Before I get into the specifics, the main problem I have with the conversion is that designers (namely, James Wyatt in the Q&A of the announcement of Dark Sun as the new campaign settings) claimed that the D&D4e system could adapt to a variety of settings outside of traditional medieval fantasy. Evidently, it is the SETTING which had to adapt to the system. So, it will not really be a new edition of dark sun so much as a remake, justified by the need to fit the system, which is a poor justification, in my opinion. And now the specifics (based on the preview):
Regular Attributes
Not that big a deal for me actually, but this is an example of how the system trumps the setting. Dark Sun characters were supposed to have gone through a harsh "survival of the fittest" which led to better stats and racial modifiers which exaggerated and enhanced the strengths and weaknesses of each race.
That's all gone, because it seems, according to Rich Baker, high stats are no longer necessary, since 2e bonuses kicked in at high stats, while now they start earlier. That bit of reasoning is a great example of my main problem with the conversion: Mechanics trump setting. This argument completely disregards the flavor that the high stats brought to Dark Sun PCs and races in favor of maintaining current D&D rules.
Now, having done a lot of rules and mechanics work before (having completely converted Dark sun for 3e before), I understand full well the importance of balance issues in the d20 and D&D systems. However, I really think d20 and D&D designers really overreact about the importance of the higher stats, especially in the 3e and 4e system, in which raising an ability by 2 points grants only a +1 bonus on a d20, so basically, you have a FIVE PERCENT better chance of succeeding than without it. If that's a game breaker to you, you must be a maniacally paranoid DM when it comes to loot, because that means if you hand out a +2 sword instead of a +1, you've broken the game too.
Half-Giants are Goliath
Pretty much says it all. Half-giants have not only been changed mechanically, but "flavor-wise" as well. They were 10-12 feet tall, over 1000 lbs, pure brawn, no brains brutes. Now, they have shortened 4-5 feet, 1/3 the mass, just as strong as human fighters (because they'll put their +2 in Str most likely) and just as smart. Oh, and they can have stony hides too, apparently. Great.
It's hard to think of a better example of how the setting was made to fit the system than this. Makes you wonder if they were trying to make the Half-giant into the D&D system the easiest, or if they simply bumped the Half-Giant to put the Goliath in.
Of course, Half-Giants were a challenge to convert, because of their great strenght and size, and dumb wits (since 4e doesn't give penalties to races, because penalties are no fun! *sigh*). So faced with a challenge, they just gave up.
I'm quite certain being large alone can't break the game if you offset it correctly. The extra reach doesn't even give you AoO anymore anyways, and starting HPs don't have to be adjusted. Sure, a higher strength might be nice, but why not make the HG +4 strength alone, no other stat? I know increasing the bonus in one stat makes it even more effective that 2 different +2s, but they don't need other racial powers really. Leave their speed at 6 sq. (tall but lumbering). normal vision, no racial power. Thats not even counting the game penalties they'll get for bigger equipment and provisions needs, and the flavor penalties for sleeping outside or not getting the jokes.
Anyways. Easier to use the existing system and dump the big guys. Too cumbersome, it seems.
Gladiator theme
I don't really mind those actually, and I don't really care about them being a class or not. You might ask why I care about the high stats or the size of the HG but not the gladiator class, which was pretty core in the old DS. The reason is simple: You can still have gladiators without a gladiator class. A "class" is a purely mechanical term, and you could have a rogue arena fighter who'd be considered by any athasian a "gladiator" just as much as a fighter would be. Indeed, I agree that many classes could fit the gladiator role, and since fighters work equally well as soldiers or gladiators anyways, this purely mechanical distinction isn't necessary to respect the original setting.
I did want to mention, however, that I'm quite happy they DIDN'T make a class out of it, because again, they were thinking about the mechanics, not the setting. When you think about the gladiator (both old-mechanics-wise and flavor-wise) you think about a really tough fighter with little armor, good at using many weapons, and great at 1-on-1 fights and matches. An expert melee combatant. So, Rich Baker looks at that, and he goes: "Wow, that'd make a great martial CONTROLLER!" (see his blog)
REALLY?!? Does anyone here seriously think that's how their thought process went? Clearly, the gladiator would be a striker/defender, i.e. a tough melee combatant excelling at killing solo targets but able to take damage. What happened is quite simple, they weren't looking at how to present the gladiator class with D&D mechanics, they were seeing the gladiator class as an opportunity to bring a new mechanics to the D&D system, namely, a martial controller, which they don't have. Pure mechanics.
