Books
- There will only be a Campaign Setting, a Softcover Monster Book and an adventure.
- New novels (not reprinted novels. Actual new ones) set in Dark Sun will be released.
Races and Monsters
- Thri-kreen - they'll be nerfed compared to 2nd ed thri-kreen, but balanced for 4th ed. Two of their four arms will be much weaker then normal and so of very little use in combat. Although Racial Paragon Paths may increase their utility.
- Dragonborn will be dray.
- Mul will be a playable race.
- Belgoi are psionic fey. They abandoned the Feywild centuries ago and have been roaming, nomadic predators ever since.
- There will be no new classes.
- Gladiators will be a fighter build.
- All Arcanists will gain access to an at-will that is 4th ed's version of defiling. This at will, when cast before a daily, increases the daily's output but harms allies and plants.
- Dark Sun straight out of the book will assume you don't allow the divine power source into your campaign.
- The Feywild is in pretty poor shape.
- Its recommended you use the "Inherent Bonuses" house-rule from DMG2 when running Dark Sun.
- There will be no massive timeline jump.
- The setting will be set only mere weeks after the death of King Kalak in Tyr.
- It will be up to DMs whether or not they incorporate the rest of the Prism Pentad or if they go their own way.
----
That's all I can find right now, so if we have more info I'd love to hear it
I'm happy to hear some info. I'm quite glad to hear the Divine power source won't be incorporated at all. That way I can incorporate the power source myself and have them all be different types of templars.
I'm also very happy to hear the books themselves assume a very low magic setting. I've spoken with an actual Dark Sun fan (I'm a fan of Zalanthas which is slightly different) and he claimed it had lots of magic all over it. But he also claims heroes belong in Dark Sun. Personally I think they don't and I've told my players to ignore the alignment model completely and just make down and gritty characters who mostly look out for themselves.
BUT I'm absolutely annoyed to hear that the Player and DM books have been melded into one. After 3.5e's Eberron release I thought WotC had learnt their lesson. I'm a big fan of the separation of DM and Player info we've seen so far in 4th ed. Alas, its not to be.
I'm really curious how Half-Giants are getting incorporated. Will we see Goliaths become the human/giant hybrid? Or will goliaths become muls and be the dwarf/human hybrid? Or will they be their own race with Muls a separate PC race while half-giants are a separate NPC race?
www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/p...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/p...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/p...
Muls are a new race. No word on half giants yet.
The DM/player info seperation is a bit different for 4e. Having the monsters in their own book is great idea. That way, players have access to setting information in the campaign guide without exactly knowing what they are up against. Dark Sun is so different I think it really helps if the players read up on the setting before playing.
The DM/player info seperation is a bit different for 4e. Having the monsters in their own book is great idea. That way, players have access to setting information in the campaign guide without exactly knowing what they are up against. Dark Sun is so different I think it really helps if the players read up on the setting before playing.
I agree monsters in their own book makes sense. I also agree players should read the player setting information before playing (I always notice when someone has and when they haven't). BUT bundling DM info in the same book as Player info is a bad idea IMO. The only way this couldn't be a bad idea is if there is no DM info in the book. In which case DMs will have even less to work with for Dark Sun then they do in Eberron and Forgotten Realms (which would again be less than desirable).
Its exactly for the reason of stopping PCs from "knowing what they are up against" that I dislike the combination of DM and Player books. For example, if the Dragon is secretly a transformed mindflayer from the future, either the Players will find out because its in the same book as the PC races and PC classes. Or else it won't be in the book and DMs won't ever know that secret about the Dragon (unless they plunder old editions).
This was a big problem for Eberron and 4th ed seemed to indicate they'd seen the issue and decided to fix it.
Ah but a Fighter/Gladiator gives you more entertainment value with long bloody fights. If they were strikers, they would kill opponents too quickly.
Thats what gladiators do. They kill quickly. The only time they don't, is when they are working the crowds by spilling more blood for showmanship.
Gladiators will probably be a paragon path, or maybe something like a multiclass feat that you can take. (Progression of feats, grants an encounter power). I don't expect them to be limited to a particular class. Too central to the setting to be limited to a particular build of a particular class.
