# More Dark SUn tidbits by Rich Baker



## Phaezen (Oct 14, 2009)

From his blog post here

Some bits and pieces: 



Contributing authors include: Rob Schwalb, Ari Marmell, Bruce Cordell, Chris Sims, Logan Bonner, and Travis Stout
Crunch elements include: muls, thri-kreen, gladiators, templars, defiling, world-suitable paragon paths and epic destinies, weapons, items, and of course, buckets full of freakish desert monsters.
Core (PHB1, PHB2) classes will get "trappings" to make them feel appropriate to the setting


----------



## Rechan (Oct 14, 2009)

Dang. Here I was betting Tr-Keen would be in PHB3.  

I find it interesting that Gladiators and Templars will be in there, mechanically. Since we know there won't be new CLASSES, then I wonder what these will be?


----------



## A2Z (Oct 14, 2009)

> One of the things that used to bug me about the old Dark Sun set was that you basically threw out the 2e Player's Handbook and substituted the Dark Sun Rulebook for almost all of your character generation. This time around, a lot more of your Player's Handbook (and PH 2 and PH 3) are still going to be relevant, but just about any "core" character you build should still find plenty of Athasian trappings. Sure, *you might be a dragonborn fighter*, but we've got ways to make that guy feel like he's just as appropriate in the setting as your thri-kreen ranger or mul gladiator. I'll tell you more when I can!



 Countdown to wailing and gnashing in 3...


----------



## Shroomy (Oct 14, 2009)

The post is also the first confirmation that there were going to be two books.  I never doubted there would be, but I've seen speculation to the contrary.


----------



## alleynbard (Oct 14, 2009)

This sounds great. Thanks for the link.  It made me very excited to see what they have in store.


----------



## Andor (Oct 14, 2009)

At least he knows about the light grey on white issue.

And I think the concensus on Dragonborn in Athas was "What's the big deal?" I'm not a 4e or dragonborn fan but I have a hard time thinking of a setting where they are less problematical.


----------



## Cerebral Paladin (Oct 14, 2009)

I haven't followed the news as closely as some, but how do we know there won't be new classes?  The parallelism in the sentences (comparing a dragonborn fighter to a mul gladiator and a thrikreen ranger) strongly implies that gladiator and templar are both new classes.  That could be misleading, but...


----------



## Wik (Oct 14, 2009)

Yeah, I'm a bit confused by the "there won't be any new classes" bit, too.  I figured there'd be one, and most peoples' talk was about WHICH class would be found in the DS book.  My guess was for something like the Gladiator or Templar... I'd prefer templar.  But I could see the Gladiator being the long-awaited Martial Controller (insult the opponent!)

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm seeing extra Dark Sun material in the PHB3...


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 14, 2009)

A2Z said:


> Countdown to wailing and gnashing in 3...




In 2...

(Ironically, Dark Sun is one of the few settings where I have no problem with dragonborn. I can't stand them in classic fantasy settings, but in a world where everybody rides giant bugs and halflings eat people? Sure, why not?)


----------



## Kvantum (Oct 14, 2009)

A2Z said:


> Countdown to wailing and gnashing in 3...



 Racial trapping for dragonborn so they fit in on Athas just fine: scratch out any reference to "Dragonborn" and replace with "Dray", limit racial powers to fire only. Boom, problem goes away.

And this is coming from a Dark Sun fanatic and 4e hater.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Oct 14, 2009)

Confirmation of no new classes in the Darksun books is given in this  James Wyatt interview on Newbie DM.  Scroll down to the last question.



> _Finally, tease us with something we can expect in 4th ed. that we don’t know yet._
> 
> I suppose this is a nice way of coming full circle from the start of the interview. You should expect the unexpected! I don’t ever want the design team to fall into ruts or do things because that’s what we’ve done before. For example, when we started Dark Sun design, we had a lot of discussions about what class we should include in the book, because we had introduced a class in each of our previous two campaign setting Player’s Guides. *But first we had to ask the question of whether a new class was the right thing to add to the game in Dark Sun, and ultimately we decided no.* So instead, Dark Sun is going to offer an entirely new mechanic that will take you by surprise. Stay tuned!



Emphasis mine, naturally.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 14, 2009)

Dagnabbit, ninja'd. 
http://newbiedm.com/2009/09/14/1d12-questions-with-james-wyatt/


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 15, 2009)

Templar and gladiator will probably resemble the gladiator article from Dragon #368 if I have to guess....


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Oct 15, 2009)

Kvantum said:


> Racial trapping for dragonborn so they fit in on Athas just fine: scratch out any reference to "Dragonborn" and replace with "Dray", limit racial powers to fire only. Boom, problem goes away.
> 
> And this is coming from a Dark Sun fanatic and 4e hater.




Have to agree, dislike 4e a lot love, love Dark suns, Dragonborn with some work do infact fill in well for dray. This is one area where there really is no issue. There were two races of dray so there is a lot of ways you could spin this.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 15, 2009)

I'd be more inclined to expect Gladiator to be a Fighter build, along with Tempest and Battlerager.


----------



## Simm (Oct 15, 2009)

Another way they could go, is to build the templar and gladiator as "cross class only" classes, like they did with spellscared in FR. I could see it working out well, after all they're closer to professions than life paths.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Oct 15, 2009)

Glad to see the thri-kreen and mul, but where's the half-giant?  I wonder if they're redefining things and going with the goliath.

Really, that's something to consider.  Even though they're going back to the original boxed set, how much of the setting will be a reboot?  It doesn't seem logical to expect the setting to remain exactly the same.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Oct 15, 2009)

Simm said:


> Another way they could go, is to build the templar and gladiator as "cross class only" classes, like they did with spellscared in FR. I could see it working out well, after all they're closer to professions than life paths.




The part about "entirely new direction" is interesting, as it doesn't seem to necessarily be the same as spellscared multiclassing. A new build would make it like the Dark Pact warlock build from FR as well.

Perhaps something along the lines of a less feat-intensive multiclass, like a single feat that allows you to include powers from this class on your list, similar to the skill based utilities.


----------



## Wik (Oct 15, 2009)

I forgot to say this before, but did anyone else notice that Mouseferatu is one of the design team?  I said this in another DS thread, but that's really good news for me.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Oct 15, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Glad to see the thri-kreen and mul, but where's the half-giant? I wonder if they're redefining things and going with the goliath.



 That's how I would have done it.  They probably have something in store for either the Half-Orc or Goliath to make the Half-Giant.  Mul and Thri-Kreen don't have anything analogous to them in existence yet, so their presence in the book is all but required since they are hallmark races of the setting.

I can't say that the lack of a new class makes me consider buying the PG (as I have for the other two settings, though I also bought the ECG), and if defiling is the new mechanic, I can't say I would find much use at all out of the book.  Right now, the book sits at a pass for me, but that can change.  The CG is a pass regardless (not interested in the setting).


----------



## Henrix (Oct 15, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Glad to see the thri-kreen and mul, but where's the half-giant?  I wonder if they're redefining things and going with the goliath.




Or perhaps redefining the goliath.


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 15, 2009)

I can see a few problems with redefining the 4e races to some of the iconic races of DS; what if someone doesn't have the PHBIII? 

I hope they redefine the original PHB races and include suggestings for the PHBII and PHBIII races, but include Mul and Half-giants in the DS players book. 

I like that they will give ideas on how to use the stuff I've bought, but I dont want it to rely on buying more books or carting all the PHB's around with to to the game sessions to run a DS session. I'll need a little wheelbarrow if that happens.


----------



## Wik (Oct 15, 2009)

vagabundo said:


> I can see a few problems with redefining the 4e races to some of the iconic races of DS; what if someone doesn't have the PHBIII?
> 
> I hope they redefine the original PHB races and include suggestings for the PHBII and PHBIII races, but include Mul and Half-giants in the DS players book.
> 
> I like that they will give ideas on how to use the stuff I've bought, but I dont want it to rely on buying more books or carting all the PHB's around with to to the game sessions to run a DS session. I'll need a little wheelbarrow if that happens.




But, see, it's good from a marketing sense.  And if they can include some of those new DS races in the PHB 3, the ones that could be "general" races (and I think Mul would be perfect as a PHB 3 race, half-giants too), then there's more room for campaign-specific info in the DS page count.

Yeah, it sucks that you need to buy more books, but that's what they want as a publisher.  

And it's easier these days, because a DDI subscription means you don't need to carry nearly as many books.


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 15, 2009)

Wik said:


> But, see, it's good from a marketing sense.  And if they can include some of those new DS races in the PHB 3, the ones that could be "general" races (and I think Mul would be perfect as a PHB 3 race, half-giants too), then there's more room for campaign-specific info in the DS page count.
> 
> Yeah, it sucks that you need to buy more books, but that's what they want as a publisher.
> 
> And it's easier these days, because a DDI subscription means you don't need to carry nearly as many books.




It is not buying the books really, more managing the information - and yes the electronic/DDI stuff is excellent, but it should help not be compulsory.

If I want to run DS I dont want to have to reference several PHBs to get information on a mul Templar/Gladiator (hybrid). And as I run a paper-only game table, we still reference the books every so often. Although most of the prep work and character sheets are done with DDI tools.

Still, I'd prefer to get an excellent DS setting out of this at the end, so I suppose if this happens it is a minor gripe...


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Oct 15, 2009)

Sneak peak of 4th ed Dark Sun!

[sblock="4th ed  Dark Sun"]







lol, sorry, couldn't resist!  So damn happy to see Dark Sun come back and get treated with respect 
[/sblock]


----------



## avin (Oct 15, 2009)

That should be good or bad?


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm really disappointed that there's been word on half-giants in the setting as a charachter race. Goliaths just don't cut it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 16, 2009)

A2Z said:


> Countdown to wailing and gnashing in 3...




Not really.  Everyone on the fourm already said everything that was going to be said on the previous thread.

The question is *how* they do this.  That's when the wailing and gnashing of teeth will go into full swing 

Edit: _If it's true that they are putting Muls and Thri-kreen in another book_, that is incredibly asinine.  Forcing players to buy PHBIII to play Dark Sun is stupifyingly mean spirited.  _If that is true_.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 16, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Edit: _If it's true that they are putting Muls and Thri-kreen in another book_, that is incredibly asinine.  Forcing players to buy PHBIII to play Dark Sun is stupifyingly mean spirited.  _If that is true_.




Not sure I agree with this. You don't have to be a mul or a thri-kreen to play in Dark Sun, any more than you have to be a shifter (PHB2) to play in Eberron.

Psionics are a big part of DS; as far as I know, though, they aren't putting the psionic classes in the Dark Sun rulebook. Is that not also asinine and mean-spirited? But if they did put them in the DS book, wouldn't it be asinine and mean-spirited to force players to buy Dark Sun in order to play monks?

Bottom line, you're really going to need PHB3 to get the most out of Dark Sun. No way around it. They might as well put the muls and thri-kreen there along with the psionicists, and free up space in the Player's Guide.


----------



## Wik (Oct 16, 2009)

Which is really no different than 2e Dark Sun, which required you to have the Psionics Book.


----------



## Barcode (Oct 16, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Not really.  Everyone on the fourm already said everything that was going to be said on the previous thread.




When has that ever stopped anyone?  This community thrives on people's propensity to interject how much they hate something into every conversation about that thing.  And to identify every bit of information about a thing as further evidence of that thing sucking.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 16, 2009)

Wik said:


> Which is really no different than 2e Dark Sun, which required you to have the Psionics Book.




True dat. At least 4E Dark Sun will probably be _playable_ without PHB3.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Oct 16, 2009)

Hadrian the Builder said:


> I'm really disappointed that there's been word on half-giants in the setting as a charachter race. Goliaths just don't cut it.




Just curious, but where do you think goliaths fall short?





Dausuul said:


> Not sure I agree with this. You don't have to be a mul or a thri-kreen to play in Dark Sun, any more than you have to be a shifter (PHB2) to play in Eberron.
> 
> Psionics are a big part of DS; as far as I know, though, they aren't putting the psionic classes in the Dark Sun rulebook. Is that not also asinine and mean-spirited? But if they did put them in the DS book, wouldn't it be asinine and mean-spirited to force players to buy Dark Sun in order to play monks?
> 
> Bottom line, you're really going to need PHB3 to get the most out of Dark Sun. No way around it. They might as well put the muls and thri-kreen there along with the psionicists, and free up space in the Player's Guide.