Muls
Same stats as goliaths is my guess, so kudos for the nerfed 4e stats in really bringing forth that flavor difference I talked about earlier. I'm sort of puzzled by the tireless ability, just because I don't understand how it works. Does it mean Muls can sleep 2 hours every night and get his extended rest benefits on the third night? So he can sleep 5 hours on night and 1 hour in the afternoon and get the benefit too? Or does it mean he has to sleep 6 straight hours, but doesn't need to sleep the other nights. The former seems rather a game breaker actually, since you'll have mul characters sleeping 5 hours during the night and taking a nap during lunch to regain powers and HPs lost in the morning. The latter seems completely useless, since characters will want the benefits or an extended rest EVERY night anyways. I need someone to explain it to me.
Weapon Materials
I really have to read those better materials D&D rules again, because they make little sense to me. Do you add the material bonus to the magical bonus or are those included in the item bonus? Is it possible to enchant a +5 normal steel wepaon? I'll have to check the errata.
I think the conversion could work IF it doesn't mean EVERY steel weapon will be magical, but simply grant bonuses equivalent to a magical weapon of worse material. They only thing I don't get is that the HG starts with an Iron sword, and it doesn't seem to make a difference compared to bone weapons. It has a higher attack bonus, but I wonder if that isn't from a feat or from his specialization bonus anyways. Will need to see more.
Kreen
*sigh* Paralizing venom? Huge Leaps? Exoskeleton? Kreen weapons? ... Lets hope they make it in as racial feats or powers. The claws powers at least is interesting.
Elemental Clerics
Traditional elements and their competing clerics seem dropped. Instead we have primal casters with "elemental theme". This seems to be an instance where the "theme" is more or less appropriate, although it means the different "divine" archetypes will be linked to the elemental powers, which is good. The switch from divine to primal makes sense though, and I can live with the shamans as elemental and spirits of the land casters, which also works. As I've said, I'm less attached to classes than concepts. That said, the clerics themselves, the "elemental champions" should not be discarded, and although that isn't clear, I'm afraid that will happen, as the designers hinted the divine power source classes would not necessarily make it in, and that the idea of competing elementals (fire vs water, for example) didn't appeal to them.
Wild Talents
Do they exist? Seems not, as only the psionic character has the wilder theme. It seems to me the wilder theme was exactly what was needed to let any character be a wild talent, and I hope that is what they'll go for. The only thing is I would like wilders to get at least 1 "utility cantip wizard-like" power, and not have wilders be a bunch of people who can mind blast each other. Feats could also do the trick, and the multiclassing feat could work too, I guess.
By the way, I don't need EVERY PC to have a wild talent. From the flavor text, it seems clear that while wild talents are common, they are by no way so common that every PC, or even the majority, need to be a wild talent, so that old mechanic can be replaced with no problem, as long as there is a replacement.
Templars aren't templars
The worst decision in the whole conversion in my opinion, templars are definately not a theme for all the "agents" or buddies or a sorcerer king. They are litterally his priesthood, and there's bunch of fluff that Rich Baker apparently doesn't like, or hasn't read, but his interpretation, again, is priceless: Templars were priests because the old game PC parties needed clerics. So he does read the fluff, but that only reads: mechanics, mechanics, mechanics...
Seriously, you all had templars in your Hero parties? That must have been swell with those veiled alliance adventures... I only used the templar class twice, one being a double agent (a practice that leads to interesting discussions in-game and fights out-of-game ;P) and the other in a mercenary/near evil campaign, because templar are NOT heroes. That doesn't mean that they couldn't be, working against the SK since he can't keep tabs on ALL his lowly templars, but I never ran any as heroes, so too bad for his theory.
In any case, the elemental vortex idea for the SKs is clearly explained in the source material, and while he or you may not like that story, I do. They simply can't use it themselves, as they are the conduit, not the receiving end of that power, and can only funnel that power to others, which have learned to use it with ritualized spells. It also means that the SKs appeared to their followers as true gods (they are indeed the closest thing to it), and also ensures, to a point, the loyalty of their templars, something which isn't true of apprentice wizards, which don't NEED the SK to maintain their power, which also explain why they would train so few (not mentioning all the side effects defiling has on their domains or the fact that they might become potential rivals). It all worked quite well as it was.
Now, it seems templars are arcane casters. I don't really mind the sorcerer king pact for warlocks, in fact I think its a great idea to include warlocks in the game, but make them templars is completely different. So now the Sorcerer kings have an army of DEFILERS INSIDE THEIR CITY AND LANDS, and you can't see what's wrong with that?
But of course, that was with the OLD defilers, because now...
Defilers
Defilers don't appear to defile all the time, it seems, and when they do, its only for daily attacks, and only for rerolls, and to top it off, look at this mechanic. An hommage to meta-gaming:
"each ally within 20 squares of you takes damage..."