Much like the Dragon article that ended up in the Dragon Compendium.
Ah but a Fighter/Gladiator gives you more entertainment value with long bloody fights. If they were strikers, they would kill opponents too quickly.
Thats what gladiators do. They kill quickly. The only time they don't, is when they are working the crowds by spilling more blood for showmanship.
Yea, it should be noted, that is actually not what gladiators do. If you are watching a show, you want a good show. You want to see some blood spilt. You want long bloody fights. You don't want to see a quick kill, because that means less viewing time for the crowds, and ultimately bored pissed off crowds. So, in my opinion, strikers are not a good fit for gladiators. Defenders, on the other hand, with their high hit points, lower damage, and high defense, seem to make the perfect gladiators. And while you are right, they are not bodyguards, I can still see them making good bodyguards due to their training. I mean, they are tough guys, taught to take quite a few blows. Defender just seems like a good role for gladiators...
Though, personally, I hope they make them something that any martial character could pick up...
Ah but a Fighter/Gladiator gives you more entertainment value with long bloody fights. If they were strikers, they would kill opponents too quickly.
Thats what gladiators do. They kill quickly. The only time they don't, is when they are working the crowds by spilling more blood for showmanship.
Yea, it should be noted, that is actually not what gladiators do. If you are watching a show, you want a good show. You want to see some blood spilt. You want long bloody fights. You don't want to see a quick kill, because that means less viewing time for the crowds, and ultimately bored pissed off crowds. So, in my opinion, strikers are not a good fit for gladiators. Defenders, on the other hand, with their high hit points, lower damage, and high defense, seem to make the perfect gladiators. And while you are right, they are not bodyguards, I can still see them making good bodyguards due to their training. I mean, they are tough guys, taught to take quite a few blows. Defender just seems like a good role for gladiators...
Though, personally, I hope they make them something that any martial character could pick up...
Most of whats been used as reasoning for a defender gladiator is fluff for story, not mechanics or the feel or the class/build. A gladiator pc is going to be spending most of its time outside of the arena. Arena fighting was only a small part of playing that class. But if the fluff is important, a striker can amaze a crowd and draw out a fight as much as a defender.
Gladiators are taught how to kill, to find a weakness and exploit it, but to pull punches until the crowd is completely won over. Gladiators are not trained how to fight like soldiers, defending allies and marking foes. Atleast, thats not how they used to be. I think the devs figure that only a fighter would be a good fit for a gladiator, as people would probably scoff at a ranger or rogue gladiator. Gladiators were always the athasian barbarian. Savage, brutal and relentless. Now in 4e, they will just be another tank, instead of a damage dealer. Its a bad joke.
I also hope for multipul gladiator builds, each for a different martial class, but from the way the blog was worded, it sounds like its soley for the fighter. As for the paragon path, I wouldn't doubt a gladiator paragon path like arena master, but we already know the gladiator will be a core athasian build.
I still say gladiator and templar shoulda been their own classes. They'd bring new elements to the game either way and its not like we don't already have two of the same roles filled for other power sources. Having more than one choice per role per power source isn't a bad thing.
Rogue or Ranger? Bard or Artificer? Warlock or Sorcerer? Druid or Seeker?
Atleast give us templar and gladiator builds for more than a single class.
So, why should I bother with buying any 4e DS book?
Are they realy not going to introduce no new classes and no player's guide?
So, why should I bother with buying any 4e DS book?
Because you like the setting, and want access to the updated fluff you need to run it? Because you want a book full of monstrous NPC stat blocks for use in Dark Sun? Or, if all you are looking for is crunch, because you want access to all the new options that the book offers OTHER than classes (such as advanced geography and thirst rules, rules for defiling for arcane classes, new builds and options for martial classes, including the gladiator build, or the 2 or 3 new races that the setting offers)?
So, why should I bother with buying any 4e DS book?
Is the only reason people are buying the FR books because it had the Swordmage class?
As for gladiators... that whole "flashy, slow killing, showing off" theme sounds awful controllery for me. I'd *love* to see gladiators as a martial controller, but I don't hold out any actual hope that that will happen. I'd like to see gladiators as a controllery fighter build, focusing on movement and debuffs, and I think that that's a lot more plausible.
