a suitably "gritty" feeling and get right into things, I've arranged for the PCs to be in the gladitorial arena of Tyr. They're about to be executed by horrible monsters for affronts to Kalak, a particular Templar and other individuals they've crossed. I've made multiple ways they can get out from being chained up as delicious lunch for the hungry monsters in the arena and in the interest of amusement, the Templar overseeing things decides to just let things run their course.

What happens during this is that Kalak is killed and all hell truly breaks loose all over the city. This suddenly puts the templar in the position where he's no longer quite so invulnerable, as arena prisoners rebel and elements from other city states (even some of the arena's monsters) decide to take advantage of the chaos to make a play for power. This leads of course to the PCs direct escape, having to battle their way through several 3 and even a couple of 4 way fights (though it is possible to ally themselves with different sides if they can be convincing enough). Until finally running down their executioner and giving him a nice hammer or similar to the face.

I then intend to have a "break" between this very combat heavy and fast paced beginning between after Kalak dies and when the campaign begins properly later. The PCs can organize various things they want to do and the players can even change/introduce new characters - the opening of the game is pretty brutal to say the least. From there I am not sure if I want to have a sort of Dark Sun cliche "You are going on a caravan..." sort of affair or not. I have a few ideas, but it would be neat to get them into the desert with a more interesting and compelling reason than that. Then again, it is a very classic Dark Sun element and while I played it in 2E, for most of them I think it's the first time they've played Dark Sun so maybe it is okay.

Either way, I really love the flavor/mechanics of making the environment just as much as an enemy as anything else. So I'm going to emphasize just how horrible and deadly the desert is - even before you throw ravenous undead and psychic tentacle monsters at them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Nope. "Wield" means attacking with, hold does not.




As we cross-posted, I pointed out that WotC sometimes uses "wield" and "hold" interchangeably.

However, that section _clearly_ indicates that you can "wield" 2 weapons simultaneously- obviously not two 2 hand ones, since that's physically impossible-  but can only "attack" with one under most circumstances.

IOW, "wield"≠ "attack."


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 25, 2010)

I have also had time now to fully digest the Creature Catalog, which is really good. It's one of my favorite monster books by far, not just because it's another host of excellent creatures that use the MM3 stat block and have some decent fluff. Some of the creatures though really confuse me, like the Mekillot, which is supposed to be this horribly ferocious thing but it looks obscenely cute (even their 2E art does). Of course it is bigger than a house so maybe it is more terrifying in 'person' than it is from looking at its art in the book so there might be something I'm missing there. Dark Sun also has a good helping of things I would just describe as "delightfully goofy" monsters, like the cactus that makes zombies and the other one that runs people down.

The solos, looking at them look like they need some help though. Unlike MM3 solos and some of those being published now like the new dragons - they seem to be very under-action economied. They don't have a lot of specific protections to daze, dominate and stun - which is pretty disappointing and are loaded up on lots of standard actions (which due to the above, they are unlikely to get many of). While they are designed nicely, they will definitely need some powers to help out with being stun-locked and similar. Especially because many of them are epic tier. The elites actually work a lot better than the solos because of this.

Not all the solos are like this though, one makes tentacle minions to help out and you can easily play with the number of minions to make him one very tough cookie. The advantage of the minions is that they protect his action economy easily (as technically the tentacles are a part of the solo monster, not separate creatures) and force the PCs to choose between attacking the solo or the tentacles. Additionally this even rewards PCs with area/burst powers, something that often gets overlooked in a genuine "solo" fight. It's easily one of the most evocative and well designed solos in the book: a fantastic model for anyone who wants to run a Kraken type encounter in a normal campaign as well.

There are some gaffs though, one of the arena/gladiator monster power swaps is ridiculously poorly worded. It's supposed to allow saves against effects that a save can't end, such as stun and daze. Unfortunately whoever wrote the power made it an immediate reaction, making it completely useless against most of these powers and effects anyway. It's a bit of mystery why it was done like this, because it makes the power pretty useless as it will never actually be used on anything that it wants to be used on. On the other hand, some of the theme powers are terrific, like the elementally infused powers and the sunwarped mutations (even has a random table!).

Overall I approved very much of the creature catalog and I can definitely see Dark Sun monsters being refluffed and moved into my other non-Dark Sun games as well.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Aug 25, 2010)

Woah....I read this thread looking for views on Dark Sun...but my head just imploded...


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 25, 2010)

Aegeri, please see my warning up-thread.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 25, 2010)

Connorsrpg said:


> Woah....I read this thread looking for views on Dark Sun...but my head just imploded...



Yeah, time for a new thread. This one's done.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> WotC saw the art and knew or should have known there was a divide between the perception the cover could generate and the game's actual mechanics, at least in terms of Dark Sun legacy consumers.  Instead of paying that (or another) artist for more a cover piece more congruent, they moved forward.  $$$ won; expectations were manipulated and they reaped the financial benefit.




I understand what you're saying, but I still think you're making a mountain out of a molehill in this case (and even that seems too big.) 

It's a picture that YOU interpret to be a guy about to swing an ax with claws that by the rules he doesn't have a power that lets him do it.  (I won't even get into the whole page 42 thing...) And you're equating this to a corporation deliberately insulting us basically.


Rather then they didn't "care enough about your customers' potential reaction to said strategies as long as you continue to sell product"  perhaps they didn't  even fathom that anyone would even look at this picture and be "upset?" Especially for the reasons you're presenting. 