It should be noted, too, that both thri-kreen and psionics have been around well before Dark Sun.  Dark Sun just happens to be the setting that shined a spotlight on both.  

The designers have to ask themselves questions about where to put all this stuff.  Where does it make the most sense?  Having psionics in PHB3 and releasing Dark Sun around the same time is a no-brainer.  The two go together like peanut butter and jelly.  Psionics, as a power source, belongs in a PHB, which in turn leaves more room for setting info in the DS player's guide.  Plus, psionics is useful for any number of worlds, like Eberron.  

Thri-kreen, on the other hand, could be either PHB3 or the DS player's guide.  Though they were around prior to Dark Sun, they became an iconic race of the setting, so that's where they shine the best.

There isn't exactly a right or wrong.  Just themes, and some educated guesswork.


----------



## CelticMutt (Oct 16, 2009)

If there is a Dark Sun race in the PHB3, there will only be one.  The book is confirmed to have only 4 races, and we already know 3 of them.

But I doubt a DS race will be in it.  I'm still expecting Gnolls to be there, updated from their Dragon article the way the Minotaurs will be.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2009)

Wik said:


> I forgot to say this before, but did anyone else notice that Mouseferatu is one of the design team?  I said this in another DS thread, but that's really good news for me.



Ugh, that sounds awful. That Mouseferatu guy is a hack.

Why can't they hire someone decent like Ari Marnell or so?


----------



## Danzauker (Oct 16, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Just curious, but where do you think goliaths fall short?




Well, IMHO they fall short beacuse they... are short (ugh).

HG in the original material were iconically big. I don't think any race smaller than Large can give me the same feel. The same happened with the 3e rendition of HG. They didn't feel right to me.

Goliaths could be nice "quarter-giants", but not HG. Sort of the relationship that existed in 3e between half-fiends and tieflings. Diluted blood, more interbreeding, and such. But no more.

If I can't have a playable, balanced PC race of Large Half-Giants, I'd rather really only have them as a monster race and use them as the sorcerer-kings' bodyguards, like I almost always did.

I'd prefer to save the feeling of the setting than having a PC race more.


----------



## Wik (Oct 16, 2009)

Danzauker said:


> Well, IMHO they fall short beacuse they... are short (ugh).
> 
> HG in the original material were iconically big. I don't think any race smaller than Large can give me the same feel. The same happened with the 3e rendition of HG. They didn't feel right to me.
> 
> ...




Well, a large PC race is never gonna happen - and it'd be murder to have it happen.  You'd be much easier to flank, but a lot of your "close burst 1" powers would be overkill.  It really messes with the system.

Of course, I don't really see much of a problem with medium-size half-giants that act like they're large.  Minotaurs are no different in the current game.  Make them about eight, nine feet tall, but they take up the space of a medium creature.  Remember, in 2e, there was no battle grid, and half-giants, while large, didn't really take up the space of a large creature in most games I've seen (because space wasn't really much of an issue).  

Personally, I think Dark Sun needs half-giants as a playable race - they're one of the iconics, along with muls and thri-kreen.  

I'd make 'em pretty simple - +2 Strength and Constitution, and give them a power that lets them deal an additional 1[w] damage on an attack... and a power that gives them reach (to simulat their large size) once per encounter.  They'll deal extra damage because they can use large-size weapons.  You'll quickly get a good half-giant feel, right there.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Ugh, that sounds awful. That Mouseferatu guy is a hack.
> 
> Why can't they hire someone decent like Ari Marnell or so?




Scheduling conflicts.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 16, 2009)

It must be difficult for an artist or writer with multiple personality disorder. 

"Sorry, I can't that month. My other self is writing Kirk/Spock fanfic then. No, that doesn't pay the bills, why do you ask?"
"When I proposed this novel last year I was a different personality! I have no idea how to write the ending I had in mind, and the guy usually only emerges in response to Christmas! And the editor expects my final draft this July! And all other personalities are currently going through writer's block, except the analphabet!"


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Oct 16, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Just curious, but where do you think goliaths fall short?




At a minimum, Half-Giants had the iconic "Stomp" power and psionic aptitude.


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 16, 2009)

One thing that really worries me, and something 4e has shown great propensity for, is that the art direction and layout are going to follow the same patterns as all the other books.  Art is not everything of course, but it can certainly convey a HUGE sense of a setting, and DS has oodles of flavor.  I really liked the Wayne Reynolds cover (although i usually disapprove of his work), but if the interior is just more random pics thrown together without a sense of theme i will very dissapointed.  Dammit, i want a *pretty* gamebook, not just a utilitarian one.


----------



## avin (Oct 16, 2009)

Agreed, Nebulous, I know that 4E style pleases some people around (and some 4vengers defend it just because it's their favorite edition), but I want DS4E looks as beautiful as FRCS3E.

Pathfinder's book of monsters preview beats any 4E book by miles, IMO.


----------



## wedgeski (Oct 16, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Scheduling conflicts.



Wait... has anyone ever seen you two in the same room together?

/me looks Mouseferatu up and down


----------



## avin (Oct 16, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Scheduling conflicts.




get your dirty modron-basher hands away from my dark sun, you silly two-headed troll lover


----------



## Henrix (Oct 16, 2009)

Hadrian the Builder said:


> At a minimum, Half-Giants had the iconic "Stomp" power and psionic aptitude.




You mean, they had that in 3e, where there was no Dark Sun (well, almost none). And that makes it iconic for the Dark Sun version of the race?

In 2e they doubled what they rolled on their hp dice - why would not that be iconic instead? 
Or perhaps we should just say that in 4e they can ignore some of the damage they take, like a goliath, instead of vastly increasing their hp?

It seems to me that goliaths could make rather good half-giants with some minor tweaks.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 16, 2009)

Wik said:


> Well, a large PC race is never gonna happen - and it'd be murder to have it happen.  You'd be much easier to flank, but a lot of your "close burst 1" powers would be overkill.  It really messes with the system.




I think you're overstating the impact. I had a player run a minotaur warden for a few sessions not long ago, and because I didn't have any Medium-sized minotaur minis at the time, I gave him a Large-sized one instead.

It did change the combat dynamic some, but it didn't throw the whole system out of whack. As you say, Large characters are much easier to flank. They also provoke more opportunity attacks, and they're more vulnerable to being swarmed by melee minions. On the plus side, their close burst powers cover a bigger area, as does their own opportunity attack zone.

When fighting in close quarters, there are additional effects both good and bad; they have a harder time maneuvering, but they can also do a better job of blocking for their allies.

All in all, I would say being Large-sized is a net positive, but far from overwhelming. Large characters are good at exactly what you'd expect them to be good at. They make excellent defenders and are generally strong in a "heavy melee" role, but don't do well in classes that call for evasive, skirmish-style tactics.


----------



## hexgrid (Oct 16, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> One thing that really worries me, and something 4e has shown great propensity for, is that the art direction and layout are going to follow the same patterns as all the other books.




This is explicitly intentional- the "everything is core" philosophy of 4e also applies to trade dress. So don't expect the Dark Sun books to look significantly different from any other 4e books.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Oct 16, 2009)

Danzauker said:


> Well, IMHO they fall short beacuse they... are short (ugh).
> 
> HG in the original material were iconically big. I don't think any race smaller than Large can give me the same feel. The same happened with the 3e rendition of HG. They didn't feel right to me.




Personally, I'd rather have Large sized half-giants too.  It'd be nice to take them back to their roots.  However, I don't see WotC allowing a Large sized creature any time soon, due to balance issues.  My guess is that the half-giant, no matter the presentation, will be on the upper side of medium.



> If I can't have a playable, balanced PC race of Large Half-Giants, I'd rather really only have them as a monster race and use them as the sorcerer-kings' bodyguards, like I almost always did.
> 
> I'd prefer to save the feeling of the setting than having a PC race more.




Personally, I'd like to have the half-giant as a playable race since they were back in 2e.  To take that option away would be to take away a part of the setting, IMO.





Hadrian the Builder said:


> At a minimum, Half-Giants had the iconic "Stomp" power and psionic aptitude.




Those were abilities that were added on after Dark Sun in the Expanded Psionics Handbook in 3.5.  If you look at a Dark Sun half-giant and the XPH half-giant, they are very different beasts.  The XPH version added the stomp power, but shrank the half-giant by 3 feet and put it on a massive weight loss program.  If anything defined the Dark Sun half-giant beyond their massive size, it was their axis alignment, an aspect of them that I don't think will work in 4e.

So to me, saying the goliath wouldn't work for the half-giant since they can't "stomp" is a false analogy since the 3.5 half-giant was so different from its 2e inspiration.  Now, if you argued about the height difference and the axis alignment, I'd be there with you.

Question is, did the goliath kill the half-giant and take his stuff?


----------



## Squizzle (Oct 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It must be difficult for an artist or writer with multiple personality disorder.
> 
> "Sorry, I can't that month. My other self is writing Kirk/Spock fanfic then. No, that doesn't pay the bills, why do you ask?"
> "When I proposed this novel last year I was a different personality! I have no idea how to write the ending I had in mind, and the guy usually only emerges in response to Christmas! And the editor expects my final draft this July! And all other personalities are currently going through writer's block, except the analphabet!"




By far the _worst_ type of phabet!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It must be difficult for an artist or writer with multiple personality disorder.




Here's the dirty little secret about writers:

We all have over-inflated egos. You _have_ to be at least somewhat egotistical to believe (even if it's true) that other people want to read what you have to write.

On the other hand, we're _also_ extremely insecure. We're convinced that any minute now, people are going to decide that we're frauds who can't really write. We're convinced that we'll never be able to write anything remotely as good as [insert favorite writer here]. We're far more likely to take a few negative reviews to heart than we are a whole truckload of positive ones.

So honestly? Multiple Personality Disorder would be redundant.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 16, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> Wait... has anyone ever seen you two in the same room together?




Not and lived to tell the tale.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 16, 2009)

avin said:


> get your dirty modron-basher hands away from my dark sun, you silly two-headed troll lover




You needn't worry that I'm going to do anything bad to Dark Sun. Unlike modrons, most aspects of Dark Sun don't suck.


----------



## Khur (Oct 16, 2009)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> I can't say that the lack of a new class makes me consider buying the PG (as I have for the other two settings, though I also bought the ECG), and if defiling is the new mechanic, I can't say I would find much use at all out of the book.  Right now, the book sits at a pass for me, but that can change.



Defiling is _a_ new mechanic. It's not _the _new mechanic you and James Wyatt are referring to, though. That's something totally different.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Edit: _If it's true that they are putting Muls and Thri-kreen in another book_, that is incredibly asinine.  Forcing players to buy PHBIII to play Dark Sun is stupifyingly mean spirited.  _If that is true_.



I fail to see how it's stupefyingly mean spirited, but that could be a semantic problem on my part. It probably would be asinine. I guess it's a good thing that muls and thri-kreen aren't in PH3, but in Dark Sun material. Didn't everyone already know that, though? I mean one race in PH3 is unrevealed, as was already pointed out, and muls are about as mainstream D&D as kalashtar are. That means the unrevealed PH3 race could be thri-kreen, but it's not.

Doesn't everyone also know that PH3 is the psionics PH? That means you'll likely want PH3 if you want lots of psionics, rather than only what you can get from DDI, in your Dark Sun. I don't think that amounts to forcing anyone to buy PH3, though, and I don't think it's asinine or mean spirited either. I know you didn't say it was, but this extension seems like a reasonable correlation to your original point. If one wants all the psionics stuff in one's Dark Sun, one will have to buy PH3. (This is barring any access to the Character Builder, access to which would render the print location of any character element moot.)

A campaign setting isn't the place for presenting an entire power source. It also isn't the place for re-presenting existing classes and races. So you'll need PH2 if you want druid and  barbarian mechanics, and you'll need PH1 if you want elf and dwarf mechanics. In all seriousness, do you think that's asinine or mean spirited? If not, why not, other than those books preceded Dark Sun? PH3 will be released before Dark Sun, too.