And no mention of vegetation or ash! But why the hell would defiling ONLY DAMAGE ALLIES? Of course, there's a simply answer: Damaging enemies too would make it an attack power too, so mechanics trump flavor AND LOGIC!
So there it is...
I'm still looking forward to seeing the end result, but I'm quite certain I'll be making my own homebrew Dark Sun conversion, maybe not for the D&D system though, since 4e has other bugs I really don't like (MMO concessions, flip-a-coin saves, etc.). I hope it works out for them anyways as I can always use the fluff and the adventure ideas too.
At first, I was excited by DS4e. Why? Because I had no intention to buy D&D4e and it made me doubt. So, I decided to give it a try, once the DS book would be out, I would buy D&D and DS 4e at the same time.
But now, after all the reading I am doing since then, I clearly begin to see the outcome. It seems I will NOT buy buying it. As far as I get comments on D&D4e, it was clear it was for the new players. Although I said myself "You're gonna get over it and have fun" for the sake of DS !
But no, Shei-Nad expressed very well the last 6 months of waiting. There are way too much things that currently differ from what IS darksun and what we all WANT of darksun. Either they do not want to hear from the peoples that will propagate it or they really think new peoples will keep it alive by only buying it.
Usually, when someone buy an EXTENSION of a general setting it's because they want it to be DIFFERENT.
Usually, when you want someone to work, show something great to the oldtimer and they will PROPAGATE the news.
Old timer have the knowledge of DS. It's easier for them to build things deeply know something, not only the mechanic behind it.
So there it is...
And it is precisely because of all those changes that I am looking forward to the rerelease of the setting. Nothing there that doesn't make it Dark Sun for me and some of the things I've read actually make more sense this time around.
Regular Attributes
The whole point of the higher stats in 2E was give the characters attribute modifiers which was to play into the "Dark Sun is harsh so the characters need to be tougher" ideal. Attributes come earlier now so this need is gone. The harshness of the setting does not mean that the characters need higher stats.
Half-Giants are Goliath
The one thing i disliked about the original half-giant was that it was all but useless as anything other than a fighter type character. It was way too pigeon-holed. The Goliaths mechanics can be reflavoured, much like the dragonborns will be. As to the height thing, again I'm happy to see it go. It was yet another reason that the character might end up being excluded at times.
Gladiator theme
Gladiators are more than a class so I am happy to see this as a theme. Much more suitable for my tastes.
Muls
From what I've heard, one of the mul's stats is going to be optional (Con is one but you can choose between Strength or Wisdom as the other, I think). So far I like what I've heard.
Weapon Materials
I like what they've done. Too many times players were immediately going for the metal weapons. Now we will continue to see obsidian, stone and other materials in continued use for weapons. This, to me, fits the Dark Sun theme very well.
Kreen
From what I gather, more abilities will be available through feats and racial paragon paths so you can be true to your thri-kreen-ness as you want.
Elemental Clerics
No Divine source as a default. Shamans, druids, et al fill these needs nicely.
Wild Talents
They are optional now. Using themes, feats, hybrid rules, etc. you can still have them, but it will not be all player characters have a wild talent.
Templars aren't templars
Templars are not defilers, although they can be. Templar is a theme which can be slapped onto different classes, of which the sorcerer pact warlock is one. But you can also put it one a shaman, fighter, warlord, etc. Templar is a theme, like the gladiatior, which makes much more sense to me than the class ever did.
Defilers
Another big plus for me are the new defiler rules. Flavour can be added easily so it is easy for me to describe a defiler as wrecking the environment. I like the fact that these rules will actually make the player think about using defiling, which for me is the entire point.
I'm liking it.
If they end up breaking storylines OR changing the classes and characters too much, it will be difficult for a lot of us to swallow. Example: the Goliath/Half-Giant thingy.
According to your analysis, you haven't done all that much research (example: you don't understand the weapon materials rule changes) nor have you actually tried running/playing a game with some of these rule changes. I might trust your analysis more if you had some game experiences, or had actually seen the material being printed.
So far, the people who went to DnDXP had good reviews to give. Not perfect... but they were happy with the results. This is from experienced DS people.
I'm liking it too.
I'll probably be changing parts of the defiler rules, and parts of the half-giant attributes, when some board member smarter than me comes up with the perfect adaptation ;)
Most of the changes in 4e Dark Sun are the removal of limits placed on Dark Sun by Second Edition AD&D's inability to handle the setting.