Again as I said earlier- if you really are upset about this- whatever floats your boat man... Just color me mystified that you REALLY feel this way.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 25, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> Does it have to make sense to you? It is his opinion. Sounds like you are getting all filled with umbrage because his opinion differs from yours. *That's* absurd.




First of all, at no point am I taking umbrage with anything. His opinion is just that and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Sometimes you just don't like something and without any logical reason for it, and that seems to me to be the case here. What I am saying is the reasons that he is using to support that opinion are what don't make sense. (Others have already pointed out why it doesn't make sense, so I will spare everyone a long repeat here.) The reasons presented are no different than getting upset with the product because you don't get the sexy girl on the cover of the product brochure. It is basically a form of visual puffery.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Aug 25, 2010)

Thri-kreen attacking with DOUBLE the usual amount of weapons would be broken in 4th ed, as they don't have to worry about the prior editions' limits (where they couldn't use armour and most gear except rings)

only thing that bugs me was when 3rd and much more in 4th, the thrikreen have lost their abdomens! they look unbalanced now, doh.

some good art in the books but yeah the mekillot and kirre look terrible and no ICNONIC art, I havne't liked 4th ed art though in general because there's nothing at all with grandeur, nothing with the fantastic depth and power of Elmore, Cladwell, Easley, Parkinson or Brom :/

mechanic wise etc, it's very good 
glad they left out the back history, just bitsof it or hints fo rthose who want ot use it 
I hate that metaplot history, ick
nice lot of Athasian themed feats
think they were wrong ot kill off Kalak, making it a time of trouble, anarchy, fear, crackdowns etc in Tyr, and  letting PCs kill him would have been better

I do wish it ws bigger though, but it is packed with stuff.
on the whole an "A"


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 25, 2010)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Thri-kreen attacking with DOUBLE the usual amount of weapons would be broken in 4th ed, as they don't have to worry about the prior editions' limits (where they couldn't use armour and most gear except rings)




Actually, 4E is well-suited to potentially allowing for multiple weapons available to attack with - keep in mind that in order to get multiple attacks you usually need specific powers or such that allow for it. A dual-wielding ranger doesn't get to swing twice with basic attacks - just with his attacks designed for the use of two-weapons. Four weapons woundn't translate to four attacks unless they designed powers for it. 

As such, Thri-kreen who could wield weapons in both sets of hands would potentially be quiet doable in 4E. It would mainly just mean that they could have more of a choice of which weapons to attack with at any given time. And maybe there could be the occasional power or paragon path to let them take a couple big swings. 

And, I suspect, that may well have been what happened - the initial design of them might have allowed for exactly that. This art could even have been commissioned at the time.... and then become less accurate when, perhaps, playtesting revealed problems with that initial design? 

All just theory here, still, but I could see them realizing that while multiple functional limbs didn't look like an issue initially, it could result in problem areas. What happens if the Thri-kreen carries around two 2-handed weapons? Can they use both with Twin Strike? What happens if they want to carry around a 2-handed weapon, a 1-handed weapon, and a shield - can they attack with multiple weapons while gaining a shield benefit? And even if you create more detailed rules to balance this circumstances, you might run into issues with more limbs letting the Thri-kreen hold more weapons/implements/shields with magical properties, potentially getting extra 'slots' of items than other characters. 

You could come up with a complex rules set that addresses all this... but by this point, maybe it looks best to just say the extra limbs are non-combat limbs, and useful for the occasional claw strike and quickly adjusting weaponry (thus providing all the primary benefit that one would have gotten out of multiple weapons in the first place.)

Now, at this point, do you redo the art you've already got? Which isn't quite a perfect picture of how the Thri-kreen work, but is relatively close to it, and a pretty good piece of art to begin with? Maybe a half-dozen gamers in existence will find it to be false advertising and be offended by it, but it doesn't seem likely to be a big problem, and certainly not worth throwing out the cover art and having it entirely redone. 

Thus, we end up with a picture that implies Thri-kreen can wield several weapons at once even if they can't do so. 

Now, is this actually how it happened? No idea at all. Just speculation on my part, on one way it could come about, and what seems one of the most likely possibilities. And I can't really blame WotC, in this situation or a similar one, for not completely redoing the cover art over something that would be a concern to, in the end, likely no more than a handful of people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I understand what you're saying, but I still think you're making a mountain out of a molehill in this case (and even that seems too big.)
> 
> It's a picture that YOU interpret to be a guy about to swing an ax with claws that by the rules he doesn't have a power that lets him do it.  (I won't even get into the whole page 42 thing...) And you're equating this to a corporation deliberately insulting us basically.
> 
> ...




Again, I specifically stated that this did not have to be deliberate on WotC's part- merely that they simply didn't care.  Please stop misrepresenting my opinion.

And why is it unimportant that I think a race has been neutered in it's new form?  Pg22- they cannot even HOLD weapons in their secondary hands- is COMPLETELY at odds with the cover art and is only in harmony with game history...which they tossed.

As for the cover bin "mere puffery" ( other poster), it's not.  Puffery would indicate exaggeration that was never part of the depicted subect's history- like a Volvo beating a top-fuel dragster in the quarter mile- or exaggerating the subject's actual attributes to mythical proportions- like a Volvo being depicted as uncrushable by a monster truck.