That said, my playtest Dark Sun campaign is doing just fine without psionic-classed PCs, not that the players couldn't have chosen a psionic class. We have access to playtest PH3 stuff, too. The point is, my current campaign doesn't require that material for authenticity or fun. Nobody else's campaign will _require _any particular game element, either. So nobody would be forced to buy anything to enjoy Dark Sun. Dark Sun, as a game setting, would play just fine with just the PH, DMG, and MM on your shelf, and without muls or thri-kreen in the setting material. Of course, I'm glad it won't have to, because they're in there.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 16, 2009)

Khur said:


> Defiling is _a_ new mechanic. It's not _the _new mechanic you and James Wyatt are referring to, though. That's something totally different.
> 
> I fail to see how it's stupefyingly mean spirited, but that could be a semantic problem on my part. It probably would be asinine. I guess it's a good thing that muls and thri-kreen aren't in PH3, but in Dark Sun material. Didn't everyone already know that, though? I mean one race in PH3 is unrevealed, as was already pointed out, and muls are about as mainstream D&D as kalashtar are. That means the unrevealed PH3 race could be thri-kreen, but it's not.
> 
> ...



Well, there you go!

So I am assuming that Muls and Thri-Kreen are in DS players guide.  Defiling is a mechanic as well as another mysterious mechanic that (I am guessing) is pretty significant.  I am guessing it will be a mechanic that level-scales defenses and attack/damage numbers to reduce magic item dependency. 

Something that can be instantly ported into a low-magic homebrew campaign setting.

Anyone else care to guess?


----------



## amysrevenge (Oct 16, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am guessing it will be a mechanic that level-scales defenses and attack/damage numbers to reduce magic item dependency.




I'm guessing that it is a way to get Defilers, Preservers, Gladiators, and the others in the game without having them be actual classes.

It shouldn't be a Spellscar-style multiclass feat (which I had been expecting once I heard that Gladiators were "in" even though there would be no new classes), though, because then it isn't really a new mechanic.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 16, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I am guessing it will be a mechanic that level-scales defenses and attack/damage numbers to reduce magic item dependency.




Nope. This mechanic is already in the DMG2 and in the Character Builder (Manage > Details > Inherent Bonuses) already. It's something else.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Oct 17, 2009)

Not a new mechanic for psionics, I hope...  I thought that was basically treated as just powers with the psychic damage type?  If defiling and psionics both aren't the new mechanic...maybe something to do with elemental clerics?  Maybe a fame system for gladiators that grants new abilities (something like the DMG2 grandmaster trainer rules)?

Templar and gladiator could be paragon paths, I guess.

I can see Dragonking as an epic destiny.

Have they said how they are planning to reconcile the whole 4E godwar vs. primordials with the Dark Sun backstory?  Did I miss that from a previous thread?


----------



## amysrevenge (Oct 17, 2009)

DreadPirateMurphy said:


> Have they said how they are planning to reconcile the whole 4E godwar vs. primordials with the Dark Sun backstory?  Did I miss that from a previous thread?




They haven't, but an easy way to do it would be to say that in Athas the primordials won...


----------



## renau1g (Oct 17, 2009)

I see Templar and Gladiator as options for classes (Templar maybe Paladin? & Gladiator either FIghter or Barbarian)


----------



## Wik (Oct 17, 2009)

My ideal take is something like this:

Most magic items go bye-bye.  Instead, we introduce "Class paths", a set of powers that are activated by magic-item dailies.  So, the "templar" path gets magic-item dailies reflecting his service to the SK, while the "Gladiator" path gets some nice bonuses in melee combat, and so on, and so forth. 

This keeps the game magic-item low, keeps the power level the same (what with new uses for dailies), and keeps at least a little of the old flavour alive.


----------



## Henrix (Oct 17, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Personally, I'd rather have Large sized half-giants too.  It'd be nice to take them back to their roots.  However, I don't see WotC allowing a Large sized creature any time soon, due to balance issues.




Large races have other problems than balance problems, as well.

How do you fit it into a normal house? Or even a lot of dungeons?
If you put a large guy in front of your party in your average 10' corridor noone else gets to fight.

Should Wizards make all adventures suited for large PCs? Or even all Dark Sun adventures?
No, please.

So I prefer smaller half-giants. Even if it's a break with tradition.


----------



## Phaezen (Oct 17, 2009)

Any gueses as to what the Dungeon Tile release for June next year will be?

According to Amazon


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Oct 17, 2009)

Phaezen
nice catch!! 

mmm...cactus tiles of prickliness!


----------



## Wik (Oct 17, 2009)

*drool*


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Oct 17, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Those were abilities that were added on after Dark Sun in the Expanded Psionics Handbook in 3.5.  If you look at a Dark Sun half-giant and the XPH half-giant, they are very different beasts.  The XPH version added the stomp power, but shrank the half-giant by 3 feet and put it on a massive weight loss program.  If anything defined the Dark Sun half-giant beyond their massive size, it was their axis alignment, an aspect of them that I don't think will work in 4e.
> 
> So to me, saying the goliath wouldn't work for the half-giant since they can't "stomp" is a false analogy since the 3.5 half-giant was so different from its 2e inspiration.  Now, if you argued about the height difference and the axis alignment, I'd be there with you.
> 
> Question is, did the goliath kill the half-giant and take his stuff?




I see your point. The original DS half giant were defined by their large size and great strength and dull wits. They could play a cleric, fighter, gladiator, psionicist, or ranger. Their half-human side made them communicative and cooperative, communal and adaptive. Part of their alignment could change every day. And they got lots of extra hit points.

3.5 altered them to fit the current system, not the setting.

While the goliaths can act as a stand-in for half-giants (in fact one of my players is doing that in my current campaign) they really don't evoke the same feel as the half-giant race.


----------



## MaximumHavoc (Oct 17, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> They haven't, but an easy way to do it would be to say that in Athas the primordials won...



this is a very good idea.  i also think that this could easily facilitate the repurposing of all divine classes to worshipers of primordials.  that would be fun to role play.  i would like to explore the primordials more than has been done already.


----------



## MaximumHavoc (Oct 17, 2009)

Danzauker said:


> Well, IMHO they fall short beacuse they... are short (ugh).
> 
> HG in the original material were iconically big. I don't think any race smaller than Large can give me the same feel. The same happened with the 3e rendition of HG. They didn't feel right to me.
> 
> ...



"Anthur [a goliath] never quite measured up to *his hill giant brethren*.  He tried to hold his own, but barely managed.  Unable to compete at rock throwing, wrestling, or the other sports bored hill giants engage in, Anthur often became the target of their insults … and their boulders.  Instead of growing bitter, Anthur resigned himself to being *the runt of his clan* and spent an increasing amount of time wandering the impassable crags near his tribe’s lands."
(dragon 378 page 52)

this official text suggests that goliaths are closer to the size of giants than you imagine.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 17, 2009)

Hasn't a Gladiator mechanic already been introduced in the early DDI eDragon?  They've had Arena fighting feats and Gladiator style mechanics for 4e since close to month 1 or 2 in the 4e lifecycle.


----------



## amysrevenge (Oct 17, 2009)

Wik said:


> the "templar" path gets magic-item dailies reflecting his service to the SK.




That's a new and interesting notion indeed.  It goes one step farther than inherent bonuses, in that in addition to making th math work without magic items, you also get those Daily item powers without items.  I like it.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 18, 2009)

Wik said:


> I forgot to say this before, but did anyone else notice that Mouseferatu is one of the design team?  I said this in another DS thread, but that's really good news for me.




Indeed.  If it's bad we can direct the lynch mob to ENWorld to find him.  Man, that's convenience for ya! *grin*


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 18, 2009)

Wik said:


> ... and a power that gives them reach (to simulat their large size) once per encounter.




Ooh!  Call it "Elbow Room".  Or would that be better for an ability that makes a close burst power add an extra box of range?


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 18, 2009)

Henrix said:


> If you put a large guy in front of your party in your average 10' corridor noone else gets to fight.




Sure they do. They move through his space and take up a position beyond him, which they can do without penalty in 4E. Or they just stand behind and use ranged attacks.


----------



## Wik (Oct 18, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Sure they do. They move through his space and take up a position beyond him, which they can do without penalty in 4E. Or they just stand behind and use ranged attacks.




Except they can't move through the enemies that have moved up in front of him.  

In short, everyone becomes a ranged attacker, so he can plug hallways.  Boring.

Or, in an open fight (and let's be honest... an above average number of dark sun games are going to involve open areas... which is a good thing!), the half-giant of large size will attract more people in base to base combat.  Which screws up the math - he'll get hit a lot more.  Plus he's easier to flank.  Plus it's harder for him to get cover.  Plus...

Basically, the large half-giant is gonna get destroyed.  I don't see the big deal of making him medium.  Especially because it's not like it's a change, or anything.  the Only real effect of being "large" in 2e was the fact that you took different damage from certain weapons and armour was more expensive to wear... "size of a creature's base" was not a factor.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 19, 2009)

Wik said:


> Or, in an open fight (and let's be honest... an above average number of dark sun games are going to involve open areas... which is a good thing!), the half-giant of large size will attract more people in base to base combat.  Which screws up the math - he'll get hit a lot more.  Plus he's easier to flank.  Plus it's harder for him to get cover.  Plus...
> 
> Basically, the large half-giant is gonna get destroyed.  I don't see the big deal of making him medium.  Especially because it's not like it's a change, or anything.  the Only real effect of being "large" in 2e was the fact that you took different damage from certain weapons and armour was more expensive to wear... "size of a creature's base" was not a factor.




I see this whole comment as just another reason to keep the double HP (and likely double size healing surge as well) method from 2E.


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Oct 19, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Hasn't a Gladiator mechanic already been introduced in the early DDI eDragon?  They've had Arena fighting feats and Gladiator style mechanics for 4e since close to month 1 or 2 in the 4e lifecycle.




I'm going to assume this is not rhetorical. You are correct. And I'll take it a step further: I went through my Dark Sun stuff this weekend to remember how the AD&D setting was, and I realized that there wasn't very much in the setting that would need a tweak from 4e. The setting did not introduce new mechanics , and defiling and preserving were role-playing consequences only.

I mean, all the priestly classes can be wrapped represented by the cleric. Gladiators are covered by the multi-classing. There was a bit on a character tree, and there was a section on piecemeal armor. But really, it seems that 90% of the crunch needed to play is races and monsters.


----------



## Somebloke (Oct 19, 2009)

Wik said:


> My ideal take is something like this:
> 
> Most magic items go bye-bye. Instead, we introduce "Class paths", a set of powers that are activated by magic-item dailies. So, the "templar" path gets magic-item dailies reflecting his service to the SK, while the "Gladiator" path gets some nice bonuses in melee combat, and so on, and so forth.
> 
> This keeps the game magic-item low, keeps the power level the same (what with new uses for dailies), and keeps at least a little of the old flavour alive.




Maybe an expanded version of the 'rewards without magic' system in the DMG?


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Oct 19, 2009)

So.... just how many books am I going to need if I want to do 4E Darksun?

I'm seeing PHB2 and PHB 3, Darksun being 2 books... people talking about DDI...

I don't want to spend some $300 just to run this stupid thing. I'm refusing to spend the money on a DDI subscription; should I just write off Darksun?


----------



## Phaezen (Oct 19, 2009)

Scurvy_Platypus said:


> So.... just how many books am I going to need if I want to do 4E Darksun?
> 
> I'm seeing PHB2 and PHB 3, Darksun being 2 books... people talking about DDI...
> 
> I don't want to spend some $300 just to run this stupid thing. I'm refusing to spend the money on a DDI subscription; should I just write off Darksun?




Depending on how much you are looking to spend, at a bare minimum you are looking at the 3 core books (PHB1, DMG1 and MM1), the Darksun Campaign guide and the Darksun Players Guide.  Anything else is strictly optional really.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 19, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Depending on how much you are looking to spend, at a bare minimum you are looking at the 3 core books (PHB1, DMG1 and MM1), the Darksun Campaign guide and the Darksun Players Guide.  Anything else is strictly optional really.