Regular Attributes
The characters still have roughly the same bonuses, the numbers for those bonuses have changed. Using the old super-high stats that 2e DS used would actually mean that your average peasant would be able to see right through the sorcerer-kings' lies and chuck a mountain at them.
In 2e, you typically needed a minimum score of 16 to get a +1 bonus, and you typically had to have a score of 5 to get a -1 penalty. In 3e and 4e, it's 12 to get +1, and 9 to get a -1. In 2e DS, you rolled 4d4+4 for ability scores, giving you a score between 8 and 20, and you likely ended up with a score of 14, meaning no bonus on average. A 4e character with the standard array has overall higher bonuses (+7) than the average 2e DS character (+0). 4e characters are actually tougher, even if the ability scores are not as high. You just need to do the math.
Half-Giants are Goliath
There is absolutely no reason to believe that they're gonna keep the goliath fluff for the half-giants. Assuming that is like assuming they're gonna keep the regular Elf and Dwarf fluff for the Dark Sun elves and dwarves. 4e bumped up the tops of size categories and blurred them, so 10 foot characters fit the medium category. Making a character large actually nerfs them, because they suffer a -5 penalty from having to squeeze everywhere, and everyone gets a +1 bonus to their AC for being small compared to the big guy (so yeah, that +2 bonus to attack you get from that +4 Str? In the end it's a -4 penalty to attack). 2e half-giants doubled their HP, and in a system with flat HP, damage reduction is a decent substitute. Goliaths do not do well in classes that require Int, they do extremely well in fighter.
Also, even with their -2 penalty to Int, Wis, and Cha, the 2e Half-Giants still had average scores of 12, and minimum scores of 6 - not low enough to get a penalty to those rolls. You just haven't done the math - Half-Giants not getting penalties to those doesn't make a difference since no sane player makes an Int based goliath.
It's easier to design the game assuming that noone at level 1 is going to have an ability score above 20. If you have someone that can get 22 Str at 1st level, you don't have a reason to play other races for Str based classes.
Gladiator theme
Old school gladiators were focused on taking a bunch of opponents at once, but not at being meat shields. This translates as controller. A striker that affects multiple targets borders on controller, and a defender's job is to affect multiple targets. Striker/defender = controller.
There's also no need to go over the fluff: either you know it or you're gonna buy the book to find out what the hell a gladiator is.
Muls
The tireless ability is a pretty good translation of the 2e ability that they don't have to sleep for days. Also, I am tired of people saying that removing penalties is nerfing. Putting in penalties is nerfing. If you go from a real gun to a nerf gun, you don't get more accurate, you don't get more penetration, you don't get more damage - you get less. Learn what nerfing means people!
Weapon Materials
If you have Feyweave cloth armor, it's +1 cloth armor just because it's made from special feycloth. They're toning down the magic and applying it here: if you have a +1 sword, it could be an obsidian sword that was enchanted, or it could be a mundane steel sword.
If you have a +5 steel longsword, it's already enchanted. If you have a +1 steel sword, it could be mundane, but still costs as much as a +1 magic sword because in 4e a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword. Unlike 3e, a +1 masterwork sword and a +1 magic sword cost the same and have no mechanical differences, only fluff differences. 4e DS is just pointing that out more.
Kreen
You have no reason to assume their additional abilities won't appear as feats.
Elemental Clerics
The devs have outright said "no divine power - there are no gods." Using clerics as elemental priests was a limitation of 2e, bringing in divine characters as elemental priests contradicts the fluff for divine power and is redundant: primal covers the whole "I worship fire" shtick.
I've seen nothing yet saying that you can't do an air priest or a wind priest, it's likely that you just pick different powers from the elemental priest theme.
Wild Talents
You don't seem to get what themes are: they are things that most classes can select. Any class can take the wilder theme.
And you're right, the flavor text indicates that most people with wild talents have weak defenses that have no mechanical effect (which makes sense evolution wise: if everyone gets a "level 0 mind blast," everyone's gonna develop a "level 0 immunity to mind blast.")
And if you want a "hey, I can move small objects with my mind" kind of wilder, multiclass feats do that perfectly. There's no need to introduce a new redunant mechanic when all you have to do is use the fluff "my character has wild talent" upon taking the multiclass feat.
Templars aren't templars
Again you are calling for the setting to fit with 2e mechanics instead of using 4e mechanics to liberate the setting to work with the setting. It is only because 2e was a limited and broken system that the templars got divine power by channeling power from arcane/psionic characters. The templar class was only created because there wasn't the other cleric substitute (elemental priests) completely didn't work fluff wise, and 2e was too limited to handle various kinds of templars as efficiently as a theme.