And as for "bodyguarding" - well, a marking feature is really nothign more than a way to say "Hey! Pay attention to me!" - and gladiators are *good* at hogging the spotlight.
So... things that might fit in a gladiator theme...
- knock prone
- ongoing damage
- penalties to hit (generally until EoNT)
- dazing/stunning
- shifting
- big, messy crits
I'd really want to see them with an implied str/dex/cha build, too. Seems to suit them better. Perhaps make the gladiator thing a feature swap-out for Combat Superiority. That'd let you have all four current types of fighters as possible gladiators, which seems like something of a win.
So, why should I bother with buying any 4e DS book?
Is the only reason people are buying the FR books because it had the Swordmage class?
No, I also purchased the FRPG for the drow and Genasi races, feats and rituals. I purchased the FRCG so someone else could run it if they want and so I can harvest anything in the book I like. I bought the adventures because, why not?
I don't run FR and I rarely play in that setting, so those books are almost useless to me beyond a few resources. Classes and Races being the top of the list.
You get two new races and, class build, and a cross-class at-will. You also get interesting new magical items and at least a few feats. These are not nothing.
As for gladiators... that whole "flashy, slow killing, showing off" theme sounds awful controllery for me. I'd *love* to see gladiators as a martial controller, but I don't hold out any actual hope that that will happen. I'd like to see gladiators as a controllery fighter build, focusing on movement and debuffs, and I think that that's a lot more plausible.
And as for "bodyguarding" - well, a marking feature is really nothign more than a way to say "Hey! Pay attention to me!" - and gladiators are *good* at hogging the spotlight.
So... things that might fit in a gladiator theme...
- knock prone
- ongoing damage
- penalties to hit (generally until EoNT)
- dazing/stunning
- shifting
- big, messy crits
I'd really want to see them with an implied str/dex/cha build, too. Seems to suit them better. Perhaps make the gladiator thing a feature swap-out for Combat Superiority. That'd let you have all four current types of fighters as possible gladiators, which seems like something of a win.
Actually, after re-reading my 2e DS stuff, mainly the gladiator handbook, gladiators can fit the defender role fine. I no longer have a problem with a gladiator defender because 2e gladiators could have a defender flavor, depending on the kit. But I still say there needs to be a gladiator striker, atleast. Gladiator could fill every role easily.
I'm also going to state that my opinion about primal templars has changed a bit. I'm not so fiercely against the idea anymore after all the reading I'v done. Refreshing my memory. Primal could, "COULD", work quite well if done right, so I'm going to refrain from spitting anymore acid at the idea and wait, hope and see for myself.
I still think there should be one templar/gladiator build per role. So one per class would be a nice start. I also hope we get some elemental support/builds/powers.
I find myself disappointed over the decision to reduce the usefulness of a Kreen's extra pair of arms. Kreen have always been the most pivotal and important characters in my DS campaigns, and even though I would rather have a bag full of starved plague rats tied over my head than ever convert my campaign from 3.5(the pinnacle of RPG evolution, IMO) to 4e, the effective ruination of my favorite PC race in the new edition is disheartening. I hope that when 5e comes out, whenever that is, that it will have a DS setting truly worthy of its weighty legacy.
Really? Thri-Kreens aren't to your exact liking so the whole 4e DS is now disheartening? There has to be many alterations, revamps and style changes to fit a new edition. All rules are optional anyways so if you don't like it, change the rule for your own campaign. There's no D&D law against that.
I would rather have a bag full of starved plague rats tied over my head than ever convert my campaign from 3.5(the pinnacle of RPG evolution, IMO) to 4e
Not to bash on you, but what kind of comment is that? Generaly, 4e DMs and players have reported a simplification of the rules they need to remember at any given time, players need to consider less options when choosing their action on their turn, a DM needs less effort and time to prep for a game, same with creating NPCs and monsters.
Why would you not switch to 4e? Many an argument against 4e is a cliché that has been proven to be just that, a cliché. There are blogs, websites, forum threads, all kinds of resources to prove to you any way you might want to be convinced that 4e is good and works. But it is different.