Here, a Bug was depicted as it would have worked in previous editions, when as per p22 RAW, he should not have even been able to hold the axe with the secondary limbs at all.  That isn't puffery.

As for the mere handfull of gamers who would be ticked off by this...well, we'll never know.  I'm talking about it online, yes, but most who feel as I do may not bother and simply not buy the product.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, I specifically stated that this did not have to be deliberate on WotC's part- merely that they simply didn't care.




And again I don't agree that they "didn't care."

I think they didn't think/realize/fathom that anyone would make an issue out of a non issue.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 25, 2010)

OK.  Assume four functional limbs with the lower set able only to carry off hand weapons and light shields.

_Weapon loadout: Executioner's Axe, Handaxe, Light shield.  Build: Marauder Ranger._

Did I just hear the phrase "Throw and Stab" - or Twin strike when one of the attacks is an executioner's axe?  And with a decent AC when you combine a light shield with Two Weapon Defence.

_Weapon loadout: Glaive, light shield, dagger.  Build: Polearm Fighter_

You just gave Tide of Iron and an extra point of AC to the polearm fighter, as if they weren't already scary enough.  Two AC with a rhythm blade, three with hafted defence, four with two weapon defence.  *Winces*

_Weapon loadout: Fullblade, staff of ruin, empty.  Build: Swordmage_

A fullblade wielding swordmage with a staff of ruin helping his implement powers off dual implement spellcasting and swordmage warding?  Yeaaaah.

Saving the best for last:

_Weapon loadout: Paired shortswords (lower arms), heavy shield, free (upper) arm for grappling or throwing javelins/handaxes.  Build: Tempest Fighter._

It's a Tempest Fighter who's also carrying a heavy shield for defence - and can use Brawler powers.  Here's a good idea...

That's both off the top of my head and before we _start_ talking about hybrids.

Now a Thri-Keen paragon path to use all four weapons _might_ be a good idea.  I'm not sure after looking at my above builds.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 25, 2010)

I'd second MrMyth's suggestion that WotC commission the art before they finalized the mechanic.  It happens quite frequently with their M:tG products and I think they have a whole collection of unused Magic art that just wasn't right for a card's final mechanic.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Aug 26, 2010)

I'm, back....Ah a little on the actual books. Nice. We don't have them in Australia yet. Reading on...O-oh. More on this thri kreen art and what opinions are. C'mon, is this for real? At least do us the courtesy and fork this arguing over one pic vs one rule vs its my opinion, vs stop misinterpretting my opinion. Oh no my skin is turning green again....head hurts....outta here.
C


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 26, 2010)

Connorsrpg said:


> I'm, back....Ah a little on the actual books. Nice. We don't have them in Australia yet.




That's odd, I ordered through a non-FLGS and they got here before last weekend (yes, that utterly astounded me I can assure you!). I will post more when I am done digesting them.

I will say on art the following though: I am not an artist so I respect anyone who can draw something that isn't a hideous stick figure myself. Unfortunately I do have a complaint here: We're diddled again on art of cities and places! I mean, these aren't just setting materials they are essential player aids as well. All the description in the world won't match a fantastic picture of a city or similar, that really gives you a good impression of what this place is like. I really agree with previous posters complaints there isn't enough landscape artwork in the DSCG to really show you what it's like to live there. 

More art Wizards!


----------



## Danzauker (Aug 26, 2010)

Rumors say that WotC's will include a disclaimer sticker now on products:

WARNING!
Cover illustration for presentation purposes only.
Actual classes and races inside might differ.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Aug 26, 2010)

Couldn't agree more on needing more landscape art in dnd full stop. As a DM I need a LOT more pics of cool places I want to show the PCs. I have FAR too many character pics.

Unfortunately, to show cool landscapes and even place pics, you have to look beyond dnd. Even the Magic concept art I saw was quite evocative on this front.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 26, 2010)

I think there's a pretty good chunk of landscape and place art in the DSCS. I'd heard the various "too many portrait" complaints before I saw the book, so when I got my hands on it I opened it up to the last page and started flipping forward. There's a lot of places before you get to the character building section. I think if you start with the classes/races/themes section, you saturate on portraits before you get halfway thru the book.

PS


----------



## hvg3akaek (Aug 27, 2010)

Connorsrpg said:


> I'm, back....Ah a little on the actual books. Nice. We don't have them in Australia yet.



Yeah, WotC Australia is apparently less than proficient when it comes to new releases.  Amazon was able to get them here quicker (and cheaper) than WotC's Australia branch...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2010)

> As such, Thri-kreen who could wield weapons in both sets of hands would potentially be quiet doable in 4E. It would mainly just mean that they could have more of a choice of which weapons to attack with at any given time. And maybe there could be the occasional power or paragon path to let them take a couple big swings.




This is how I would've loved it to be done.

The fact that it's not just inspires me to write an article for _Dragon_ this weekend.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think they didn't think/realize/fathom that anyone would make an issue out of a non issue.




Non-issue or issue is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

By itself, that wouldn't have done anything to my appreciation of the game.  However, enough of the changes & design decisions in the initial release, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, PHB2 & 3, MP 1 & 2, DP, AP, PP and now Dark Sun has not been to my liking that the Thri-Kreen stuff was an issue to me.  The final one, as I stated.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 27, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> > As such, Thri-kreen who could wield weapons in both sets of hands would  potentially be quiet doable in 4E. It would mainly just mean that they  could have more of a choice of which weapons to attack with at any given  time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this how it essentially is now? The only difference being that you're spending a free action (which is, by definition, _free)_ to swap the weapons around? Which any player can simply re-flavor as expending that little extra effort to swing a weapon in their lower, less dominate arms?