Which is basically the same as it has always been.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 19, 2009)

Hopefully we'll get some new updates from Rich Baker today!


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 19, 2009)

Wik said:


> Except they can't move through the enemies that have moved up in front of him.
> 
> In short, everyone becomes a ranged attacker, so he can plug hallways.  Boring.




Because fighting in a 10-foot hallway is soooo exciting normally.



Wik said:


> Or, in an open fight (and let's be honest... an above average number of dark sun games are going to involve open areas... which is a good thing!), the half-giant of large size will attract more people in base to base combat.  Which screws up the math - he'll get hit a lot more.  Plus he's easier to flank.  Plus it's harder for him to get cover.  Plus...
> 
> Basically, the large half-giant is gonna get destroyed.




No, he isn't. Like I said - I've _had_ a Large-sized character in my games. It's not a big deal. It did change the combat dynamic some, but it didn't wreck anything and he didn't get slaughtered.

A regular Medium-size character can be surrounded by up to 8 melee foes. That's more melee opponents than exist in the typical encounter. The Large character has a _theoretical_ limit of 12, but it's extremely rare for that limit to come into play.



Wik said:


> I don't see the big deal of making him medium.  Especially because it's not like it's a change, or anything.  the Only real effect of being "large" in 2e was the fact that you took different damage from certain weapons and armour was more expensive to wear... "size of a creature's base" was not a factor.




It isn't a big deal, particularly; I just wanted to challenge the assumption that Large-sized PCs were unworkable, because they're totally not.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 19, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> Indeed.  If it's bad we can direct the lynch mob to ENWorld to find him.  Man, that's convenience for ya! *grin*




From my perspective, he would be the only one safe from a lynch mob, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Of the few WOTC supplements that I have liked dating back to 3e,  Ari's name has been attached to most of them.  The few bits from him that I didn't like later turned out to have been R&D changes (Then again, I don't recall Ari, actually, stating what his original mechanics looked like just his proposal was different).


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Oct 19, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> It isn't a big deal, particularly; I just wanted to challenge the assumption that Large-sized PCs were unworkable, because they're totally not.




I'm going to try and throw some support here. As a DM, I've allowed a player to port their large-sized half giant to 4E, and I've even allowed her to carry large weapons.

It really has not been a problem at all. The player has even tweaked the character to be optimized for wading into the center of a mob and mowing the mob down, but even so, it has not disrupted the game or detracted from the fun. As stated before, most of the advanteges are theoretical.

There are enough changes to the 4E combat system that large size weapons and characters don't have the same degree of advantage that they used to have in 3.5. (IMO)


----------



## Rechan (Oct 19, 2009)

One Bad Egg ran the numbers for balancing a large sized race.


----------



## hailstop (Oct 19, 2009)

Hadrian the Builder said:


> I mean, all the priestly classes can be wrapped represented by the cleric. Gladiators are covered by the multi-classing. There was a bit on a character tree, and there was a section on piecemeal armor. But really, it seems that 90% of the crunch needed to play is races and monsters.




I have to wonder if, given the fact that there are now other healers than Clerics, whether or not they pretty much eliminate the Divine Power source from Dark Sun.  

I can see the Elemental Clerics basically Shamans with Elementals instead of Spirits.


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Oct 19, 2009)

I bet they ditch the elemental power source entirely. I think we'll see the divine classes use elemental mantles or the SKs as their source for divne abilities.

Don't forget "everything is core" is a central conceit of the edition


----------



## Wik (Oct 19, 2009)

Except, Hadrian, they've already said they're dropping that idea for Dark Sun.  Not everything is core.  They're going to suggest ways to take things not presented in Dark Sun and "athasianize" them, but they're not goign to say "hey, there are now beholders on Athas!".

And apparently, there won't be a divine power source.  Goodbye clerics.


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Oct 20, 2009)

I missed that...at the Gen Con announcement, Bill S said "we recognize that Dark Sun is different".


----------



## Wik (Oct 20, 2009)

Wish I could post the link for you.  I'm sure someone has it kicking around.

and Dausuul - we're gonna have to agree to disagree.  I've played games where I've had a large base (I was mounted) and over the course of four or five encounters, found that my size got in the way several times.  I was easier to hit (no cover from artillery), I stood out like a beacon, and yeah, it was MUCH easier to flank me.  

Really, the only thing you're arguing for is a larger base size (4 squares instead of 1). I mean, you can make half-giants be BIG without making them take up so much space on a battlefield.

I really can't see wotc allowing that in what is going to be an ICONIC race.  Same for the Thri-Kreen (remember, they were large in Dark Sun, too!).  It's just way too many headaches.

All that being said, there's nothing stopping you from house-ruling.  Absolutely nothing.  The goal of the Dark Sun design is to make the game as useful to as many players as possible.  Sometimes, that means sacrifices/changes need to be made.  I really don't see medium-sized half-giants being much of a sacrifice.


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Oct 20, 2009)

Wik said:


> Wish I could post the link for you.  I'm sure someone has it kicking around.




Do you know if it was in an editorial announcement, a Q&A, or a blog? I don't mind trying to hunt it down.

I can't say I'm disappointed to learn that divine power source is out of Athas.
But now I'm back to wondering what they'll do about templars.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 20, 2009)

I would personally be shocked if the Dark Sun book said 'Yeah, these classes DO NOT EXIST in Athas'. 

I doubt they're going to ban power sources in the books. They may not MENTION them, or say they are rare, but not flat out say "Yeah there's none here".

Similar to how I think they won't say "There's no beholders/illithids/whatnot" in Athas. They will simply not mention them. 

Because "An official list of things that don't belong in this setting" is really not what I want from WotC, among other things.

Besides, that's not what "Everything is core" means. "Everything is core" means that you can pick up Dark Sun Player's Guide, and take the rules and put them in your game, and things arne't broken. In fact, you're encouraged.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 25, 2009)

See I think it would be far more interesting to say that there are no gods, but we still see classes with the divine power source functioning.  Maybe they are worshiping the earth itself or elements like the original version.  What if the Primordials killed off the gods and usurped their place.  People may still believe fervently in the old gods, but those prayers are being intercepted and answered by powerful Primordials.


----------



## Wik (Oct 26, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> See I think it would be far more interesting to say that there are no gods, but we still see classes with the divine power source functioning.  Maybe they are worshiping the earth itself or elements like the original version.  What if the Primordials killed off the gods and usurped their place.  People may still believe fervently in the old gods, but those prayers are being intercepted and answered by powerful Primordials.




The problem with this is radiant damage.  It's too "holy water" esque.  Too goody two-shoes.  And it displaces the power of the elements that is core to the Athasian theme.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 26, 2009)

Wik said:


> The problem with this is radiant damage.  It's too "holy water" esque.  Too goody two-shoes.  And it displaces the power of the elements that is core to the Athasian theme.




There's nothing inherently "goody" about radiant damage. In fact, I'd argue that radiant damage has a strong place in Athas: many powers having to do with the sun.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 26, 2009)

Wik said:


> The problem with this is radiant damage.  It's too "holy water" esque.  Too goody two-shoes.  And it displaces the power of the elements that is core to the Athasian theme.




Warlock powers especially those of the Starlock do radiant damage.  I'd hardly call them "goody-two-shoes" getting powers from alien entities and eldritch abominations that will drive you insane and consume the world.

Of course now that really does make me wonder what an Athasian Warlock is like...


----------



## Rechan (Oct 26, 2009)

In the show "Supernatural", a psychic was trying to see the true form of an angel (at the time, they thought it was a demon or other entity). Her eyes were burned out of her skull at the glimpse. 

That's what I would consider radiant damage. It's not "Good", it's "Here is RAW OTHERWORLDLY POWER unaffiliated with an element".


----------



## MaximumHavoc (Oct 27, 2009)

Rechan said:


> In the show "Supernatural", a psychic was trying to see the true form of an angel (at the time, they thought it was a demon or other entity). Her eyes were burned out of her skull at the glimpse.
> 
> That's what I would consider radiant damage. It's not "Good", it's "Here is RAW OTHERWORLDLY POWER *unaffiliated with an element*".



the bold is why i think the easy fix is to say that all radiant damage instead is fire damage.

now, parallelism would suggest that necrotic damage instead is cold damage, but this raises a few issues.  necrotic energy is most closely associated with the shadowfell, the natural world's dimmer echo, but radiant energy is most closely associated with the astral sea--the plane of the gods--not the feywild, which is the natural world's more vibrant echo.  so, necrotic energy seems not to be completely parallel to radiant energy and therefore need not necessarily mimic radiant's dark sun modification (as i am depicting it).  on the other hand, as i understand it, athas does not really have connections to ANY planes, with the possible exception of (what is now) the elemental chaos, so, in that respect, perhaps necrotic should be treated similarly to radiant.

on a slightly separate note, perhaps all divine classes could instead worship, or derive their power from, primordials.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 27, 2009)

MaximumHavoc said:


> necrotic energy is most closely associated with the shadowfell, the natural world's dimmer echo



In all honesty I never really associated Necrotic with the shadowfell. While things from the shadowfell likely use necrotic more frequently than something from say, the Feywild, I wouldn't associate the two.

Necrotic _to me_ is *decay*. It's concentrated entropy. The Shadowfell isn't necessarily entropic in nature.


----------



## JohnSnow (Oct 27, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I would personally be shocked if the Dark Sun book said 'Yeah, these classes DO NOT EXIST in Athas'.
> 
> I doubt they're going to ban power sources in the books. They may not MENTION them, or say they are rare, but not flat out say "Yeah there's none here".
> 
> Similar to how I think they won't say "There's no beholders/illithids/whatnot" in Athas. They will simply not mention them.




Maybe. But that's certainly not the impression that Rodney Thompson is giving. From his blog on the Wizards Community...



> Athas is a desolate place where survival is not assured, where the very land can kill you, and where even the points of light (to use a 4E-favorite term) are ruled by darkness. It's a world of sword-and-sandal adventuring, of low tech and dangerous magic. It's a world where psionics is common, and where *there are no gods to pray to or receive power from.* It's a world where the land is struggling to stay alive, and its defenders face a near-hopeless task to keep it that way. Dark Sun is a dangerous world, a world of survival of the fittest, but...it's also a world for heroes. They might not think of themselves as such, but Athas is a place where evil rules so long as the common man does nothing.
> ...
> It's not a kitchen sink setting by any means; there are things that are part of other settings which simply won't be seen in the Dark Sun setting.




Emphasis mine.

I dunno about you, but that seems pretty clear to me. In his previous blog, he talked about how easy it was to remove the divine power source ENTIRELY when running a *Dark Sun* adventure at GwenCon.

Take that as you will.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 27, 2009)

JohnSnow said:


> Emphasis mine.



And in Eberron, there's no proof the gods Exist, despite the power that you get from them.

I am willing to bet money that there is no list of "These classes/power sources don't belong in Athas" in the book. Options will be there to allow clerics, paladins, avengers et all to function. 

Especially given that all the Primal classes are in PHB 2. THat's not very encouraging to say "Yeah the classes you need for healers? In another book you have to buy". 



> I dunno about you, but that seems pretty clear to me. In his previous blog, he talked about how easy it was to remove the divine power source ENTIRELY when running a *Dark Sun* adventure at GwenCon.



Which is like Mearls giving instructions on how to give typed bonuses at levels instead of using magical items, and saying "This is proof they're getting rid of magical items".


----------



## Wik (Oct 27, 2009)

Regarding Radiant Damage:

I can see how it could fit in mechanically.  We mentioned it at today's session (where I give a "dark sun update" at the start of every session, it seems).  However, I don't see it working thematically.

To me, blinding light, even great angelic light that isn't all "good and holy", still has a divine sort of feel to it.  Bright radiant light, in any way, sort of breaks the mood for me.  

Odds are, I'll sub in "fire" for "radiant", or "holy element" or something of the like.  however, as with a lot of what I'm saying regarding Dark Sun, I'm mostly just interested in what's in/what's out with the product;  I'm fully aware there will be new changes I won't appreciate.  I'm also fully aware that I'll be able to houserule those out.  