Not to bash on you, but what kind of comment is that?
Even though I am not a mod nor am I the OP, I strongly and politely request that this not be answered. I foresee nothing but a degeneration into an edition war, which this thread is not about.
I know, kreenslayer kind of threadpooped there, but lets just resist temptation. :D
That said, I would vote for an ORC_Anondson!
I firmly believe that a 4e Dark Sun will have enough refreshed goodness plus new goodness in it that fans could run Dark Sun with any system of choice.
I find myself disappointed over the decision to reduce the usefulness of a Kreen's extra pair of arms. Kreen have always been the most pivotal and important characters in my DS campaigns, and even though I would rather have a bag full of starved plague rats tied over my head than ever convert my campaign from 3.5(the pinnacle of RPG evolution, IMO) to 4e, the effective ruination of my favorite PC race in the new edition is disheartening. I hope that when 5e comes out, whenever that is, that it will have a DS setting truly worthy of its weighty legacy.
1) I would rather have a bag full of starves plague rats tied over my head than ever play a 3.5 edition game of D&D ever again. Man I hate that system.
2) You are disappointed because an overpowered feature is not included as a player character race bonus right out of the door? First of all, why do you care? You obviously prefer 3e, so what difference does it make to you how 4e deals with the problem? I mean, it seems like you would rather have a bag of starved plague rats tied over your head than play 4e, so I'm not sure why it should make a difference to you one way or another. Second of all, if you do play 4e, I'm still not seeing a good reason to care. NPCs don't use PC mechanics, so they can still have four fully, mechanically, functional arms. And even though PCs don't start out with four fully, mechanically, functional arms right off the bat, thats a mechanical issue, not a flavor issue. The race still has four arms. I am sure you can still "hold" something in your 2 "weaker" arms. You just can't mechanically "wield" something with those arms. But, why does that matter? To attack you need to use a power. The amount of attacks you can make in a round is a feature of the power used, not the number of arms you have. And, its not even like you can NEVER wield something with those arms. The devs have stated that a paragon path will be included which allows for the overpowered features to be added to the character as paragon path powers. I am guessing that means something like a thri-kreen paragon path that includes a power that allows you to make 4 attacks, one for each arm. I am sure there will also be racial feats. Like, maybe a feat that does what "two-weapon fighting" does, but adds a +2 or +3 bonus to damage instead of a +1 bonus to damage, with the caveat that you must be wielding extra weapons. So, what exactly is the problem? Or, is the problem that the race is no longer overpowered? And, if that is the problem, I really don't sympathize.
I guess the instinct is too strong for some.
Really? Thri-Kreens aren't to your exact liking so the whole 4e DS is now disheartening? There has to be many alterations, revamps and style changes to fit a new edition. All rules are optional anyways so if you don't like it, change the rule for your own campaign. There's no D&D law against that.
Well, keep in mind he also said he believes 3.5E was the pinnacle of RPG evolution...which probably means he hasn't stuck his head much out of his gaming door, so to speak, and doesn't know what the hobby really looks like beyond D&D and similar fare (ie: 3.5 is a pretty comfortably traditional system with firm roots in the D&D-mold, it's nothing as edgy or innovative -- that is, actually evolutionary to the state of game design in the hobby -- as say, My Life With Master, or Grey Ranks, or Spirit of the Century). Just a sensibly-streamlined, more coherent version of the same old AD&D-like RPG we've been playing for thirty years. So go easy on him.
It's kind of like an American self-proclaimed patriot saying, "This is the best country in the world and the best government the world has ever seen!" and non-Americans and more widely travelled-and-read Americans just smile knowingly and maybe giggle behind their hands (which usually results in enormous defensiveness, because, you know, "IS TOO!"). Disclaimer: let's not make this about politics: that's just an illustrative example of the behavior-mindset that works for me; come up with your own regarding sports or music or religion or videogame systems or whatever if you have trouble getting past the form to the function.
Also, yeah: editions wars? No, please. Because whatever floats your boat doesn't necessarily float your neighbors'.