WotC's ninjas aren't going to burn your books if you say "this is how they are in _my _game."


"...And part of it being _perfect_ is there being one *tiny* flaw for me to fix."


----------



## Perun (Aug 27, 2010)

I like the new version of Dark Sun. I've never played the earlier versions, but I've read through the rule books, so I'm familiar with the setting. 

My gripes with the 4e version would be: 
 *Thri-kreen art:* I don't mind the lack of abdomens, but the 4e kreen look like a human in a bug costume. The 3e thri-kreen were without abdomens, but they managed to pull the whole _bug_ and _alien_ thing much better. 

Compare these with their 4e counterparts (especially the one in the DS4e thri-kreen racial write-up) 
[sblock]










[/sblock]

 *Creature Catalog:* for the life of me I can't understand why WotC does not include a description of the monsters in their write-ups. Yes, most of the pics are nice, but I'd love a couple of lines of monster description in each entry. This isn't limited to the DS, obviously, but since Creature Catalog is the latest WotC monster book, I'm complaining about it. I just hope there will be descriptions in future mosnter books.

Regards.


----------



## Failed Saving Throw (Aug 27, 2010)

I got the campaign book yesterday and, as a long-time Dark Sun fanatic, I'm pleased with it. I agree with the criticisms about the art, but my imagination with Dark Sun was fired many years ago with 2E and Brom, so I can always break that stuff out if I'm feeling nostalgic or whatever. 

Now here's some racial questions for y'all:

1. What about Wildens? They're not mentioned at all. I think it would be pretty cool to include them, but also make them cactus-y, like the cactacae race in China Mieville's Bas Lag setting. I don't see them being a major race, but something interesting on the periphery. 

2. An earlier poster mentioned that he's banned Shardminds because they don't need to eat/drink. I agree that poses a problem with the setting, but otherwise I actually really like the Shardmind race in Athas and was thinking of a way to "Dark Sun-initize" them.

3. No pterrans or aarakocra? Would it really have been so impossible to include them?


----------



## Belphanior (Aug 27, 2010)

Failed Saving Throw said:


> 3. No pterrans or aarakocra? Would it really have been so impossible to include them?




Aarakocra are in the creature catalogue. They have a fly speed, and are thus very unsuitable for PC material.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2010)

Gradine said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this how it essentially is now?




Please correct me if _I'm_ wrong (seriously, I'm_ not_ kidding): as I quoted before, p22 states they cannot even _hold _weapons in their secondary arms.  I *also *said that WotC has been sloppy with their use of "wield" and "hold", meaning its entirely possible that p22 was one of those instances, and they meant "cannot wield" instead.

But I haven't seen anyone so far show me a passage from the book that says they can actually hold weapons in their secondary arms.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2010)

Failed Saving Throw said:


> 1. What about Wildens? They're not mentioned at all. I think it would be pretty cool to include them, but also make them cactus-y, like the cactacae race in China Mieville's Bas Lag setting. I don't see them being a major race, but something interesting on the periphery.




That would have been a good call.  While not present in the original setting, they'd certainly fit with that tweek.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Please correct me if _I'm_ wrong (seriously, I'm_ not_ kidding): as I quoted before, p22 states they cannot even _hold _weapons in their secondary arms.  I *also *said that WotC has been sloppy with their use of "wield" and "hold", meaning its entirely possible that p22 was one of those instances, and they meant "cannot wield" instead.
> 
> But I haven't seen anyone so far show me a passage from the book that says they can actually hold weapons in their secondary arms.



I'm not reading anything that says you can't hold weapons in their lower hands. It says they _don't _use their lower arms for combat because they're generally too small and quad-wielding too awkward for that purpose, but their hands are explicitly listed having opposable thumbs. 

Also I'm fairly certain (I'm not entirely boned up on because I don't usually play dual-wielders) that WotC has done quite a bit of clearing up about what it means to hold an item as opposed to wielding it. Again, I could be wrong, but I assumed most of that cleared up with the whole dual-implement shenanigans. 

Interestingly, the book only really _implicitly_ tells you can't wield weapons in your lower arms. It doesn't even really imply that you can't hold things in them. In fact, the implication is quite the opposite: the idea is that they use their lower arms to quickly pass items and weapons from storage to upper arms and vice-versa, which means obviously those arms can hold said weapons. Ironically, the most definitive thing in the book on the subject is the _artwork_, which, as you've pointed out, clearly shows thri-kreen holding (not just passing, but _holding)_ weapons in their lower arms.

One could quibble about RAI until the end of time, but at that point really the only intention that a DM should worry about is their own. There's nothing stopping anyone from reflavoring the "free action item swap" to the "free action dominant set of arms swap" I mentioned above.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2010)

Gradine said:


> I'm not reading anything that says you can't hold weapons in their lower hands. It says they _don't _use their lower arms for combat because they're generally too small and quad-wielding too awkward for that purpose, but their hands are explicitly listed having opposable thumbs.