Also, templars are a theme, the SK pact warlock is something in addition to that, they are not the same thing anymore than elves are automatically rangers. Just because the players have the option of playing an SK pact warlock does not mean they are common. They did mention that martial classes could become templars, which works with the templars that had little to no spellcasting but were a bit more buffed than standard clerics.
There's also no reason to assume that they're making templars out to be heroes, they're just making them available. The whole vortex bit was an afterthought, page 34 of the original Dark Sun rules says "A templar's spells are received directly from the sorcerer-king he worships." End of story. Not that he gets it from some other power for which his sorcerer-king can shut him off from, but that he gets it from the sorcerer-king. It's only in the revised edition that they added the bit about vortexes
Defilers
There's nothing saying they don't defile all the time, it just doesn't have any mechanical effect until they try to boost one of their most powerful powers. Honestly, killing plants wasn't a real mechanical effect either, the charts were just for lazy and stupid DMs and players who didn't feel like coming up with plants dying on their own (you cast a small spell, some small plants wither; you cast a big spell, lots of little plants turn to ash, big plants wither, water gains the consistancy of baby oil, and some of the lower con folks feel a little queasy; it's not that hard to make up). You've only read the power, not the actual description of defiling: you have no reason to assume that there will be nothing about defiling in the actual product, you are just unreasonably looking for the worst in this. The each ally bit is mechanics, and it's in the mechanics section of the power. You might as well complain that they don't squeeze some fluff in between the D and the 4 when magic missle is described in previous editions so that it would read "2d-attacks the darkness effectively-4".
Also, enemies are damaged, because your reroll is going to boost damage against them. The damage they take from defiling is part of the increased damage from rerolling.
I don't think you can reroll the damage dies, though.
Arcane Defiling is there to give you one more chance to damage with your daily when it misses from a bad attack roll.
IIRC it's an immedate reaction usable when your daily misses.
EDIT: Repaired my EPIC QUOTE FAIL. and some minor errors.
And it is precisely because of all those changes that I am looking forward to the rerelease of the setting. Nothing there that doesn't make it Dark Sun for me and some of the things I've read actually make more sense this time around.
Well, if you WANT something different, good for you, but it's not what I want. I want Dark Sun with D&D mechanics, not D&D with a Dark Sun feel.
More sense? Ok, lets take a look.
Regular Attributes
The whole point of the higher stats in 2E was give the characters attribute modifiers which was to play into the "Dark Sun is harsh so the characters need to be tougher" ideal. Attributes come earlier now so this need is gone. The harshness of the setting does not mean that the characters need higher stats.
Ah, another mechanical metagamer. I never said they NEEDED the higher stats (though it sure helped), I said the flavor justified them, and that they, in turn, added to the flavor of the setting, by having really strong fighters, really tough gladiators, really agile thieves, and races with exaggerated attributes. Now, a halfling fighter will be BARELY weaker physically than a half-giant, and that... ahem... makes MORE sense to you.
Half-Giants are Goliath
The one thing i disliked about the original half-giant was that it was all but useless as anything other than a fighter type character. It was way too pigeon-holed. The Goliaths mechanics can be reflavoured, much like the dragonborns will be. As to the height thing, again I'm happy to see it go. It was yet another reason that the character might end up being excluded at times.
Another completely metagaming perspective, which ignores everything what the race was. Half-Giants were pretty much useless indeed as anything but a meat grinder if you made them fighter types, which was kind of the point: They were created as soldiers who follow orders. Which made roleplaying them pretty fun actually, since you had all these weaknesses you had to compensate for out of combat, but you absolutely crushed everything in combat.
With 4e, they could be any class, and you could add a lot more versatility to the race without sacrificing either height, mass, strength or dumbness, just reduce the bonuses and penalties to something more 4e, like +4 strength period, and still keep them large. Now, they are suddenly great athletes, with the goliath package (see racial ability), which certainly doesn't fit the clumsy half-giants.
Gladiators
Gladiators are more than a class so I am happy to see this as a theme. Much more suitable for my tastes.
Like I said, that part I don't mind, though I don't see why that makes them more suitable than say, having a barbarian theme instead of a class. I'm fairly certain any argument that says gladiators make a better theme than a class could be said of barbarians, after all, you have barbarian warriors, druids, warlocks and shaman.
Muls
From what I've heard, one of the mul's stats is going to be optional (Con is one but you can choose between Strength or Wisdom as the other, I think). So far I like what I've heard.
Uh, ok. That sure makes a lot of sense that the 300 pounds of pure muscle race gets an OPTIONAL STRENGTH BONUS! Sure, that makes sense!
