4th Ed Reboot Team? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

4th Ed Reboot Team?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Zardnaar
Nov 06, 2008 1:54:24 There was a good thread on a DS reboot. Also a few posters here are working on 4th ed material. My idea is to create a team to convert DS to 4th ed. A reboot may also be in order. Anyway who is working on what and who is good at using MS word and would be happy to be an editor (and has papyrus font)? Anyine good at writing fluff? Basic idea is to create a word document as a team effort.

Zardnaar.
4th ed race mechanics
Various fluff.

Also what type of reboot and how far would people be willing to go? My suggestions.

Timeline regression. 100 years or so before the prism pentad. Kalak has just started to work on his pyramid.
Refocus on Tyr region.
Focus on the orignal boxed set.

What classes and races can be cut (for now) and how would you tweak the 4th ed classes to make them feel like Athasian classes? Paladin becomes Templar and are enforcers for the SK's? Clerics change power source from divine to elemental and have some powers tweaked to elemental damage etc.
#2
Palladinae
Nov 06, 2008 4:25:58 Honestly saying I'm against converting Templar to Paladin, as well as introducing new races in plaece of old. One thing that was appealing to me in DS was difference from ordinary (A)D&D.

Deleting or changing some races and classes will also had to be explained in world's description and I'm afraid changes will be too great and original flavour of Dark Sun will be lost. In example: can you imagine proud and just Paladin of eveil tyrant like Andropinis or Kalak?

On the other hand, gong back in time to age of Sorcerer Kings is great idea. I always started my campaigns long before Prism Pendant. Focusing on Tyr Region is ok, but I love realms beyond and certeainly liked to see them in 4E.

Best regards
#3
mouthymerc
Nov 06, 2008 7:09:37 I like the idea of a reboot for many reasons.

I definitely like the idea of refocusing on the Tyr region. It was the best area, as far as I'm concerned, and the most interesting.
Get away from conveying some meta-plot. Present the region and the people playing it can decide how it is going to progress. Not that I followed it, but one of the least attractive things about the original and revised sets was the meta-plot.
I did like the the leap forward in time by the Paizo edition for the leadership dynamic they created. The original box had the six Dragon Kings and, although they were different to some extent, they were not terribly different in my eyes. I liked the idea of a free city, another one being lead by an undead Dragon King, another one being lead by a puppet king, and the rest. It gave me a little more variety.
I like the idea of the templar class being much the same as the new gladiator multiclass. While I haven't seen it, the fact that it may be combined with any class sounds much more workable than making it its own class. Templars always struck me as being from various classes rather than just one, just so long as their authority isn't quantified into a mechanic.
I'm open to the race issue. Stick to the old ones or add in the new ones, as long as it is done tastefully I'm alright with it. I would rather see a half-giant that is workable as a player race and not so narrowly focused, though. If not, I would leave them as an NPC monster.

Just some of my thoughts.
#4
Pennarin
Nov 06, 2008 21:36:48
I like the idea of the templar class being much the same as the new gladiator multiclass. While I haven't seen it, the fact that it may be combined with any class sounds much more workable than making it its own class. Templars always struck me as being from various classes rather than just one, just so long as their authority isn't quantified into a mechanic.

As I've posted before, this is my feeling as well.
For the authority, it can be quantified. 3e needed a made up rule for it, awkward. 4e has its own rules for this...skill challenges.
The DM allows certain skill challenges to be undertaken by guards, other by soldiers, others by templars. Each its own.
Rank (which isn't related to level, it's pure fluff, but requiring the backing of the DM) as a guard, soldier, or templar gives you a bonus on skill challenges available to your station (soldier, templar) and rank (initiate templar, high templar).
Skill challenges have the beauty of being customizable, so no fixed set of challenges, they would be fluid. A single example could be given for many situations, with DMs able to customize based on situation and others, not forgetting inventing new skill challenges for these stations and ranks.