Well:



> *Dark Sun p22*
> In combat, thri-kreen hold weapons or shields in their upper limbs, since the middle pair lacks the strength for this purpose and using both sets of limbs would be awkward and unwieldy.




Read literally, they _cannot_ "hold" weapons in their secondary arms (at least in combat), not that they "don't," and its because of a lack of strength, not a lack of dexterity or opposable digits.

As a RAI guy, I honestly hope they meant "wield"- better something than nothing, IMHO- but you know as well as I that the RAW crowd is out there...and that if the designers actually meant what they wrote, some people could be in for a serious surprise down the road.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, here's the difference. You read:
"In combat, thri-kreen _must_ hold weapons and shields in their upper limbs..."
Whereas I read:
"In combat, thri-kreen _typically_ hold weapons and shields in their upper limbs..."

It's the second part of that sentence that feeds into both interpretations, but ultimately, I feel (along other evidence) vindicates my own. If they just stopped at "...since the middle pair lacks the strength for this purpose..." I might be more inclined to read it your way, but the last part of that is telling, in that it was even necessary to mention that "...using both sets of limbs would be awkward and unwieldy."

The implication isn't that they have this nearly-useless vestigial weak flabby arms hanging around that's only good for juggling weapons around. The implication is that it's just be too awkward to be swinging all four arms around like that given both sets' placement on the torso. Since the upper arms are bigger and stronger, it simply makes more sense for thri-kreen to rely on the upper set in combat and not let the lower set get in the way.

And again, since both the artwork and the *Multiple Arms* feature both seem justify the fact that thri-kreen are fully capable of holding weapons in their lower arms, they just generally don't use those arms _in combat_ (note: the first two words of your quoted sentence.) Had the designers had the foresight to use the word "wield" in that sentence this wouldn't even be an argument, but I'm fully convinced that the designers don't realize that simply can't use established terminology in a conversational manner or in fluff text without players latching on to the very narrowly-defined literal meanings they've established for those words; for an example see the "what's an attack versus an attack power?" debacle stirred up over the recent magic missile "errata". I've learned from that event not to attach any particular meaning when a term like "attack" or "wield" or "hold" gets thrown around in any section that isn't specifically related to game mechanics.

Of course, even if the evidence doesn't strongly support my interpretation over your own (which I believe it does), there's still clearly enough there on both sides to support either interpretation. At that point, why not just stick with the one you like?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 28, 2010)

More accurately, I read the sentence as "can only" hold.

And as I myself pointed out- in this thread and others- WotC is notoriously imprecise in their use of language.  Hence my discussion of their sloppy interchanging use of "wield"'and "hold"...or how "wield" isn't a synonym for "attack."

But the point remains that they used the word "hold" in the context of being "in combat."  Even in conjunction with Multiple Arms, the most favorable RAW reading I can see is that the Bug can _draw_ the weapon freely, but must immediately transfer the new weapon to the dominant arms.

(Which is still at odds with the art- the bow is drawn with an arrow nocked, ready to fire, and the axe is already fully drawn, not being drawn...and to my eyes, poised to strike.


----------



## Gradine (Aug 28, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> More accurately, I read the sentence as "can only" hold.
> 
> And as I myself pointed out- in this thread and others- WotC is notoriously imprecise in their use of language.  Hence my discussion of their sloppy interchanging use of "wield"'and "hold"...or how "wield" isn't a synonym for "attack."
> 
> ...



But they don't say "can only", do they? We're arguing over what is essentially an off-handed, poorly used term ("hold") in what essentially amounts to fluff text; and WotC has already proven that its fluff writers never really pay attention to the actual game terminology. Hell, even if one takes the fluff phrasing as Word of God, it very clearly states it only applies _in combat_, which means outside of combat your Thri-Kreen can tote along what it damn well pleases in its lower arms. What sense does it make that your Thri-Kreen is mystically forced to sheathe/drop what it's holding as soon as the announcer shouts "*ROUND ONE: FIGHT!*"? None, obviously. Now, since one could easily define "wield" as "gain benefits from and the ability to use items held _in combat_" (in fact, wield is pretty much a combat-only term), one can easily infer that had the writing staff been paying more attention or care to the terminology that has already been established, they would have just gone with "wield."

Or it could just not even matter that much since it's fluff text.

Meanwhile, the Racial Traits block (all crunch, mind you) clearly implies that it can draw a weapon with its lower arms, and if your hand is good enough to draw a weapon it's good enough to hold it; this is just common sense. That the art _also _completely backs this interpretation up gives me confidence to assume that this is probably what WotC intended all along, but that's just gravy. 

Of course, since none of this matters _one iota_ in terms of actual gameplay balance, any DM worth their salt (IMHO), would let his or her player just _say _they're carrying their spare weapons in their lower arms instead of sheathed because, let's face, it just looks cool. And it's _flavor_, and no DM should be denying their players a chance for _flavor _unless it seriously messes with their narrative. Which this is no way could possibly ever do.

So you see, we're tilting at windmills.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2010)

(Again, realize I'm a RAI guy playing devil's advocate for the RAW crowd...mainly because I know a LOT of RAW DMs.)



> Of course, since none of this matters one iota in terms of actual gameplay balance, any DM worth their salt (IMHO), would let his or her player just say they're carrying their spare weapons in their lower arms instead of sheathed because, let's face, it just looks cool.




Are you sure?  What if the weapons in question are implements? Or if that axe grants some kind of combat benefit if "held?"