And Rechan:  even if you cut out all the divine classes, you still have all the roles in the Player's Handbook - Warlord is a Leader, too.  Looking at all the books, you'd have Warlord, Bard, Artificer, and Shaman (though I'm not sure I like Artificer being in there).  

You can easily cut out the divine power source.  In fact, I like the idea that any power source can be cut - I'm seriously considering running a game that's arcane only, or primal and martial only.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 31, 2009)

Altho having Artificers around, tying bits of bone and stone together to empower them to do the things they wants helps explain how Warforged are in Athas


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 31, 2009)

is it just me or did info start comeing, then just stop more or less in the last week to week and a half. No new sunday tweets, and the blog hasn't really given anything. Now I am wondering when the next little bit of info is comeing...


----------



## Hawke (Oct 31, 2009)

Since it's moved from development on Oct 24th, I imagine there is a bit of strategizing on how they plan to proceed with updates and whatnot. With so many other releases slated between now and then, I can see some emphasis on those for a little bit.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Oct 31, 2009)

Well, that, and since I'm not actively working on it right now there's not a lot for me to Tweet about.


----------



## Hawke (Oct 31, 2009)

So I should un-follow you on twitter until then... just tweet when the dark sun tweets will return and I'll ... oh wait... that wont work. Just kidding - always eager to hear about whatever you're working on or whatever teams aren't performing well this sunday  We appreciate the updates!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 31, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> is it just me or did info start comeing, then just stop more or less in the last week to week and a half. No new sunday tweets, and the blog hasn't really given anything. Now I am wondering when the next little bit of info is comeing...



You're not the only one. It's been two and a half months since the announcement and no articles to speak of since. A thin handful of blog posts on the "official Dark Sun blog" . . . I wonder what Mr. Baker thinks about his blog being designated the "official Dark Sun blog"? The only articles on the Dark Sun page are the announcements themselves.

[Edit: I don't mean to sound ungrateful, I'm just filled with impatience-verging-on-annoyance  ]

I wonder if if would be feasible for the Dark Sun page to have links to all of the Dark Sun blog posts, from every WotC_[Staff] blogger that posts something on Dark Sun . . . Rodney's blog posts have been as informative as Rich's have been, they deserve direct linking on the DS page IMO.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 31, 2009)

And just before I posted, Rich Baker updates his blog again with some bits on art keeping its iconic Brom-look, and some info about the 4e belgoi mechanic, and revealed the 4e belgoi is a fey that abandoned the Feywild. 

The belgoi are psionic *fey*, not natural humanoids. That's why they have their supernatural powers and the strange but flavorful focus of a bell for their mental summons. The Feywild of Athas is in pretty poor shape (more on that in another post, I guess), so centuries ago the belgoi abandoned it and became roving nomadic predators in the deserts.​Confirmation Feywild has a place in the Athasian 4e cosmology. But it appears it is not like what we have seen elsewhere in WotC products.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 31, 2009)

So, what the heck are Delgo?


----------



## Wik (Oct 31, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So, what the heck are Delgo?




I have no idea what Delgo are.

Belgoi, though, are desert tribe raiders that carry small bells.  They attack at night, ringing the bells beforehand.  Those that hear the bell are psionically summoned to investigate, and the belgoi make short work.  They do this to the guards, and then slip on the camp and do some brutal murdering/raiding.


----------



## Shroomy (Oct 31, 2009)

Here is the belgoi picture he's talking about.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Nov 1, 2009)

THAT is one of may absolute all time fave frikkin' pieces of art, seriously  I treasure the Dragon mag with that cover!! 
hey anyone know if you cna get a poster of that? (legit)
Hence my passion for making Dark Sun art (and Spelljammer is so damn fantastic in looks, to)

meh, any player who can't accept that folk can get called out of their camp while their character is ASLEEP and thus not notice it...*rolles eyes*, grrr! Go with the flow, for goodness sake! 
Belgois _scared _my players, this is a good thing! 
"Dont' split the party" so smart enemies_ do exactly that_.

easy ways ot beat it, if you are smart, liek tie stirng with noise makers around cmap, warns of intruders or mind numbed victims walking out into the desert (note, they are under a complusion...so, they would wlak into traps etc)
the other way is to do the obvious: 
DON'T CAMP ANY WHERE NEAR BLOODY BELGOI!
You know, hire a ranger, hm? lol  
Blegoi should be one of the scariest things to encounter on Athas, IMHO, especially since they can have enormous tribes that can wipe out villages and threaten cities.

anyway, they don't suck out life energy, iirc, they suck out water? hm?
I recall Tembo for sure sucked life energy, gave negative levels, but that's because of them having nasty psionic powers. Imagine a sadistic pig-wolverine-bug-eyed-monster crossbreed, feral hunter but with high smarts and a sadistic, cowardly taste for chidlren and other weak prey. they were bad.

oh for art they should hire this guy!
http://gandhi.gfxartist.com/artworks
alas, some of his Dark Sun pics aren't showing any more, gah!!!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 1, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> meh, any player who can't accept that folk can get called out of their camp while their character is ASLEEP and thus not notice it...*rolles eyes*, grrr! Go with the flow, for goodness sake!
> Belgois _scared _my players, this is a good thing!
> "Dont' split the party" so smart enemies_ do exactly that_.




2 points...

1) what normaly happens (and I am trying to tech my players not to) is my PCs set two watches, so there are always 2 people up, and the first moment it happens the one not effected yells to wake everyone up.

2) so you pull 1 PC away...the others do what?? sit and wait? then the others wake up and that 1 PC goes for a food run?
Remeber not spliting the party is in game as much as out of game...spliting the party means people sit out, witch is not fun...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 1, 2009)

Eric Anondson said:


> The Feywild of Athas






Called it...?


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 1, 2009)

Eric Anondson said:


> The Feywild of Athas​



​


ProfessorCirno said:


> Called it...?






Eric Anondson said:


> is in pretty poor shape (more on that in another post, I guess), so centuries ago the belgoi abandoned it and became roving nomadic predators in the deserts.​Confirmation Feywild has a place in the Athasian 4e cosmology. But it appears it is not like what we have seen elsewhere in WotC products.




Not surprised to see that they have found a place for the Feywild, also looking forward to see how it is different from the normal feywild.  Some possibilities suggest themselves:



Super Desert ++
somehow corrupted by the shadowfell?
other?
Anyone have any clue?


----------



## Rechan (Nov 1, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Anyone have any clue?



Maybe Defiling has an even bigger impact there. Like, Plane of Negative Energy bad.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Nov 1, 2009)

GMofpowergamers

lol, they aren't exlcuded, they get to run the belgoi, and get XP for suitably slaying their comrade


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 1, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Maybe Defiling has an even bigger impact there. Like, Plane of Negative Energy bad.




Considering that the feywild is more magical and more nature/wilderness oriented ... it seems like a place where defiling would be more powerful and more devastating.


----------



## Hawke (Nov 2, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> oh for art they should hire this guy!
> Gandhi - My artworks - GFXartist.com - Served over 20,000,000 artworks
> alas, some of his Dark Sun pics aren't showing any more, gah!!!




Woah, good stuff there. Definitely has captured the feel in some of that art. If they can't chain up brom... they should have a look.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 6, 2009)

I found something new ont he WotC site...



> *Dark Sun Creature Catalog*  D&D Rules Supplement  Dark Sun  Richard Baker and Bruce R. Cordell  08/17/10
> *Dark Sun Campaign Setting*  D&D Supplement  Dark Sun  Richard Baker and Robert J. Schwalb  08/17/10
> *Marauders of the Dune Sea*  D&D Adventure  Dark Sun  Chris Sims and Chris Tulach  08/17/10
> *Dungeon Tiles: Desert of Athas*  D&D Accessory  D&D  Wizards RPG Team  06/15/10




so now we have 4 DS products (unlike every other setting gettting 3) but still no Player's guide...I hope it is comeing up in september...


----------



## ggroy (Nov 6, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so now we have 4 DS products (unlike every other setting gettting 3) but still no Player's guide...I hope it is comeing up in september...




According to the blurb written for the campaign guide book,

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Product (Dark Sun Campaign Setting)

it purports that it will have information for both players and DMs.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 6, 2009)

Don't forget we have confirmed (some) novels, too.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Nov 6, 2009)

ggroy said:


> According to the blurb written for the campaign guide book,
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Product (Dark Sun Campaign Setting)
> 
> it purports that it will have information for both players and DMs.



 Precisely, there is no Player's Guide, just a 3e/3.5e-esque Campaign Setting.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 6, 2009)

So much for separating player and DM material.


----------



## ggroy (Nov 6, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So much for separating player and DM material.




Along with two of the three announced Dark Sun books being softcover trade paperbacks.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Product (Dark Sun Creature Catalog)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Product (Marauders of the Dune Sea)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 6, 2009)

> A D&D adventure set in the world of Athas or your own campaign world.
> 
> Now that Tyr is free of Kalak the Sorcerer-King, opportunity abounds in the city and the surrounding wastes. But some see Kalak’s fall as the beginning of Tyr’s end, and the unpatrolled deserts nearby are rife with danger. Outlaws openly defy the city’s Revolutionary Council and threaten outlying holdings. If Tyr is to thrive, heroes must arise to tame the lawlessness and evil that threatens the free city.
> 
> This stand-alone D&D adventure is designed to take characters from 2nd to 5th level. Although nominally set in the Dark Sun campaign setting, Dungeon Masters can easily incorporate it into their "homebrew" D&D campaigns.




OMG free tyr...so now we know it is a free city again...


----------



## Rechan (Nov 6, 2009)

I thought the city being free was one of the Revised changes that everyone hated?


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Nov 6, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I thought the city being free was one of the Revised changes that everyone hated?



 If that is true, queue rabid DS fans complaining.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 6, 2009)

I would compalin but I am much too rabid to have retained speech.

I like Dark Sun, and I am not unhappy that Tyr is free, as it offeres a different kind of adventure locale for heroes. You want to be undder someone's thumb, go elsewhere, want a freer campaign, go to Tyr. It opens a lot more possibilities.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Nov 6, 2009)

Okay, what's the difference between the Campaign Guide and the Campaign Setting?  I'm presuming it's the same book, renamed and with different art.  That seems odd, but one never knows.  

I'm confuzzled.


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 6, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Okay, what's the difference between the Campaign Guide and the Campaign Setting?  I'm presuming it's the same book, renamed and with different art.  That seems odd, but one never knows.
> 
> I'm confuzzled.



I agree, and assume it's an error.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Nov 6, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Okay, what's the difference between the Campaign Guide and the Campaign Setting? I'm presuming it's the same book, renamed and with different art. That seems odd, but one never knows.
> 
> I'm confuzzled.



 Campaign Guide is just DM information, no player content (for the most part), the Player's Guide handles all player information.  This is very good because all of the juicy secrets are only in the CG, thus generally only available to the DM.

Campaign Setting is a combination of the CG and PG, thus removing some of the redundancy, but also making all of the secrets of the campaign setting known to the players, since they own the book.  This is a very bad combination, it was in 3e/3.5e, it is now.  Especially when WotC has went to great lengths to split DM and Player content.  They appear to be making a huge step backward here.

BTW, if you read the product blurb on their site, this is definitely not a error.


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Nov 6, 2009)

I like that Dark Sun gets its own creature catalogue, but I don't understand why WoTC couldn't just increase the page count by 16 pages and make it a hardcover. What I really dislike, however, the cover of the Campaign Setting book. I remember when they unveiled the cover of (what was supposed to be) the Campaign Guide at Gen Con. It was amazing, and gave a great glimpse into a strange and foreign world. The new cover of the Campaign Setting book is as bland and meh as the cover of the Player's Handbook. Great artwork is really important when it comes to giving readers (especially those new to Dark Sun) inspiration and a good impression of what the Dark Sun world is like. An example of artwork that gives an excellent depiction of the campaign world, is the first chapter-opening in the Eberron Campaign Guide (the warforged hanging from the flying ship, closing in on a lightning rail from the air). Since Dark Sun is so different from vanilla settings like Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, the art work is even more important. There is also extra pressure on Dark Sun art because of Brom's legacy. His artwork was incredible, and really got my creative juices flowing. The picture of the Belgoi, mentioned earlier, is a great example. I seem to remember WoTC saying (at Gen Con maybe?) that they would try to get Brom to contribute, but that he was very busy, etc etc.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 6, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I thought the city being free was one of the Revised changes that everyone hated?