Weapon Materials
I like what they've done. Too many times players were immediately going for the metal weapons. Now we will continue to see obsidian, stone and other materials in continued use for weapons. This, to me, fits the Dark Sun theme very well.
Yeah, it fits very well for them to have no inclination to get metal weapons over bone ones. Makes a lot of sense too. After all, isn't weapon and armor materials a purely cosmetic choice for warriors? ;)
Anyways, as I've said, I don't really mind this part yet, since I don't really understand the materials rules anyways, simply because they don't really make sense either. I do understand that you'll have magic weapons of inferior materials, and metal weapons will be for higher bonuses, but the iron sword example at level 1 sort of contradicts that. Anyways, we'll see.
Kreen
From what I gather, more abilities will be available through feats and racial paragon paths so you can be true to your thri-kreen-ness as you want.
... if you sacrifice enough feats and powers to do so. Seems like a bad idea to me, but I can live with it, but it hardly makes more sense to have *some* kreen be able to make big leaps and others just can't. Or some have exoskeletons for that matter.
Elemental Clerics
No Divine source as a default. Shamans, druids, et al fill these needs nicely.
These needs. The GAME needs, of course. I'm not saying your game needs clerics, I'm saying Dark Sun had them, and now they're pretty much gone, it seems. Sure they'll be elemental themed spells and powers, but the elemental champions of a single element seem to be gone.
Wild Talents
They are optional now. Using themes, feats, hybrid rules, etc. you can still have them, but it will not be all player characters have a wild talent.
If that is true, I have no problems with it, except I doubt they'll live up to the idea of what a wild talent is. The wilder template seems to give you a sort of limited mind blast power. Not what it's supposed to be.
Templars aren't templars
Templars are not defilers, although they can be. Templar is a theme which can be slapped onto different classes, of which the sorcerer pact warlock is one. But you can also put it one a shaman, fighter, warlord, etc. Templar is a theme, like the gladiatior, which makes much more sense to me than the class ever did.
If that's true, then I really don't get how you think. Well I do, you think: "Defend wizards 4e conversion at all costs", but that's another problem all face when criticizing official rules.
How did the templar class, being a priesthood of spellcasters in the service of a sorcerer-king from which the get their powers and for whom they exercise authority, not make sense as a class? The current 4e version makes so little sense they have to completely rework the canon for sorcerer kings NOT to grant divine spells in order to work!
With the theme, templars are now simply agents of the sorcerer kings, and they already had those, but they are completely different from what templars were.
Defilers
Another big plus for me are the new defiler rules. Flavour can be added easily so it is easy for me to describe a defiler as wrecking the environment. I like the fact that these rules will actually make the player think about using defiling, which for me is the entire point.
Yeah, they'll think about using it, but not too much, since then they would ask the same question I did: Why would defiling ONLY AFFECT ALLIES?!? Makes absolutely no sense flavor-wise, only mechanics wise, but even then, barely.
Preservers don't defile because it DESTROYS their environment! Not because it hurts their allies!!! The WHOLE POINT of not defiling is completely missed! Good preservers don't defile to preserve the environment, period. Defilers don't CARE, which is why they defile ALL THE TIME!
Anyways.
T'as ben raison Pennarin, s'cuse! ;)
(You're absolutely right, Pennarin, sorry! ;))
You obviously loved the 2nd edition mechanics [...]
I'll stop you right there to point out that no, I thought the mechanics of AD&D Dark Sun were pretty flawed in many ways, especially balance wise. The gladiator vs fighter is a great example (who'd play a fighter anyways?), the Half-Giants were way overpowered (Hit points boost and 24 strength in the old rules was way too powerful), elemental clerics with no general sphere spells over level 3, etc. Of course, back in the day, it all looked fine, but now I prefer the d20 system over AD&D. Not sure about 4e though.
[...] and storylines. I did too. But... there's going to be some changes and it's going to break somethings. How much? Only the authors know right now. So, it's really anybody's guess right now.
Its going to break some things. Perhaps, but why not break only that which needs breaking? Templars did not need to be re-written to make them sorcerer king buddies who are arcane spellcasters. Like Rich Baker himself said, they could easily have been "evil clerics" without changing the rules much at all! Even that would have been a lot closer to the original, and even then, a lot more 4e (you use a base class!).
If they end up breaking storylines OR changing the classes and characters too much, it will be difficult for a lot of us to swallow. Example: the Goliath/Half-Giant thingy.
According to your analysis, you haven't done all that much research (example: you don't understand the weapon materials rule changes) nor have you actually tried running/playing a game with some of these rule changes. I might trust your analysis more if you had some game experiences, or had actually seen the material being printed.