The Bug on the cover is clearly in (at least ranged) combat, wielding and/or holding multiple weapons- at least one more than anyone else could.


----------



## Henry (Aug 29, 2010)

Me, I just can't wait to get a chance for my group to play it -- which will hopefully be soon. We've all expressed an interest in it.

And I think I'm gonna play a Thri-Kreen ranger.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 29, 2010)

Not that the hold/wield/draw conversation isn't _fascinating_ but does anyone have any actual opinions on the contents of the setting itself?  I just got my copy and have been plugging through it on breaks and on the bus ride to work and I have actually been enjoying reading it.  The last RPG book I like reading this much was the 3E Draconomicron (that thing was a work of art).

Even the sections that are predominantly power writeups (themes, paragon paths etc) have some interesting background on how to use them and how they mesh with the setting itself.  They really seem to have figured out the atmosphere for Dark Sun and ran with it.  THe sidebars on adding things like Divine classes or extinct races are welcome as they highlight how and why Dark Sun is different.  I'm about 1/2 way through now and I do wish there had been more on the city states.  Tyr is about right at 10 pages but the rest only get 2-3.  I would have loved to see every city state get the Tyr treatment but the maps are excellent.


----------



## mgbeach (Aug 29, 2010)

Holy Bovine said:


> Not that the hold/wield/draw conversation isn't _fascinating_ but does anyone have any actual opinions on the contents of the setting itself?  I just got my copy and have been plugging through it on breaks and on the bus ride to work and I have actually been enjoying reading it.  The last RPG book I like reading this much was the 3E Draconomicron (that thing was a work of art).
> 
> Even the sections that are predominantly power writeups (themes, paragon paths etc) have some interesting background on how to use them and how they mesh with the setting itself.  They really seem to have figured out the atmosphere for Dark Sun and ran with it.  THe sidebars on adding things like Divine classes or extinct races are welcome as they highlight how and why Dark Sun is different.  I'm about 1/2 way through now and I do wish there had been more on the city states.  Tyr is about right at 10 pages but the rest only get 2-3.  I would have loved to see every city state get the Tyr treatment but the maps are excellent.




I, too, am really impressed with the setting and particularly the creature catalog. Really great work there.  I agree on the city-states and was hoping they might come out with a supplement focused on them, the sorcerer kings, and dragons/avangions


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 29, 2010)

mgbeach said:


> I, too, am really impressed with the setting and particularly the creature catalog. Really great work there.  I agree on the city-states and was hoping they might come out with a supplement focused on them, the sorcerer kings, and dragons/avangions




After hearing about the upcoming Neverwiner book for FR (to coincide with the computer game I assume) next year I am convinced we will see additional material for Dark Sun in the future.  I would love for it to be out next year but that is probably a pipe dream.


----------



## mgbeach (Aug 29, 2010)

Even if they explored the city states more through published adventures that could be cool too


----------



## WanderingMonster (Aug 29, 2010)

I think the real question is, "Do thri-kreen females have breasts?  And if so, is the lower pair just as suitable for motor-skiffing?"


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 29, 2010)

WanderingMonster said:


> I think the real question is, "Do thri-kreen females have breasts?  And if so, is the lower pair just as suitable for motor-skiffing?"




***runs screaming from the thread***


----------



## mgbeach (Aug 29, 2010)

WanderingMonster said:


> I think the real question is, "Do thri-kreen females have breasts?  And if so, is the lower pair just as suitable for motor-skiffing?"




oddly enough, females of the species do have breast-like appendages. Although, there are only three of them like in Total Recall.

Artist's rendering..


----------



## Wik (Aug 29, 2010)

Ignoring the pictures of Mgbeach's girlfriend and moving right along..... 



Holy Bovine said:


> Not that the hold/wield/draw conversation isn't _fascinating_ but does anyone have any actual opinions on the contents of the setting itself?  I just got my copy and have been plugging through it on breaks and on the bus ride to work and I have actually been enjoying reading it.  The last RPG book I like reading this much was the 3E Draconomicron (that thing was a work of art).
> 
> Even the sections that are predominantly power writeups (themes, paragon paths etc) have some interesting background on how to use them and how they mesh with the setting itself.  They really seem to have figured out the atmosphere for Dark Sun and ran with it.  THe sidebars on adding things like Divine classes or extinct races are welcome as they highlight how and why Dark Sun is different.  I'm about 1/2 way through now and I do wish there had been more on the city states.  Tyr is about right at 10 pages but the rest only get 2-3.  I would have loved to see every city state get the Tyr treatment but the maps are excellent.




I agree that the Tyr section was well done, although I'm a bit surprised that it was made the sort of assumed default start - I had gone into this thinking Altaruk would be the presumed starting town, as it's a perfect fit.  What kind of confused me, though, was that there was no real info on just how RECENTLY Kalak died, and how the death occured.  Seems a weird thing to leave out, but then, there's a lot of info in this book, and some of it was bound to get buried. 

I actually like the smaller space for the other city-states, but then, I prefer smaller writeups because they give me more room for my own stuff.  

What I really like is how they broke the regions down into smaller chunks - it used to be, "The Tablelands" were one write-up... now they're broken into much more manageable sections, like "The Ivory Triangle" or "The Road of Kings" which really are more evocative.