For those with D&DI subscriptions, check out THE GLADIATOR, Dragon 368. It's a good parallel for the templar conversion.
It describes certain gladiatorial fights, like a death race (chariot race), as a skill challenge.
Working the crowd to gain it's favor is a skill challenge.
A crowd cheering for you and booing your opponent is a hazard to that opponent, literally.
#5
Zardnaar
Nov 06, 2008 21:42:20 Paladins in 4th ed can be evil BTW. I was thinking of cutting the Half Giant for the momnet as its role is more or less covered by the Mul and its an awkward one to get right.

Psionics would also be cut but thats due to a lack of psionics rule in 4th ed rather than any desire to cut them. Defilers can be NPCs until defiler rules are hammered out. Gladiator class would be a gone as well but there is a gladiator multiclass option i martial power IIRC. Anything cut can always be added later.
#6
Pennarin
Nov 07, 2008 15:16:46 It would surprise me for there to be gladiator related material in Martial Power, since that material is already in Dragon Magazine.

Yes, paladins can be any alignment they like, including Unaligned. Paladins, fighters, rangers, and rogues would thus make good templar knights.
#7
eldritch_lord
Nov 07, 2008 15:55:48
Anyway who is working on what and who is good at using MS word and would be happy to be an editor (and has papyrus font)? Anyine good at writing fluff? Basic idea is to create a word document as a team effort.

I doubt I would be very useful in the fluff-writing department (all my 2e Dark Sun stuff got lost in a move a while back and I never got around to replacing it); however, I have Papyrus and would be happy to edit.
#8
Zardnaar
Nov 07, 2008 16:04:08
It would surprise me for there to be gladiator related material in Martial Power, since that material is already in Dragon Magazine.

Yes, paladins can be any alignment they like, including Unaligned. Paladins, fighters, rangers, and rogues would thus make good templar knights.

Dragon is used as a testbed apparently like you will see Dragon material reprinted in various sourcebooks. I could be wrong on the Gladiator.

Templar Knight could be a paragon path along with other Templar varients.

Eldritch Lord that would be good. That makes 2 of use. Lennarin you in? I know you've been working on monsters. I can try some fluff and feel free to suggest anything. 100 years before the prism pentad sound good? Also do we want to reboot it and use 4th ed races and planes and things like that?
#9
outlaw68
Nov 07, 2008 18:04:12
Dragon is used as a testbed apparently like you will see Dragon material reprinted in various sourcebooks. I could be wrong on the Gladiator.

Templar Knight could be a paragon path along with other Templar varients.

Eldritch Lord that would be good. That makes 2 of use. Lennarin you in? I know you've been working on monsters. I can try some fluff and feel free to suggest anything. 100 years before the prism pentad sound good? Also do we want to reboot it and use 4th ed races and planes and things like that?

Over at ENWorld there is guy who has martial power. There is no gladiator stuff in it, the stuff in dragon definitely has not been reprinted..

In my homebrew Dark Sun game, I use the paladin as a Templar and i have added a few new powers to the list to make them a little more Templary...
#10
Pennarin
Nov 07, 2008 23:58:29 So there is gladiatorial stuff in both places, and both are compatible? That would be awesome.

Not interested in doing anything right now, Zardnaar. Working on my adventure while waiting for WotC to say yay or nay on DS is all I can take.
#11
outlaw68
Nov 08, 2008 0:06:27
So there is gladiatorial stuff in both places, and both are compatible? That would be awesome.

Not interested in doing anything right now, Zardnaar. Working on my adventure while waiting for WotC to say yay or nay on DS is all I can take.

Sorry Pennarin.. that was a typo in my post.. it meant to say there is NO gladiator stuff in it..

*i have fixed my original post*
#12
jonplaywu
Nov 10, 2008 22:54:04 I can spend the time to re-boot the DS timeline.

Dunno if I would push the timeline back 100 years though. I think ten years might be better, but that's really semantics.

1. do we think that remaking the original box and the supplimetal adventures (black flames etc...) would be worth it, or should we go from scratch.

2. As far as classes and races go, as we won't be official, why bar any class or race within reason.

lemme know

JOn
#13
alisair_longreach
Nov 26, 2008 13:34:57 Dark Sun in 2nd edition was something extraordinary with customized races and class restrictions.