Plus, gotta like a guy who believes...no, knows, dedication to spelling, grammar, and phrase structuring are signs of respect for readers. Old school ;)
Are they realy not going to introduce no new classes and no player's guide?
So, why should I bother with buying any 4e DS book?
Because you like the setting, and want access to the updated fluff you need to run it? Because you want a book full of monstrous NPC stat blocks for use in Dark Sun? Or, if all you are looking for is crunch, because you want access to all the new options that the book offers OTHER than classes (such as advanced geography and thirst rules, rules for defiling for arcane classes, new builds and options for martial classes, including the gladiator build, or the 2 or 3 new races that the setting offers)?
I guess.
On the other hand, "not that bad," still isn't good. I just don't imagine I'll be getting as much crunch or fluff out of buying the DS books as I would be if there were a player's guide involved. The 4e books are fluff light enough as it is. It's pretty much my only real complaint about 4e, and this reads to me like it's going to be even more noticable for DS than it was for FR or Eberron.
Also, I rather like being able to flip through a book specifically written for players in that setting. A small thing, perhaps, but I can't think of any good reason for them to exclude a player's guide, so...
So, why should I bother with buying any 4e DS book?
Is the only reason people are buying the FR books because it had the Swordmage class?
I bought them for the same reasons that I will probablyl end up going ahead and buy the DS books, because it's new lore, new places, new ideas, and new crunch. See my other response for why that doesn't immediately translate to me accepting the lack of a player's guide for DS.
I would rather have a bag full of starved plague rats tied over my head than ever convert my campaign from 3.5(the pinnacle of RPG evolution, IMO) to 4e
Not to bash on you, but what kind of comment is that? Generaly, 4e DMs and players have reported a simplification of the rules they need to remember at any given time, players need to consider less options when choosing their action on their turn, a DM needs less effort and time to prep for a game, same with creating NPCs and monsters.
Why would you not switch to 4e? Many an argument against 4e is a cliché that has been proven to be just that, a cliché. There are blogs, websites, forum threads, all kinds of resources to prove to you any way you might want to be convinced that 4e is good and works. But it is different.
Why is it so hard for us to just accept that some people don't want to hear it?
You should see some of the threads I've gotten wrapped up in over at the DDO forums.
Apperently 4e isn't balanced, has a couple master races and Munnin can only recall what else.
Eventually you gotta either give up or go mad.
Although it is kind of funny to find yourself in an edition wars thread on the forums for an MMO based on DnD, rather than the DnD forums. :P
I know, I know, not supposed to respond. Sorry. ;)
The guy doesn't like the initial changes he's seen in 4e so he's a trollish 3.5 fanboy who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about? lol, I enjoy 4e, but its a serious stretch to say its better than 3.5, which I too enjoyed as much as I hated it.
Wotc is doing their best to make money and put out a fun product at the same time. They fail as often as they succeed with 4e. Anyone who spend money on the product has a right to be critical of it and any fan of a setting (darksun for instance) has the same right.
I'll bash 4e as often as I'll defend it. But using balance as something to hide behind is lame. 4e isn't as balanced as many might claim. The DM has to do a lot of the balancing despite wotc's best efforts and anyone who plays 4e regulary knows that the game gets boring with two much balance. (overlylong combats for example)
4e is as balanced as it is simple, both of which are overly exaggerated opinions that enough experience with the system shows to be incorrect. When compared to 3.5, a complex and broken edition requiring a DM to houserule nearly every aspect, yes, 4e is simple and balanced. But when not compared to something poorly done, 4e shows that its not as well done as many blindly claim.
Which is why people say "different" and always go back to 3.5 as support for their opinion. 4e could be much worse than it is and people would still use 3.5 as the measure of a tabletop rpg.
And I'm a fan of 4e, just like I am a fan of 3.5 and 2e. They've all been different and none has been better than the last in every catagory. All that bs said, I hope they don't screw up 4e DS. I'm not happy with a lot of their ideas I'v seen so far, but I'll wait and see what they do. But I think everyone has the right to be critical if they (A) spend money on the product and (B) are a fan of previous editions.