I also really like those ten adventure ideas for Dark Sun (or whatever the number is).  It's a great little list to get GMs creating their own adventures, and it's something I wished there was in 2e, where I would sometimes run out of ideas (of course, in 2e Dark Sun, I was under the misconception that Dungeon Adventures were a BAD IDEA - silly boy that I was).  

Personally, my big wish right now is that the merchant dynasties were given their own little page or two, as opposed to being buried within individual city entries.  I consider the dynasties to be similar to Eberron's Dragonmarked Houses, and so should get a bit of specific attention.  Still, I'm not that upset over it - they were mentioned in a good way, and have a lot of possible adventure ideas.


----------



## Henry (Aug 30, 2010)

mgbeach said:


> oddly enough, females of the species do have breast-like appendages. Although, there are only three of them like in Total Recall.




Watch out, boy, she'll chew you up -- she's a man-eater...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 30, 2010)

I wonder if anyone remembers any other scene from that movie.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 30, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I wonder if anyone remembers any other scene from that movie.



Oh yeah, the x-ray video scanner. The tumor-twin. Arnold's eyeballs popping out on Mars' surface at the end . . . that one still gives me the willies. . .


----------



## giant.robot (Aug 30, 2010)

mgbeach said:


> Even if they explored the city states more through published adventures that could be cool too




I'm just worried that additional Dark Sun content is going to end up as DDI exclusives. No additional Dark Sun books have been announced while things like the Ravenloft and Shadowfell boxed sets have been talked about. Not having a DDI account but loving Dark Sun I think this is a valid concern.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 30, 2010)

Holy Bovine said:


> Even the sections that are predominantly power writeups (themes, paragon paths etc) have some interesting background on how to use them and how they mesh with the setting itself.  They really seem to have figured out the atmosphere for Dark Sun and ran with it.  THe sidebars on adding things like Divine classes or extinct races are welcome as they highlight how and why Dark Sun is different.  I'm about 1/2 way through now and I do wish there had been more on the city states.  Tyr is about right at 10 pages but the rest only get 2-3.  I would have loved to see every city state get the Tyr treatment but the maps are excellent.




I agree that they did seem to capture the atmosphere of the original setting fairly well...and feel that you're right about the discrepancy between Tyr and other locales.

I understand that they want to give DMs a chance to flesh things out themselves, but it would have been nice to give a thorough writeup to another major Athasian city to give a more complete feel for the politics and other dynamics of the world.  It would give would-be DMs a better set of tools to work with (and really, whats another 5-7 pages, huh?).

Y'know, kind of like how Athens and Sparta illustrate 2 of the major extremes in Hellenistic hierarchies...and yet still managed to work together to fight the Persians.


----------



## BinaryAgent (Sep 1, 2010)

As people have said overall the quality of the books is great.

However, some of the art work is abyssmal. The mekillot, Maeten of House Lubar, the Thri-kreen..., 

It is obvious that some of the art direction was misinformed. Consider the personality Maetan of House Lubar. He looks different to how he's described in the book "The Crimson Legion", where he's described as sickly and bald. I don't need to mention the thri-kreen at all...

These are all small nit-picky things that some proper research could have prevented. 

Regardless, the setting stands as one of the best in the genre. I'm glad I kept all of my 2nd edition source books though as that's what I'll be using for visual aid.


----------



## Aegeri (Sep 1, 2010)

> These are all small nit-picky things that some proper research could have prevented.



I don't really mind the Thri-Kreen myself, but I can't understand the Mekillot. It looks obscenely silly and cute in the 2E art as it does in the 4E art. Nothing makes that creature look intimidating and not completely silly without utterly redesigning it.

Edit: Original Mekillot




​ 
I am aware there is another one that looks more reptillian than that, but you can't blame 4E for making the Mekillot silly. The original did that first. They probably should have gone with the revised art for the Mekillot, but they didn't and that's the breaks I'm afraid. It does get my "award" for one of the most daft looking monsters in 4E. This does make this statement:



> These are all small nit-picky things that some proper research could have prevented.




Rather ironic, considering researching what it originally looked like it why it looks so obscenely daft now.


----------



## BinaryAgent (Sep 1, 2010)

Granted, that picture above isn't much better, though I do like the war argosy and the background. The "nit pickyness" I had in my head when I wrote the above was centered mainly around the character Maetan. He figures quite prominently in the Crimson Legion and yet looks way different to how I would have pictured him.


----------



## Aegeri (Sep 1, 2010)

I think the entire picture is completely daft myself, but that's just me and in the end I don't really go much for criticizing art. The only thing important to me about art is "Do I know what this thing looks like by looking at the picture". If it accomplishes that I am pretty happy. At the same time, Dark Sun for all its "hardcore" and "grimdark" has some delightfully goofy monsters. The Mekillot just makes me smile every time I look at it and I can appreciate it for that.


----------



## Zaran (Sep 7, 2010)

I barely remember my 2e Darksun material.   I seem to remember that there was not much info on anything other than Tyr.   In your opinion, does a GM have everything they need in these two books (Creature and Setting) to have a good campaign in Darksun?  Or do you think they need to put out supplemental material?  In my opinion, a GM should not have to reference older edition material for information. 

I've looked through my copy of the campaign setting.  I thought the player section was done well.   The GM section seems way too short for me though.  To me, it seems like 4e as a whole just does not know how to give GM support.  I think they did much better than the Forgotten Realms book but I hope that this is not the only book with material on Athas that is made.  But again, I do not remember if the 2nd Edition Darksun had more info.  