Here is my idea of what Dark Sun 4E should have:

Races:
Customized, athasian-flavored Dwarves, Elves, Half-Elves, Halflings, Humans.
Half-Giants, Muls and Thri-Kreen updated for 4E
No Dragonborn or Tieflings.

Classes:
Fighters, Rangers, Rogues and Warlords are allowed.
A Gadiator multiclass feat-based option with a Paragon Path
Rogues should have an Athasian Bard build option with a few powers based upon poison use and classic Bard abilities.

Wizards are allowed and a few athasian-flavored spells should be provided.

Clerics, Paladins and Warlocks should not be allowed.

An Elemental Cleric class based upon the Elemental Power source need to be created. It should be a Leader class with a build and paragon path for each of the four elements and a few PHB Cleric powers could be recycled for this class. An Elemental Being epic destiny should be created.

Primal source classes should not be allowed.

Defilers, Templars, Traders and Druids should be NPC builds/templates.

A Psionicist class need to be created.

Wild Talents should either be an extra ability for all PCs or a feat power.

The Dragon of Tyr and the Avangion should have monster stat blocks but should not be epic destinies.
#14
big_goon
Nov 27, 2008 11:40:36 What about splitting the Crunch (statistics and rules) with the Fluff? That way each individual DM could select timeline, what's available, etc...

I'm interested in helping, but I'm also really interested in making classes/races balanced first and foremost, so that DMs don't need to do more work than they have to. It's relatively easy to add good roleplaying to make everything more DS-ish when necessary.

Balanced = more work for us now, but DMs needs less work later. That's one of the reasons I like 4e.
#15
Zardnaar
Nov 27, 2008 18:09:20 Are people still keen for this? I'm thinking of doing a writeup but since I doubt I'll ever use it (more or less quit D&D) its up to you guys. Also if anyone wnats to come on board and make it a group effort. A couple of thoughts.