So far, the people who went to DnDXP had good reviews to give. Not perfect... but they were happy with the results. This is from experienced DS people.
I haven't done much research? While I can't really argue as there is pretty much nothing to research, I fail to see how much research you need in order to fully appreciate the fact that they took the goliath race and stamped the name Half-Giant on it, and according to the PHB2, Goliaths are definitely not half-giants.
I'd also point out that the character sheet had the Stone's Endurance power of the Goliath, stating that blows deflect off their stony hides. That didn't take a lot of research either, and that's clearly not Half-Giant material. Now, you can still try to justify it by saying ignore the flavor text and make it as though it was his ability to shrug of blows from smaller attackers, but you're still only trying to make the Goliath fit into Dark Sun, and not the Half-Giant work with D&D.
I'd finish by saying that Goliath, by themselves, would have made a pretty good addition to the Dark Sun races on their own anyways, being large and powerful humanoids tied to the elements of earth. A great fit in a world with huge mountains, powerful races and prominent elemental powers.
Has it been confirmed that Defilers will no longer damage plants and the environment?
I had understood that the ally damaging was added to the former roleplaying-oriented effects of defiling, not that they were being replaced. It was not uncommon for Sadira's companions in the Prism Pentad, for example, to feel demoralized and a bit queasy after seeing the effects of her defiling; the ally damaging, by my understanding, gives both this (on top of, or as a result of the environment damage) and to give some mechanical oomph to urge non-roleplying types to consider the results of their actions.
This will, no-doubt, be explained better in the rules.
Most of the changes in 4e Dark Sun are the removal of limits placed on Dark Sun by Second Edition AD&D's inability to handle the setting.
Wow, that's a pretty bold statement, especially after I've just demonstrated how the 4th edition of D&D nerfs and constrains much of what Dark Sun was so it fits its mechanics, but lets see.
Regular Attributes
The characters still have roughly the same bonuses, the numbers for those bonuses have changed. Using the old super-high stats that 2e DS used would actually mean that your average peasant would be able to see right through the sorcerer-kings' lies and chuck a mountain at them.
I sense a slight exaggeration. So by giving the races an extra +2 in strength (so an extra modifier of +1) they go from plowing their fields to lifting mountains? Sure. +1 modifier in a system with a d20 for variable, and the whole world falls apart... right.
In 2e, you typically needed a minimum score of 16 to get a +1 bonus, and you typically had to have a score of 5 to get a -1 penalty. In 3e and 4e, it's 12 to get +1, and 9 to get a -1. In 2e DS, you rolled 4d4+4 for ability scores, giving you a score between 8 and 20, and you likely ended up with a score of 14, meaning no bonus on average. A 4e character with the standard array has overall higher bonuses (+7) than the average 2e DS character (+0). 4e characters are actually tougher, even if the ability scores are not as high. You just need to do the math.
Really? Good thing I'm good at math, but of course that's completely besides the point. I don't care that characters don't NEED the extra bonus now (though if a dark sun campaign is run right, they probably will), I said they were justified by the survival of the fittest idea of Dark Sun and the exaggerated traits of the races. Take them out and you take something away from what Dark Sun characters were.
I'm not saying give all characters the ability to have 2 scores of 20 or a 24 with racial bonuses, but you still could have a measure of it without breaking anything. Like I said, there is no way a +1 modifier difference will make or break the game. If that were the case, loot would be completely impossible to manage. (especially in Dark Sun, where they'll probably lose equipment often enough)
Half-Giants/Goliaths
There is absolutely no reason to believe that they're gonna keep the goliath fluff for the half-giants. Assuming that is like assuming they're gonna keep the regular Elf and Dwarf fluff for the Dark Sun elves and dwarves.
Well I sure hope not! That would just be completely ridiculous, and of course I never thought they would do that, but dress them up as you will, Goliaths are not Half-Giants mechanically. By the way, the same thing can be said for elves, who will now have bonuses in wisdom (where they had a penalty before), abilities to ignore woodland penalties (which makes sense since THEY NEVER GO THERE, hence the ignoring part)
4e bumped up the tops of size categories and blurred them, so 10 foot characters fit the medium category.
That's actually an interesting point, but it makes little sense logic-wise. So a 10 feet creature isn't necessarily physically stronger or have larger weapons than a 5 feet one. Sure. Try that out, let me know how it goes.
What you say next, however, is really priceless.
Making a character large actually nerfs them, because they suffer a -5 penalty from having to squeeze everywhere, and everyone gets a +1 bonus to their AC for being small compared to the big guy (so yeah, that +2 bonus to attack you get from that +4 Str? In the end it's a -4 penalty to attack).