Wotc has made it clear that they're appealing more to "new' fans than us old schoolers. I know enough Forgotten Realms fans who were seriously disappointed with 4e FR, and I won't be laughing if the same happens to darksun. I also won't call someone a troll or blow his opinion out of context simply because his/her opinion differs from mine. (even though I might disagree with it)
That person will, after all, be a fan, just like me.
Common ground, or something like that.
It is confirmed as the next Dungeons & Dragons setting.
Wizards of the Coast has released two different stylings of D&D rules in succession.
Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast.
The New York Stock Exchange trades Hasbro under the ticker symbol HAS.
HAS was last traded at 32.17 (12/24/09 close).
I like Dark•Sun.
It is confirmed as the next Dungeons & Dragons setting.
Wizards of the Coast has released two different stylings of D&D rules in succession.
Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast.
The New York Stock Exchange trades Hasbro under the ticker symbol HAS.
HAS was last traded at 32.17 (12/24/09 close).
???
I guess.
On the other hand, "not that bad," still isn't good. I just don't imagine I'll be getting as much crunch or fluff out of buying the DS books as I would be if there were a player's guide involved. The 4e books are fluff light enough as it is. It's pretty much my only real complaint about 4e, and this reads to me like it's going to be even more noticable for DS than it was for FR or Eberron.
Also, I rather like being able to flip through a book specifically written for players in that setting. A small thing, perhaps, but I can't think of any good reason for them to exclude a player's guide, so...
Well, I can't say I agree with you. To me, it seems that the devs looked over the information they wanted to release about Dark Sun, and realized they had a few less PC options and a lot more monsters. They decided to fold the PC options into the core campaign setting (instead of releasing an extra players guide), and transformed the 2nd book into a monsters manual. That means that Dark Sun will end up coming out with a lot more setting specific creatures than any other setting...
It seems to me that Dark Sun is going to offer you the same amount of total crunch/fluff, its just going to be organized a little differently, and the nature of the total crunch is going to be a little different. A few less player options, a few more more setting specific creatures. That does not mean, however, that there isn't going to be any new PC options. Indeed, we know that there will be at least 2 new races, maybe three. We know that there are rules for defiling. We know that there are new paragon paths. We know that there is a new build included (for the gladiator). We know that there will be setting specific feats. I'm ok with not getting a new class, not having a lot of the same fluff reprinted twice, and getting a whole lot of new monsters. I mean, honestly, lets look at the FRPG and the FRCG. How much information got printed twice between those two books? I mean, its nice to have it printed an extra time, but without the DM specific information. But I don't know that its really necessary. On the other hand, the Dark Sun specific creatures does seem pretty necessary.
I like Dark•Sun.
It is confirmed as the next Dungeons & Dragons setting.
Wizards of the Coast has released two different stylings of D&D rules in succession.
Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast.
The New York Stock Exchange trades Hasbro under the ticker symbol HAS.
HAS was last traded at 32.17 (12/24/09 close).
I find this to be the most pure response to a thread titled "Confirmed Dark Sun Information?" I lol'd and it's nice to see someone on here who doesn't take themselves so seriously. Either that or he just responds to thread titles, hahaha.
I like how Rev is like Spock: no whatever what universe you encounter him in, he's always a rational man.
Plus, gotta like a guy who believes...no, knows, dedication to spelling, grammar, and phrase structuring are signs of respect for readers. Old school ;)
I find this to be the most pure response to a thread titled "Confirmed Dark Sun Information?" I lol'd and it's nice to see someone on here who doesn't take themselves so seriously. Either that or he just responds to thread titles, hahaha.
The third line was in response to the previously developing edition war. It was an attempt to trivialize all such arguements one way or another, as this is not the place for that discussion ... unless it has been confirmed that metagaming, iconoclastic arguements will take place in Marauders of the Dune Sea.
Also, Athasian Trolls prefer wine and camembert.
"Life is too important to be taken seriously." ~Oscar Wilde
...unless it has been confirmed that metagaming, iconoclastic arguements will take place in Marauders of the Dune Sea.
You mean all the ranks I took in "Iconoclastic Metagame Debate" are USELESS!?