1. Focus on fluff you can use in any editions.
2. 4th ed converison notes and ideas. SOme races may be left out at first and some classes can always be added later (Psionics).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Zardnaar Nov 06, 2008 1:54:24	There was a good thread on a DS reboot. Also a few posters here are working on 4th ed material. My idea is to create a team to convert DS to 4th ed. A reboot may also be in order. Anyway who is working on what and who is good at using MS word and would be happy to be an editor (and has papyrus font)? Anyine good at writing fluff? Basic idea is to create a word document as a team effort. Zardnaar. 4th ed race mechanics Various fluff. Also what type of reboot and how far would people be willing to go? My suggestions. Timeline regression. 100 years or so before the prism pentad. Kalak has just started to work on his pyramid. Refocus on Tyr region. Focus on the orignal boxed set. What classes and races can be cut (for now) and how would you tweak the 4th ed classes to make them feel like Athasian classes? Paladin becomes Templar and are enforcers for the SK's? Clerics change power source from divine to elemental and have some powers tweaked to elemental damage etc.
#2 Palladinae Nov 06, 2008 4:25:58	Honestly saying I'm against converting Templar to Paladin, as well as introducing new races in plaece of old. One thing that was appealing to me in DS was difference from ordinary (A)D&D. Deleting or changing some races and classes will also had to be explained in world's description and I'm afraid changes will be too great and original flavour of Dark Sun will be lost. In example: can you imagine proud and just Paladin of eveil tyrant like Andropinis or Kalak? On the other hand, gong back in time to age of Sorcerer Kings is great idea. I always started my campaigns long before Prism Pendant. Focusing on Tyr Region is ok, but I love realms beyond and certeainly liked to see them in 4E. Best regards
#3 mouthymerc Nov 06, 2008 7:09:37	I like the idea of a reboot for many reasons. I definitely like the idea of refocusing on the Tyr region. It was the best area, as far as I'm concerned, and the most interesting. Get away from conveying some meta-plot. Present the region and the people playing it can decide how it is going to progress. Not that I followed it, but one of the least attractive things about the original and revised sets was the meta-plot. I did like the the leap forward in time by the Paizo edition for the leadership dynamic they created. The original box had the six Dragon Kings and, although they were different to some extent, they were not terribly different in my eyes. I liked the idea of a free city, another one being lead by an undead Dragon King, another one being lead by a puppet king, and the rest. It gave me a little more variety. I like the idea of the templar class being much the same as the new gladiator multiclass. While I haven't seen it, the fact that it may be combined with any class sounds much more workable than making it its own class. Templars always struck me as being from various classes rather than just one, just so long as their authority isn't quantified into a mechanic. I'm open to the race issue. Stick to the old ones or add in the new ones, as long as it is done tastefully I'm alright with it. I would rather see a half-giant that is workable as a player race and not so narrowly focused, though. If not, I would leave them as an NPC monster. Just some of my thoughts.
#4 Pennarin Nov 06, 2008 21:36:48	I like the idea of the templar class being much the same as the new gladiator multiclass. While I haven't seen it, the fact that it may be combined with any class sounds much more workable than making it its own class. Templars always struck me as being from various classes rather than just one, just so long as their authority isn't quantified into a mechanic. As I've posted before, this is my feeling as well. For the authority, it can be quantified. 3e needed a made up rule for it, awkward. 4e has its own rules for this...skill challenges. The DM allows certain skill challenges to be undertaken by guards, other by soldiers, others by templars. Each its own. Rank (which isn't related to level, it's pure fluff, but requiring the backing of the DM) as a guard, soldier, or templar gives you a bonus on skill challenges available to your station (soldier, templar) and rank (initiate templar, high templar). Skill challenges have the beauty of being customizable, so no fixed set of challenges, they would be fluid. A single example could be given for many situations, with DMs able to customize based on situation and others, not forgetting inventing new skill challenges for these stations and ranks. For those with D&DI subscriptions, check out THE GLADIATOR, Dragon 368. It's a good parallel for the templar conversion. It describes certain gladiatorial fights, like a death race (chariot race), as a skill challenge. Working the crowd to gain it's favor is a skill challenge. A crowd cheering for you and booing your opponent is a hazard to that opponent, literally.
#5 Zardnaar Nov 06, 2008 21:42:20	Paladins in 4th ed can be evil BTW. I was thinking of cutting the Half Giant for the momnet as its role is more or less covered by the Mul and its an awkward one to get right. Psionics would also be cut but thats due to a lack of psionics rule in 4th ed rather than any desire to cut them. Defilers can be NPCs until defiler rules are hammered out. Gladiator class would be a gone as well but there is a gladiator multiclass option i martial power IIRC. Anything cut can always be added later.