I have the same issues with the book that have already been brought up.  I do think that the Epic level stuff should not have been included in the setting.  That should have got it's own book.   To me, Epic level encounters does not fit in Darksun.  Darksun is supposed to be about struggling and surviving.  I feel like those pages could have been better used with more GM material.  I am disappointed in the adventure as well.  The old flip book adventures for Darksun were awesome and I have to wonder what happened to the skill and love that was put into those adventures.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 26, 2011)

Can someone explain the mekillot thing a little more?  There do seem to be two wildly divergent images of what they look like, and one is rather... silly.

The only explanation that occurs to me for this is hinted at in the 4e Creature Catalog:



> The demand for these beasts has resulted in humanoid collectors killing numerous feral mekillot adults and stealing their eggs.  Defilers who serve sorcerer-kings perform intricate rituals on the eggs to create dreadful beasts of war.



I wonder if that could explain the difference between this:







And THIS:


----------



## Zaran (Feb 26, 2011)

Dungeoneer said:
			
		

> Can someone explain the mekillot thing a little more?  There do seem to be two wildly divergent images of what they look like, and one is rather... silly.
> 
> The only explanation that occurs to me for this is hinted at in the 4e Creature Catalog:
> 
> ...




I think they must have decided te first picture was to cute looking for dark sun.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 26, 2011)

Zaran said:


> I think they must have decided te first picture was to cute looking for dark sun.



The first is the one in the Creature Catalog!

I mean, am I the only one who wants a stuffed one of those for my bed?!

I am?

Hahahah, funny joke!


----------



## Obryn (Feb 27, 2011)

The top one actually looks a lot more like their 2e art...

-O


----------



## Siberys (Feb 27, 2011)

Last I checked, a mekillot looked like a giant chameleon with broad, ram-like horns in 2e. That's the pic in the revised setting, though, as I recall.

I like that picture best, personally.


----------



## lukelightning (Feb 27, 2011)

Regarding the "cute" mekillot vs the scary battle version:

Look at the cute pillbug version. See those two giant scales on its face that go around its eyes, down to its mouth, giving it a smiley look? Perhaps those scales acted as a sort of movable face shield; in resting mode they are down in cutesy mode, but when angered the scales slide up and back, turning into sort of a head frill, revealing huge gnashing teeth.


----------



## Obryn (Feb 27, 2011)

Siberys said:


> Last I checked, a mekillot looked like a giant chameleon with broad, ram-like horns in 2e. That's the pic in the revised setting, though, as I recall.
> 
> I like that picture best, personally.






			
				DSCS 2e said:
			
		

> Mekillots are mighty lizards weighing up to six-tons, with huge,
> mound-shaped bodies as long as 30 feet. Their backs and heads are
> covered with a thick shell that serves as both a sunshade and protection
> from attacks by other large creatures. Their undersides are
> covered with much softer scales




Also, the picture on Page 26 of the original 2e Wanderer's Journal has mekillots which are dead ringers for the one in the 4e Creature Catalog.






The Revised setting has a picture which looks kinda chameleon-like, but that's the only place I can see it... 

-O


----------



## VGmaster9 (Feb 27, 2011)

Dungeoneer said:


> Can someone explain the mekillot thing a little more?  There do seem to be two wildly divergent images of what they look like, and one is rather... silly.
> 
> The only explanation that occurs to me for this is hinted at in the 4e Creature Catalog:
> 
> ...




That sure is pretty nice art


----------



## VGmaster9 (Feb 27, 2011)

Btw, has anyone ever done a campaign that has a Conan-esque feel and there are different sexy girls (like from Frank Frazetta's and Boris Vallejo's art) involved?


----------



## Oates (Mar 1, 2011)

Ran Mongoose's Conan ... lots of loin cloths and scantily clad damsels to be ... er ... rescued.  

I am not sure that Dark Sun conveys the feel of Conan to me, but until now I haven't really thought about DS in that way.


----------



## Siberys (Mar 1, 2011)

One of DS's inspirations is Barsoom, and that definitely has muscley men rescuing scantily clad women.


----------



## Irion (Mar 8, 2011)

VGmaster9 said:


> Btw, has anyone ever done a campaign that has a Conan-esque feel and there are different sexy girls (like from Frank Frazetta's and Boris Vallejo's art) involved?



Hey - first post for me here.

Regarding a campaign with a 'Conan-esque feel'...that's how I always saw Dark Sun. Granted, this was back during AD&D 2E. 

I remember reading an article somewhere that indicated Howard, Burroughs and Frazetta were influences for Tim Brown, Troy Denning and Brom et al...so I sought out the 'source material' so to speak. That definitely influenced how I saw Dark Sun going forward...as a conflation of Barsoom and the Hyborian Age while still managing to have elements that were wholly unique. 

The 'feel' in the campaigns I ran had more in common with sword and sorcery (bloody, barbaric and sensual with strange magics and mesmerism (psionics)) than Tolkien-esque high fantasy.

So the answer is yes. The original DS was and is my preferred fantasy setting and I ran it with all the trappings that Brom and Frazetta's art implied.  As for Brown and Denning's execution of the first boxed set and the Prism Pentad. I loved it. I was a kid so nostalgia plays a part. I have the new 4e books but have yet to read them.


----------