I guess.
On the other hand, "not that bad," still isn't good. I just don't imagine I'll be getting as much crunch or fluff out of buying the DS books as I would be if there were a player's guide involved. The 4e books are fluff light enough as it is. It's pretty much my only real complaint about 4e, and this reads to me like it's going to be even more noticable for DS than it was for FR or Eberron.
Also, I rather like being able to flip through a book specifically written for players in that setting. A small thing, perhaps, but I can't think of any good reason for them to exclude a player's guide, so...
Well, I can't say I agree with you. To me, it seems that the devs looked over the information they wanted to release about Dark Sun, and realized they had a few less PC options and a lot more monsters. They decided to fold the PC options into the core campaign setting (instead of releasing an extra players guide), and transformed the 2nd book into a monsters manual. That means that Dark Sun will end up coming out with a lot more setting specific creatures than any other setting...
It seems to me that Dark Sun is going to offer you the same amount of total crunch/fluff, its just going to be organized a little differently, and the nature of the total crunch is going to be a little different. A few less player options, a few more more setting specific creatures. That does not mean, however, that there isn't going to be any new PC options. Indeed, we know that there will be at least 2 new races, maybe three. We know that there are rules for defiling. We know that there are new paragon paths. We know that there is a new build included (for the gladiator). We know that there will be setting specific feats. I'm ok with not getting a new class, not having a lot of the same fluff reprinted twice, and getting a whole lot of new monsters. I mean, honestly, lets look at the FRPG and the FRCG. How much information got printed twice between those two books? I mean, its nice to have it printed an extra time, but without the DM specific information. But I don't know that its really necessary. On the other hand, the Dark Sun specific creatures does seem pretty necessary.
You know that feeling you get when someone says something that you know is right, and all your "grr" is taken out of you because you realize that you didn't really have a reason to be annoyed in the first place, so you just want to make some kind of noncommital noise, maybe "bleh"?
yeah, I just had that.
damn you.
:P
Seriously, though, you're probably right. I just love the way the FRPG and FRCG are set up. For Dark Sun, detailing settin specific monsters and such makes sense.
Are they realy not going to introduce no new classes and no player's guide?
So, why should I bother with buying any 4e DS book?
For the Mul.
I'd buy it just for the Mul.
Its exactly for the reason of stopping PCs from "knowing what they are up against" that I dislike the combination of DM and Player books. For example, if the Dragon is secretly a transformed mindflayer from the future, either the Players will find out because its in the same book as the PC races and PC classes. Or else it won't be in the book and DMs won't ever know that secret about the Dragon (unless they plunder old editions).
This was a big problem for Eberron and 4th ed seemed to indicate they'd seen the issue and decided to fix it.
Minor detail, but wouldn't a dragon/mindflayer be in the DM's monster book, anyway? (And, for that matter, has it been confirmed that this is only a monster book? Would a short appendix on DMing Dark Sun in general be too much to hope for? Just wonderin'...)
Minor detail, but wouldn't a dragon/mindflayer be in the DM's monster book, anyway? (And, for that matter, has it been confirmed that this is only a monster book? Would a short appendix on DMing Dark Sun in general be too much to hope for? Just wonderin'...)
Not a minor detail in my opinion. The book's called a creature catalog, and not a monster manual. Not really sure what the difference is... but there's no reason to assume it's an appendix of monsters but could contain a wide range of encounters: traps, fantastic environments (like cacti?), skill challenges and organizations.
But then again, it might just be a softcover appendix of monsters...
"It also contains other hazards and threats found in the desert wastelands and dungeon tombs of Athas."
Awesome. Still not a DM's guide, but a lot closer.
SATURDAY! SATURDAY! SATURDAY!
ONLY AT THE FORT WAYNE CONVENTION CENTER
~DARK SUN STUFF~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!BE THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ONLY AT THE FORT WAYNE CONVENTION CENTER
~DARK SUN STUFF~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!BE THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
... at some point i crossed a line, i'm not even going to this ... nice shirts though.
Due to the blight of Obesity, I hope they stocked heaps of XXXXXXXXL sized shirts.