No, it happened in the very first product that came out after the first boxed set (_Freedom_).  It was also heavily foreshadowed in the first boxed set itself under the writeup for Tyr, where it goes on about Kalak being about to fall and the slaves being the ones who are going to do it.  Written into the setting from the ground floor.  Not surprising at all that they're going with it for 4e as well if they are planning (as stated) to stick to the flavour of the original box.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Nov 6, 2009)

WTH, Tyr had best not be free unless it's part of an adventure path, as I *despise* the idea of "democracy" on Athas, _unless the players do it_,  ugh. Even then it doesn't fit, because "democracy" as an ideal, well, lets just say it doesn't come out of a vacuum!!

People on Athas *like* overlords, why? see history and social dynamics of even today: folk LOVE having a tyrant, _if he's a tyrant that keeps most folk well off, safe, runs things smart, and most "folks of quality" are not harassed_. Many people do not want all the work they have to do, to support successful Democracies. Much easier for them to let a tyrant run things...

Kalak maybe a tyrant, but his city _works _and is relatively safe. Elves and mages are convenient scapegoats, and the threat of the monsters of the wastes are NOT some bullcrap "_Eurasia/Eastasia boogeyman for the masses_", as the wastelands are full of horrors that are real threats.
Hey, given the choice between Kalak and his templars' tyranny, or belgoi eating your family etc...!!

So, I hope this "Free Tyr" is *only* due to a an adventure, or possible outcome of only the PC's actions, nothing else. A "Free Tyr" would make a mockery of the whole of Dark SuUn, for pity's ake, ugh.

If you want a "free starting place" for PCs well that's always bloody been there, there's NEVER been a need for a "Free Tyr". 
Why? "Slave villages" (ex-slaves etc), trading forts/towns etc that the sorceror kings grasp is light or non-existant due to the necessities of trade and distance, or homebrewed "Hidden towns", Underdark folk who've escaped by going "morlock", and so forth.

anyway  looking forward to 4th ed Dark Sun, but a free city does NOT belong in Athas (or at leats the Tablelands), except by direct action of PCs.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 6, 2009)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> If that is true, queue rabid DS fans complaining.




Rabid fans nothing, this is something most DS fans, regardless of their "rabid-ness" disliked.

It's also something WotC expressedly stated would not happen.

..._So hey!_


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Nov 6, 2009)

IMO the best solution would be a Player's Guide and a Campaign Guide with monsters included. Add a few short stories if you think the page count is too low for the Player's Guide, as that's an excellent way for first-time Dark Sun players to get a feel for the world. It worked for me with the short story in the original box . And I wouldn't mind a 300+ page Campaign Guide .

I just don't see the need to have a separate Creature Catalog.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 6, 2009)

Yeah, it's definitely a pity if they have chosen to eliminate the DM/player division of books. I like it as it has been so far. Now, this is completely anecdotal, but it has definitely increased significantly the amount of books my players have bought (compared to the last edition), so unless we are the odd duck out, it makes little sense.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 6, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Rabid fans nothing, this is something most DS fans, regardless of their "rabid-ness" disliked.
> 
> It's also something WotC expressedly stated would not happen.
> 
> ..._So hey!_



WotC said they wouldn't have Kalak overthrown?  Where did they say that?  And I really doubt you've spoken to "most" DS fans.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> Kalak maybe a tyrant, but his city _works _and is relatively safe. Elves and mages are convenient scapegoats, and the threat of the monsters of the wastes are NOT some bullcrap "_Eurasia/Eastasia boogeyman for the masses_", as the wastelands are full of horrors that are real threats.
> Hey, given the choice between Kalak and his templars' tyranny, or belgoi eating your family etc...!!



Well, that's something of a false dilemma.  Going by the original DS material, Kalak's Tyr most emphatically did _not_ work.  The treasury was bankrupt, the iron mines were floundering and then closed down.  The templarate and nobles were plotting against Kalak himself, and Kalak had all but abandoned rulership in favour of building his ziggurat in preparation for killing all of his citizens.  Revolution in Tyr was written into the setting from the get-go.

And when it happened, things got _worse_.  Not better.  Riots.  Starvation.  Lynch mobs.  Corruption.  War.  Factions turning on each other.  That's the way to portray post-Kalak Tyr.  Not as some hippy-dippy "Age of Heroes" utopia with Preservers out in the open.  But as a fractured, decaying wreck, turning on itself in the absence of a strong overlord.  If you want to continue the real-world analogies that DS got so much use out of, take a look at post-Tito Yugoslavia, or even post-Saddam Iraq, where the absence of a dictator opens a can of barely-surpressed tensions between rival groups of citizens.

If WotC can pull that off as a portrayal of Tyr, I say it will play directly into the DS flavour.  Sure, they might just go for the "Sadira and Rikus and Agis have saved us all, yay!" approach, like later DS material did.  But the earlier stuff got the tone right imho.  Riots, bloodshed and unfettered rivalries ftw!



Silverblade The Ench said:


> So, I hope this "Free Tyr" is *only* due to a an adventure, or possible outcome of only the PC's actions, nothing else. A "Free Tyr" would make a mockery of the whole of Dark SuUn, for pity's ake, ugh.



The _whole_ of Dark Sun?  Now you're just being silly.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> If you want a "free starting place" for PCs well that's always bloody been there, there's NEVER been a need for a "Free Tyr".
> Why? "Slave villages" (ex-slaves etc), trading forts/towns etc that the sorceror kings grasp is light or non-existant due to the necessities of trade and distance, or homebrewed "Hidden towns", Underdark folk who've escaped by going "morlock", and so forth.
> 
> anyway  looking forward to 4th ed Dark Sun, but a free city does NOT belong in Athas (or at leats the Tablelands), except by direct action of PCs.



Agree with this completely.  Whatever happens to Tyr, the PCs should be involved.  Biggest flaw in _Freedom_ was having the PCs be bystanders to the NPCs.  Let the PCs get the Heartwood Spear and stick it to the old kank.

Or just use Nibenay as the home city.  By far the coolest city in the Tablelands anyway .


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 6, 2009)

I thought that most people objected to what happened to Tyr not because of what happened to Tyr, but because of the way TSR depicted it in the adventures (that the NPCs from the novels did it "off-screen").  Am I misremembering?

The decision to not separate the CS and PG tells me that there is not enough player's material to justify a separate book and that a lot of the player-orientated content will be explicitly optional and up to the DM to use (which makes sense IMO, since its the setting that deviates most from the baseline 4e experience).


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 6, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> I thought that most people objected to what happened to Tyr not because of what happened to Tyr, but because of the way TSR depicted it in the adventures (that the NPCs from the novels did it "off-screen").  Am I misremembering?



No, you're right.  It happened entirely off-screen.  The PCs were tangential at best.  In _Freedom_ they got to take part in the gladiator games and help folks escape the arena.  Then at the end, the NPC heroes appear and have apparently saved the day.  Unless you read the novel (which I didn't until some time later) it's pretty confusing as to what actually happens to Kalak.  So yeah, that's the main problem with the adventure.  Whenever I've run it in recent years, I've had the PCs do all the cool stuff and consigned Rikus, Sadita et al to the sidelines where they belong.  Hopefully the 4e designers have learned from the 2e design errors.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 6, 2009)

Mark Hope said:


> Going by the original DS material, Kalak's Tyr most emphatically did _not_ work.  The treasury was bankrupt, the iron mines were floundering and then closed down.  The templarate and nobles were plotting against Kalak himself, and Kalak had all but abandoned rulership in favour of building his ziggurat in preparation for killing all of his citizens.  Revolution in Tyr was written into the setting from the get-go.
> 
> And when it happened, things got _worse_.  Not better.  Riots.  Starvation.  Lynch mobs.  Corruption.  War.  Factions turning on each other.  That's the way to portray post-Kalak Tyr.  Not as some hippy-dippy "Age of Heroes" utopia with Preservers out in the open.  But as a fractured, decaying wreck, turning on itself in the absence of a strong overlord.



Clarity, ftw.

Post-Kalak Tyr became a worse place. The plot opportunities expanded exponentially by the development. I'm okay with having a rebooted Dark Sun have Kalak dead/deposed.

I'm hoping that we don't have more sorcerer-kings dead though! Let it just be Kalak . . .


----------



## Obryn (Nov 6, 2009)

I've said before, as a Dark Sun fan, I'm perfectly happy having one free city.  In fact, I think it's nearly essential for the setting to work.

It was killing off all the _other_ sorcerer kings that hurt the setting.  Having Kalak dead is consistent with the original box set, and IMO improves the setting.  (And if you want the PCs to be involved in deposing a Sorcerer-King, there are plenty of others for them to fight!)

I agree with the above that the lack of a Player's Guide just means that there's not enough player _stuff_ to fill a book.  I'm not sure - I'll keep an eye on it.  I really like the Players' Guide / Campaign Setting divisions, so this is kinda disappointing.

-O


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 8, 2009)

I like the division of PG/CS, but I would have bought both books anyway.  I think Silverblade went a bit far on things.  There was democracy in the past on Dark Sun, even if it is now in legend only.  The concept isn't developed out of nothing.  Tyr being a "free city" just says to me it is free of the sorceror king's rule.  What replaced it?  A wise council of heroes?  His templars continuing his work?  Merchant houses?


----------



## Wik (Nov 8, 2009)

Not to mention Andropinis runs his city like a democracy, even if it's only on the surface.  Plus, many slave tribes are democratic.  

AS for New Tyr.... I mostly used a pre-revolution Tyr, each time with the intent that PCs would play a part in freeing Tyr.  And every time, they'd find themselves in Tyr, see what was going on, see the time was ripe for revolution, and then they'd inevitably say "Hey, guys, let's go back to Raam!"  



I'll be using a free Tyr this time around.  It being different opens up so many play possibilities.


----------



## Henry (Nov 9, 2009)

Count me as another "dislikes Kalak dead" fan. However, as long as there's plenty of adventure opportunities in Tyr, then I'd be OK with it. I'm just waiting to see if any other dropped tidbits point to an annoying blend of 1st and 2nd boxed sets. I want Dark Sun, not "slightly less than Happy" Sun.


----------



## Wik (Nov 9, 2009)

But, it's been pointed out earlier, the original boxed set KNEW Tyr would fall.  So, rather than starting with Tyr free, it simply implemented that change very early on (as in, the first adventure, and the first novel, which were a tie-in).  

A free Tyr is still part of the original setting.  4E can't do it because they know they have a limited product run, so they have to make Tyr free.


----------



## Hawke (Nov 9, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> I thought that most people objected to what happened to Tyr not because of what happened to Tyr, but because of the way TSR depicted it in the adventures (that the NPCs from the novels did it "off-screen").  Am I misremembering?




This was my criticism. When I ran it, the NPCs were vital and used a ritual that actually split Kalak into several lower-level mirrors of himself and I had the PCs involved in the crucial fight. If players aren't directly involved in Kalak's fall as part of an adventure, I don't mind seeing Tyr as free.

I always saw, like others above, Tyr with kalak as bad, and Tyr free worse. I think the ideals of freedom and democracy we hold now but seeing them perverted in the Dark Sun world holds some terror. Tyr's freedom was anarchy and its democracy was two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Also enjoyed running plots of the other sorcerer-kings plotting to take over Tyr in my own games. 

I'd love to hear from the team whether or not it's free by default or if they included a "running Tyr under Kalak" blurb. Or heck, maybe a re-written Freedom as DDI would solve it all. ::licks chops::


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Nov 9, 2009)

I know Kalak was runnng the city into the ground financially to build the ziggurat...but...maybe he wasn't, eh? why not just leave it to the DM and players, as ot what this major city/event may all be about and turn into, _or not be happening at all, _you know? 