#6 Pennarin Nov 07, 2008 15:16:46	It would surprise me for there to be gladiator related material in Martial Power, since that material is already in Dragon Magazine. Yes, paladins can be any alignment they like, including Unaligned. Paladins, fighters, rangers, and rogues would thus make good templar knights.
#7 eldritch_lord Nov 07, 2008 15:55:48	Anyway who is working on what and who is good at using MS word and would be happy to be an editor (and has papyrus font)? Anyine good at writing fluff? Basic idea is to create a word document as a team effort. I doubt I would be very useful in the fluff-writing department (all my 2e Dark Sun stuff got lost in a move a while back and I never got around to replacing it); however, I have Papyrus and would be happy to edit.
#8 Zardnaar Nov 07, 2008 16:04:08	It would surprise me for there to be gladiator related material in Martial Power, since that material is already in Dragon Magazine. Yes, paladins can be any alignment they like, including Unaligned. Paladins, fighters, rangers, and rogues would thus make good templar knights. Dragon is used as a testbed apparently like you will see Dragon material reprinted in various sourcebooks. I could be wrong on the Gladiator. Templar Knight could be a paragon path along with other Templar varients. Eldritch Lord that would be good. That makes 2 of use. Lennarin you in? I know you've been working on monsters. I can try some fluff and feel free to suggest anything. 100 years before the prism pentad sound good? Also do we want to reboot it and use 4th ed races and planes and things like that?
#9 outlaw68 Nov 07, 2008 18:04:12	Dragon is used as a testbed apparently like you will see Dragon material reprinted in various sourcebooks. I could be wrong on the Gladiator. Templar Knight could be a paragon path along with other Templar varients. Eldritch Lord that would be good. That makes 2 of use. Lennarin you in? I know you've been working on monsters. I can try some fluff and feel free to suggest anything. 100 years before the prism pentad sound good? Also do we want to reboot it and use 4th ed races and planes and things like that? Over at ENWorld there is guy who has martial power. There is no gladiator stuff in it, the stuff in dragon definitely has not been reprinted.. In my homebrew Dark Sun game, I use the paladin as a Templar and i have added a few new powers to the list to make them a little more Templary...
#10 Pennarin Nov 07, 2008 23:58:29	So there is gladiatorial stuff in both places, and both are compatible? That would be awesome. Not interested in doing anything right now, Zardnaar. Working on my adventure while waiting for WotC to say yay or nay on DS is all I can take.
#11 outlaw68 Nov 08, 2008 0:06:27	So there is gladiatorial stuff in both places, and both are compatible? That would be awesome. Not interested in doing anything right now, Zardnaar. Working on my adventure while waiting for WotC to say yay or nay on DS is all I can take. Sorry Pennarin.. that was a typo in my post.. it meant to say there is NO gladiator stuff in it.. i have fixed my original post
#12 jonplaywu Nov 10, 2008 22:54:04	I can spend the time to re-boot the DS timeline. Dunno if I would push the timeline back 100 years though. I think ten years might be better, but that's really semantics. 1. do we think that remaking the original box and the supplimetal adventures (black flames etc...) would be worth it, or should we go from scratch. 2. As far as classes and races go, as we won't be official, why bar any class or race within reason. lemme know JOn
#13 alisair_longreach Nov 26, 2008 13:34:57	Dark Sun in 2nd edition was something extraordinary with customized races and class restrictions. Here is my idea of what Dark Sun 4E should have: Races: Customized, athasian-flavored Dwarves, Elves, Half-Elves, Halflings, Humans. Half-Giants, Muls and Thri-Kreen updated for 4E No Dragonborn or Tieflings. Classes: Fighters, Rangers, Rogues and Warlords are allowed. A Gadiator multiclass feat-based option with a Paragon Path Rogues should have an Athasian Bard build option with a few powers based upon poison use and classic Bard abilities. Wizards are allowed and a few athasian-flavored spells should be provided. Clerics, Paladins and Warlocks should not be allowed. An Elemental Cleric class based upon the Elemental Power source need to be created. It should be a Leader class with a build and paragon path for each of the four elements and a few PHB Cleric powers could be recycled for this class. An Elemental Being epic destiny should be created. Primal source classes should not be allowed. Defilers, Templars, Traders and Druids should be NPC builds/templates. A Psionicist class need to be created. Wild Talents should either be an extra ability for all PCs or a feat power. The Dragon of Tyr and the Avangion should have monster stat blocks but should not be epic destinies.
#14 big_goon Nov 27, 2008 11:40:36	What about splitting the Crunch (statistics and rules) with the Fluff? That way each individual DM could select timeline, what's available, etc... I'm interested in helping, but I'm also really interested in making classes/races balanced first and foremost, so that DMs don't need to do more work than they have to. It's relatively easy to add good roleplaying to make everything more DS-ish when necessary. Balanced = more work for us now, but DMs needs less work later. That's one of the reasons I like 4e.
#15 Zardnaar Nov 27, 2008 18:09:20	Are people still keen for this? I'm thinking of doing a writeup but since I doubt I'll ever use it (more or less quit D&D) its up to you guys. Also if anyone wnats to come on board and make it a group effort. A couple of thoughts. 1. Focus on fluff you can use in any editions. 2. 4th ed converison notes and ideas. SOme races may be left out at first and some classes can always be added later (Psionics).