In my campaigns Kalak's been building the ziggurat for...well, a LONG time. You think slaves count decades or centuries? 

As for "democracy", look, it's hard to grasp this, but our Western idea of Democracy is not somehting that can "spring" into a culture's collective mind: it's impossible (short of magic hehe).
I forget the exact wonderful quote, but one of the USA's founders put it perfeclty well, that Democracy relies on the support and action of concerned citizens who support it.
"Democracy by the mob" is, well, as folk note, that's even worse than a tyrant!! 

Cultures are peculiar things, many people, whether we Westerners like it or not, DO indeed like tyranny..when done well. And why not? if you aren't one of the poor/outcasts, you're probably fine. Compared to the anarchy, mayhem etc you may have of failed states, it's a damn sight better. 
And simple, ordinry ignorant folk can graps and support the concept.
Plus what's hard ot grasp is the cultural "acceptance" the inertia, the comfort of a known, working system...it's like cement and very hard to change, at least, in pre-Industrial Age type settings.

This is why many folk rabidly support dictators, even when we think it's dumb to do so.
So, in my games in Athas, the sorceror kings often are supported by gangs/groups etc of citizens who support them..or use uspport of the sorceror kings for excuse ot be hoodlums etc. Sort of liek the Nazi "Brown Shirts" and so on.
Hey, you support the sorceror king openly, stomp "oucasts"     and harass nay-sayers, there's power in that...power is very very desirable.

It's naive ot think there wouldn't be many folk, not just templars, who wouldn't desperately support their Sorceror King, even if he is a monstorus SOB...hey, he keeps them safe, they don't know he's a "Whatever the DM wnats the sorceror kings ot be, illithid, dragon-king, demon lord" or whatever.
Infromers and bully boys would be common.

Kalak keeps the Dragon and wasteland riaders at bay...which would you rather have? 
If you are an illiterate slave with almost no sense of REAL history (see the chattel slavery of the 16th to 19th centuries), do you think it's likely you could grasp what a Democracy really means to make it stable, or that many slaves in "Better" positions would rather BE slaves in "better psoitions", than...something they don't understand, fear...change..chaos...
_Better to be a slave with food in your belly than a starving "free" man!_

So have a good think about how you run "revolutions" in Athas, or similar settings. 

Also, please note, Kalak does not HAVE ot be making the ziggurat for a huge life-drain to make him a dragon! _It can be for whatever reason a DM wants_.I do not want ot be rail roaded again with Dark Sun, grrr.

So, if he isn't gonna life drain the city, that is no longer a reason for Tithian to kill him.
What if Kalak knows Athas is doomed, and is preparing a planar gate way, or a tomb ot live in undeath for eternity...what of the sorceror kings are the progenitors of the illithids?


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 9, 2009)

What if Kalak really likes SHOES and just needs a bigger closet, so he builds this huge tower.  The PCs kill him, thinking he is planning to kill everyone, and discover he has 8 million pairs of sandals, short boots, calf high, knee high, darn-near-crotch-high, etc.  How sheepish would they feel? 

Oh yeah, and they discover Kalak wears 6" lifts in his shoes and is actually 5'3


----------



## Danzauker (Nov 9, 2009)

Wik said:


> But, it's been pointed out earlier, the original boxed set KNEW Tyr would fall.  So, rather than starting with Tyr free, it simply implemented that change very early on (as in, the first adventure, and the first novel, which were a tie-in).
> 
> A free Tyr is still part of the original setting.  4E can't do it because they know they have a limited product run, so they have to make Tyr free.




Saying that the original box "knew" that Tyr would fall is just like saying that "there will surely be another Last War" because that's what the Eberron guide says.

It's a hint, an opportunity, an idea, but it's not a FACT.

In the DS original box Kalak is king of Tyr. Period.

Freedom is an optional (well, I'd like it was) product. Which I, personally, bought more than 10 years after I bought the boxed set, but it'a another matter.

I'm still very displeased that the 4e incarnation of DS incorporates the fall of Tyr in the premises. I understand the "need for a base of operation" gaming matter, but part of what made DS quite unique was, among many other things, the fact that it didn't have a Sigil or a Sharn for the characters to do whatever they wanted.

Next time? Will they release a 4e Ravenloft with a "Free Barovia", without a Dark Lord, that the PCs can usa as a base of operation?

Not all settings should follow the same premises.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 9, 2009)

Danzauker said:


> Saying that the original box "knew" that Tyr would fall is just like saying that "there will surely be another Last War" because that's what the Eberron guide says.
> 
> It's a hint, an opportunity, an idea, but it's not a FACT.
> 
> In the DS original box Kalak is king of Tyr. Period.



No, it's nothing like that at all.  The first boxed set is very explicit about the imminent revolution in Tyr, and about the role that slaves will play in it.  It's far from just a hint.  _Freedom_ presented one way that you could portray that revolution.  You didn't have to use it.  But claims that revolution in Tyr was not written into the setting from the start are misguided at best.

Of course, you don't have to use any of that.  You can take Silverblade's suggestions and step away from the setting as described in the first boxed set entirely.  Go wild.  Have a ball.  Why not?

But if WotC decide to run with the DS setting as originally presented and make the most of their limited print run, you can't blame them for taking elements from the first two DS releases and working them into the revision.


----------



## Danzauker (Nov 9, 2009)

Mark Hope said:


> No, it's nothing like that at all.  The first boxed set is very explicit about the imminent revolution in Tyr, and about the role that slaves will play in it.  It's far from just a hint.  _Freedom_ presented one way that you could portray that revolution.  You didn't have to use it.  But claims that revolution in Tyr was not written into the setting from the start are misguided at best.
> 
> Of course, you don't have to use any of that.  You can take Silverblade's suggestions and step away from the setting as described in the first boxed set entirely.  Go wild.  Have a ball.  Why not?
> 
> But if WotC decide to run with the DS setting as originally presented and make the most of their limited print run, you can't blame them for taking elements from the first two DS releases and working them into the revision.




Yes, of course, I know I can steer away from the fluff and just keep Kalak on the throne in my campaign - and that's exactly what I'll do.

But at least Tyr was described as under the rule of a sorcerer-king, just like EVERY other city-state in the original box. Then came Freedom to ruin everything. And you can ignore it, if you wish.

But what I read on the upcoming adventure is that assumes Kalak has already fallen, so that's not just "going to happen" after the base setting world is estabilished, but IN THE CORE GUIDE itself.

That's what I don't like. I fear I will not see any description of Kalak's Tyr, because it will be wasted space, and I'll just see Freemen's Tyr in the book. Which I don't care about nor like.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 9, 2009)

Danzauker said:


> Yes, of course, I know I can steer away from the fluff and just keep Kalak on the throne in my campaign - and that's exactly what I'll do.
> 
> But at least Tyr was described as under the rule of a sorcerer-king, just like EVERY other city-state in the original box. Then came Freedom to ruin everything. And you can ignore it, if you wish.
> 
> ...



Kalak's Tyr received little more than a page in the original Dark Sun boxed set.  A few paragraphs - nothing more.  So you didn't get much of a description of Kalak's Tyr first time around either.  And yet that doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.  In fact, what's stopping you from still using those few paragraphs this time around.  Or even, heh heh, using _Freedom_.  There was lots of detail on pre-revolution Tyr in there, you know 

Look, I understand the desire for Athas to have no free city-states.  My current DS game is set in a pre-revolution Tyr.  But I think it's pretty daft to suggest that it's a grievous blow to the DS setting to have Tyr free from the outset.  Details on pre-revolution Tyr were so sparse in the first boxed set as to be easily handwaved one way or the other.  Dark Sun 1e wasn't built on the concept of a pre-revolution Tyr the first time around.  Why expect that to be the case this time around?


----------



## Danzauker (Nov 9, 2009)

Mark Hope said:


> Look, I understand the desire for Athas to have no free city-states.  My current DS game is set in a pre-revolution Tyr.  But I think it's pretty daft to suggest that it's a grievous blow to the DS setting to have Tyr free from the outset.  Details on pre-revolution Tyr were so sparse in the first boxed set as to be easily handwaved one way or the other.  Dark Sun 1e wasn't built on the concept of a pre-revolution Tyr the first time around.  Why expect that to be the case this time around?




Well, because one always hope for things to be better. 

Seriously, when I bought my original DS box, I read the description of the setting on the back, and I liked it, I read the booklets, and I liked them.

All the fluff about Tyr's ruler straining the populace too much, was, well just fluff. The booklet itself says: 

"even the iron grip of the templars cannot keep the city from erupting into a violent inferno for much longer. [...] When the final battle comes, it will be a terrible thing. [...] Considering the advantages of Kalak's magic, the contest will be a close one.".

It's up to the reader to decide what to do with these hints. From any angle you watch it, the original DS setting was one where the sorcerer-kings had ruled for millennia, so that was considered the natural status quo.

If they wanted Freedom to be the starting point of the campaign, they should have put the adventure packed with the setting. That was the big mistake.

When I (and I guess others) bought the box, we just wanted the box. I didn't care a damn for Freedom or the novels. When I read what would happen in Freedom, I didn't want to buy it. And I read the novels only last year.

I don't care if this was "how the designers wanted to present the setting from the get go". If that was their intention, they sould have put all tht stuff in the box.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 9, 2009)

Danzauker said:


> Well, because one always hope for things to be better.
> 
> Seriously, when I bought my original DS box, I read the description of the setting on the back, and I liked it, I read the booklets, and I liked them.
> 
> ...



"Just fluff"??  That's what the setting is _made_ of.  There's little sense in dismissing material as "just fluff" when that's all you actually have to go on.

And I notice that you've omitted several key passages from your quote - notably the sections where it talks about the growing revolutionary sentiment and then goes onto foreshadow the role that slaves (the PCs in the adventure) will have in the revolution.  You can ignore that "fluff" if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.



Danzauker said:


> From any angle you watch it, the original DS setting was one where the sorcerer-kings had ruled for millennia, so that was considered the natural status quo.



No.  The Wanderer's Journal tells us that not all the SKs had ruled for millennia.  Some apparently came to power more recently.  Some are outright frauds.  At least one other is staring revolution in the face.  And then there are the ruined city-states and the clear statement that sorcerer-kings can die and have done so in the past.  So it's far from a status-quo.  And that's all just going by the first boxed set.



Danzauker said:


> If they wanted Freedom to be the starting point of the campaign, they should have put the adventure packed with the setting. That was the big mistake.



On the one hand I agree with you.  It might have prevented years of odd misconceptions about Kalak's imminent fate, if nothing else   On the other hand, the cool wilderness jaunt of _A Little Knowledge_ is a great mood-setter, so...



Danzauker said:


> When I (and I guess others) bought the box, we just wanted the box. I didn't care a damn for Freedom or the novels. When I read what would happen in Freedom, I didn't want to buy it. And I read the novels only last year.



I only read the later novels years after getting into DS.  So I can empathise with the disconnect ("Halflings??  WTF???") 



Danzauker said:


> I don't care if this was "how the designers wanted to present the setting from the get go". If that was their intention, they sould have put all tht stuff in the box.



They did.  That's kind of my point.


----------



## Danzauker (Nov 9, 2009)

You and I just disagree on one point.

I don't think that "to hint" at something is "to state" something.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 9, 2009)

No.  You're just Playing Dark Sun Wrong.  And if you were enjoying it, that was wrong too.  And you probably smell as well.







(Seriously, though, I'm happy to agree to disagree on this.  No sense in going round in circles.  Just so long as you admit I'm right.)


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 9, 2009)

I haven't dug out my old DS books in awhile, but my recollection syncs up with Mark's.  At least one other city state was staring a possible revolution in the face, but no city was as close to it as Tyr.  

Danzauker>I would think it was clear they wanted the campaign to start with Freedom when it was the first adventure they sold and the contents of the first novel sync up with the content of the adventure.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 9, 2009)

I'm not happy that Tyr starts as a free city. I hope the setting book will at least describe the option to use a version of Tyr still ruled by Kalak.

I'm also not happy they decided to have one book for both the players and the DM. I understand the reasoning, though: Since there's no new class, there's simply not sufficient incentive to buy a book purely for player stuff.

However, won't this mean the DM's will be the only ones buying it?


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Nov 9, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> However, won't this mean the DM's will be the only ones buying it?



Well, there is new race information, and there is some new information for classes (new builds, etc.)  So I think players will still pick it up.

I don't know much about Dark Sun aside from what I can read on Wikipedia.  But it seems to me that starting out with Tyr as a free city is okay by me.  From what I'm hearing on this thread, that outcome seems hardcoded into the setting.  And I think starting out with a free city is a good idea.  It allows for quite of a bit of adventure and intrigue - there are no doubt many factions vying for influence in the city, and spies or double agents of other sorcerer kings trying to control the situation or to kill the nascent "democracy" while it's still young.


----------



## Campbell (Nov 9, 2009)

Is post-revolution Tyr really a democratic government? From the blurb on the adventure it sounds like Tyr doesn't really have an established government since Kalak's fall. When I see the words 'revolutionary council' democracy is the last thing that races to mind. Instead I picture a sort of defacto war council that's trying to adjust to governing after a protracted campaign.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 9, 2009)

Campbell said:


> When I see the words 'revolutionary council' democracy is the last thing that races to mind.



To me, "revolutionary council" has just as an ominous and terrifying an option as can be imagined. The 20th century is filled with revolutions where the "purges" after the deposing were more violent and fear-filled than the overthrown tyrant's rule.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Nov 10, 2009)

Try may only have a few paragraphs, directly, but it's influence etc on the setting, is huge, as it's the "economic juggernaut" of the Tablelands.
also, it had a HUGE colour map in the boxed set, if you recall? So, that's not "Minor", jeesh


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 10, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Try may only have a few paragraphs, directly, but it's influence etc on the setting, is huge, as it's the "economic juggernaut" of the Tablelands.



Well, it has the only iron mine, but economic juggernaut it's not.  In the first boxed set, the iron mine isn't even open any more, and Tyr's merchant houses are in collapse.  Vordon is a laughing stock.  Balic, on the other hand - there's a real economic juggernaut.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> also, it had a HUGE colour map in the boxed set, if you recall? So, that's not "Minor", jeesh



What does the map have to do with how much impact Kalak's death has on the setting?  Other than the inclusion of the words "Preservers' District", the map doesn't change after the revolution.  Not seeing your point here.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 10, 2009)

For my tastes, I don't mind that Tyr is free.  As others have posted, I had assumed that it was supposed to fall and taking it forther, I posit that may have been an intended event when TSR produced the first box set.

It really doesn't matter to me either way, but at least it offers a variant city-state to start in other than one that isn't ruled by a Sorcerer-King.


----------



## edbonny (Nov 10, 2009)

Other than the re-releasing of the Prism Pentad series, are there only these 4 Dark Sun products scheduled for release next year? 

Dark Sun Campaign Guide (looks to be a Player's Guide/Campaign Guide combo?)
Dark Sun Creature Catalog (is this the first setting specific monster-type manual?)
Dark Sun Marauders of the Dune Sea adventure
Dungeon Tiles of Athas

I was hoping for more - some new novels, a Player's Guide, a 4e Dragon Kings. I really loved Dark Sun.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 10, 2009)

This is about the extent of campaign involvement WotC has in 4E.  Put out some initial products, seed some extra stuff from time to time in DDI/Dragon and move on to the next.  Keeps them from the problem TSR had of actively supporting too many campaign worlds at once.  I believe there has been some talk of novels, but that is typically not tied as closely with the game development.  Barring things like the Prism Pentad being so closely tied to the adventures of Dark Sun or the Avatar trilogy heralding 2E.


----------



## kilamanjaro (Nov 10, 2009)

edbonny said:


> Other than the re-releasing of the Prism Pentad series, are there only these 4 Dark Sun products scheduled for release next year?
> 
> Dark Sun Campaign Guide (looks to be a Player's Guide/Campaign Guide combo?)
> Dark Sun Creature Catalog (is this the first setting specific monster-type manual?)
> ...




I really loved your Dark Sun material for Dragon.  You should totally try to get something in to Dragon or Dungeon!


----------



## Wik (Nov 10, 2009)

Okay.  Time to muddy the waters a bit while I try to clear things up.  

DARK SUN was made in the early 90s, when most of the major game designers had made a pretty big discovery - novels were huge sellers of product, and they helped sell game product (at least, in theory).  The success of DRAGONLANCE and FORGOTTEN REALMS novels meant that future products had to tie in with novel sales - I'd be surprised if product design in the 1990s didn't factor in novel development.

Along with that came the idea of "metaplot".  Novels will push forward the plotline of the setting, so the setting must be built to accomodate that.  and it wasn't just TSR that was doing this - FASA had a fun old time introducing metaplot elements and progressing the campaign setting heedless of PC interactions.  It's one of the reasons I avoid SHADOWRUN.

When DARK SUN was released, they didn't have space for everything.  The intro to Dragon Kings mentions this - much of the info in there was cut from the boxed set due to space limitations.  And, I believe it was in the 30 years of D&D guide, but the author of the Prism Pentad (Troy Denning?) mentioned that he was writing the novels while writing the last bit of the boxed set.  

In other words, he already knew Tyr was going to be "Free" when he was designing it.  And you can see that in the original boxed set.  We're in the "Tyr Region".  There's a map of Tyr.  The scant info on Tyr all points towards a revolution that will involve the slaves.  The first adventure, being written before the set was released, was about freedom in Tyr.  And every product released in the first year was either about slaves, or Tyr.

Looking at the product run of the times, I think you can readily conclude that it was meant from the get-go that Tyr was to be free.  The Tyr situation was built for the novels, unfortunately, because that was where the money lies.  

The point of all this is, Tyr was never designed to be ruled by Kalak.  It was made to be free - this is why Tyr has the iron mines and a large population... to give it a game reason why it could possibly have leverage to remain free.  It's also why the Tyr section doesn't detail templars (they wouldn't be a player option in most campaigns).  

To say that WotC should release a product exactly like the original boxed set, with Tyr in pre-revolution phase, only works if WotC is going to have an extended product line.  And they won't.  So, if Tyr is pre-revolution in their book, it will remain pre-revolution.  And I think a vast majority of players are more familiar with post-revolution Tyr.  Post-revolution Tyr opens up more adventure possibilities.  It has more thematic variations.  And, almost as importantly, it means that old-school players can still use some of their 2e Dark Sun products with no conversion, since EVERY product (beyond Dragon Kings) released after the original set assumes a free Tyr.  There is no other change from the original boxed set that is more wide-reaching.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 11, 2009)

edbonny said:


> I was hoping for more - some new novels, a Player's Guide, a 4e Dragon Kings. I really loved Dark Sun.



We *are* getting more novels. This was in the 4e DS announcement as I recall. They just haven't announced what they are or when they will be called.


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 13, 2009)

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet, maybe someone can enlightmen me.  Is WotC going to release a 40 monster Dark Sun DDM?  Are they going to release class specific packages? I imagine Yes to both questions, but i've not heard it confirmed.


----------



## avin (Nov 13, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet, maybe someone can enlightmen me.  Is WotC going to release a 40 monster Dark Sun DDM?  Are they going to release class specific packages? I imagine Yes to both questions, but i've not heard it confirmed.




Next two sets are going to be Streets of Shadow and Lords of Madness, that doesn't ring Dark Sun for me.

No class specific set has been mentioned or speculated on DDMSpoilers.

DDM Spoilers by Greyhaze


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 13, 2009)

Hmm.  it's been a long time since i looked at Dark Sun monsters, but in general i remember them not really borrowing from the pool of "default" D&D.  Am i right or wrong? I remember lots of abberation-like thingamajigs.  Or the Sarlaac waiting to swallow you.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 13, 2009)

Nebulous said:


> Hmm.  it's been a long time since i looked at Dark Sun monsters, but in general i remember them not really borrowing from the pool of "default" D&D.  Am i right or wrong? I remember lots of abberation-like thingamajigs.  Or the Sarlaac waiting to swallow you.




Yeah, that's right.  We tracked and converted over 200 monsters from 2e to 3e when doing the athas.org _Terrors of Athas_ monster manual, with another 60+ in the _Terrors of the Dead Lands_ undead and vermin supplement.  A handful of these (half a dozen or thereabouts) were invented out of whole-cloth or derived from passing descriptions in the novels.  But all the rest came from 2e Dark Sun stats.  You didn't really need monsters from any other sources, although lists were provided in 2e for "Athas-compatible" monsters from the core MMs (and we continued this practice in 3e).  I'd expect to see a similar approach for 4e, possibly with a smaller set of DS-specific monsters and a larger list of modded core creatures.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 13, 2009)

I kind of wonder what DS monsters will be added to the core game instead of the DSCC and appearing in the MMIII or DDI.  I'm thinking that the nightmare beast and thri-kreen are shoo-ins.


----------



## Wik (Nov 13, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> I kind of wonder what DS monsters will be added to the core game instead of the DSCC and appearing in the MMIII or DDI.  I'm thinking that the nightmare beast and thri-kreen are shoo-ins.




I'd add to that the Kirre, some of the undead, and some of the elemental beasts.  I'd love to see Silk Wyrms become "core", too, but I doubt it (they were such a great monster!  Especially once the PCs discovered where the silk CAME from!)


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 16, 2009)

Some more from Rich baker

The first big reveal seems to be set for DD Xp in January next year, including amongst other things templars, defiling and new races.  There is also a hint that Dark Sun characters will be "better" than Core characters but not in stats, attack bonuses or defences.


----------



## Henrix (Nov 16, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> There is also a hint that Dark Sun characters will be "better" than Core characters but not in stats, attack bonuses or defences.




Enough to mange without standard magic items, perchance?


----------



## avin (Nov 16, 2009)

Whatever it is, Character Builder should prevent/advice/alert DMs about using a "stronger" DS feature for players of another worlds/homebrews.

It wouldn't be bad add some kinda of setting filter to CB, optional, for DMs who want to prevent a FR player using Dragonmarks on his campaign, for example.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 16, 2009)

avin said:


> Whatever it is, Character Builder should prevent/advice/alert DMs about using a "stronger" DS feature for players of another worlds/homebrews.
> 
> It wouldn't be bad add some kinda of setting filter to CB, optional, for DMs who want to prevent a FR player using Dragonmarks on his campaign, for example.




Huh?

Isn't this what the campaign settings tab already do?


----------



## avin (Nov 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Isn't this what the campaign settings tab already do?




Really? I should explore it then, thanks 

To be honest I'm mostly using CB for storing my player's sheets and none of my 3 ongoing campaigns have such restrictions.

My future DS campaign, on the other hand, will restrict to DS stuff only


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 16, 2009)

I think what Rich is referring to has to be item-related.  If there is a system where PCs get bonuses/powers without magic items, that would make them more "powerful" than a core character.  That would preserve a DM's ability to port in Core elements to DS without any difficulty (well, with the exception of magic items and the reverse could be problematic).


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Nov 16, 2009)

It doesn't have to be item-related, it could be something like saving at the start of your turn or getting an extra death saving throw or not dying until you are at your negative full HP instead of negative bloodied.


----------



## Shroomy (Nov 16, 2009)

Hadrian the Builder said:


> It doesn't have to be item-related, it could be something like saving at the start of your turn or getting an extra death saving throw or not dying until you are at your negative full HP instead of negative bloodied.




I don't think that being harder to kill makes your characters more powerful, just more surviveable.  Additional saving throws kind of steps on the wardens and leaders toes IMO(though thinking about it, giving that to preservers would be a neat idea).


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Nov 16, 2009)

Sure. But Rich only said they were making DS characters "better".


----------



## Henry (Nov 16, 2009)

Keep in mind the DMG2 already has some rules on replacing magic items with boons, training, and other non-material rewards. Dark Sun may be using that idea to expand on it. It takes away the desire to get away from those bone and stone weapons if you're pretty awesome even without the metal and magic. In Dark Sun, a metal item IS essentially a magic item.


----------