So, making them large is actually a HINDRANCE now? So being large breaks the balance because it WEAKENS the race? Wow. Didn't see that one coming. And there I was trying to point out that being large doesn't only have bonuses. Thanks.
And, by the way, by squeezing everywhere, you mean when not outside and in the 5 feet wide passages that don't appear anymore on any 4e maps? Ok.
I'm not saying they won't have to sometimes, but hardly all the time. But yes, that's part of why making them large isn't a game breaker either. You have penalties on AC and attack and hide, have to squeeze, need more provisions, but you get reach (non-threatening) and use bigger equipment (which also prevents you from using some smaller equipment too, unless they all magically resize like in most MMOs, D&D4e trying their best to mimic those)
2e half-giants doubled their HP, and in a system with flat HP, damage reduction is a decent substitute.
I agree with that part, but with the higher HP total snow, I wouldn't put extra hps for them necessarily. Could be an ability or a feat I guess, but don't really need them. Could also be damage reduction, too, perhaps even a copy of the Goliath power, but changing all the fluff of course. In any case, that's not necessary.
Goliaths do not do well in classes that require Int, they do extremely well in fighter. Also, even with their -2 penalty to Int, Wis, and Cha, the 2e Half-Giants still had average scores of 12, and minimum scores of 6 - not low enough to get a penalty to those rolls. You just haven't done the math - Half-Giants not getting penalties to those doesn't make a difference since no sane player makes an Int based goliath.
I have done the math actually, and what you haven't done is that unless you rolled all 14s, you still would often put lower scores in Int or Wis or Cha, making them below average. Like I said, old AD&D was flawed, so that meant you didn't necessarily get penalties, but now you would. Also, if your guy had an Int score below 10, you could reasonably ask the player to play him a bit retarded, which he has no reason to do now unless he puts his lone 8 there. So the problem isn't I haven't done my math, the problem is you're only looking at numbers, and those should at least reflect the role of the race you're choosing.
It's easier to design the game assuming that noone at level 1 is going to have an ability score above 20. If you have someone that can get 22 Str at 1st level, you don't have a reason to play other races for Str based classes.
Wow, talk about looking only at numbers. Maybe because you don't want to play a dumb brute? Maybe because you like the other racial abilities and role of dwarves, for example. Yeah and a great example it is:
Dwarves don't even have a strength bonus, why would anyone play a strength based dwarf fighter when a Human fighter can have a Strength of 20 while they are at a lowly 18? If you can answer that, you'll know why you can want to play another race that gets strength 20 even when HGs get 22.
Gladiator theme
Old school gladiators were focused on taking a bunch of opponents at once, but not at being meat shields. This translates as controller. A striker that affects multiple targets borders on controller, and a defender's job is to affect multiple targets. Striker/defender = controller.
LOL!!!
That one takes the cake! Are you serious?!? Do you even KNOW what a gladiator is?!?
It's basically a duelist! They go in the arena and fight one on one or in team matches. They are melee fighters almost exclusively and put on a show with a variety of weapons and little armor. Or couse, real ones staged fights to make them last longer, but in a world with completely real fights (unlike roman gladiators, whose fights were partly staged, BTW) they take down their opponents quick as possible to avoid getting wounded. So fluff wise, you're completely off!
Why would they take on a bunch of opponents at once? Even if there were a bunch of them in a free for all, they'd still only take them on one at a time, or possibly 2, but only because the others would gang up on a lone target, only before fighting together in the end, 1 on 1.
And mechanically, from the old rules, what makes you say that? They could train and spec in lots of weapons, had a good attack progession and good THAC0, and was good in unarmed combat, and that's it. Oh, and of course, they got the biggest Hit Dice (d12), which didn't make them meat shields, according to you.
Please take off your "defend wizards conversion at-all-costs" goggles for further reading. It'll work a lot better and I won't have to spend so much time making so obvious a point.
Muls
The tireless ability is a pretty good translation of the 2e ability that they don't have to sleep for days. Also, I am tired of people saying that removing penalties is nerfing. Putting in penalties is nerfing. If you go from a real gun to a nerf gun, you don't get more accurate, you don't get more penetration, you don't get more damage - you get less. Learn what nerfing means people!
Not sure I follow. I wasn't saying it would be an accurate representation of the Muls ability, I'm just not sure how (or if) it works. As for the penalties being nerfing, they can be if not balanced out by bonuses, but penalties should be there when circumstances clearly determine they should. However D&D4e seems to thinks its players are so immature they can't cope with them and thus will not find the game fun, apparently, if they are there. So much so that they've even removed the friendly fire option from their MMO, and now allies don't count as cover for enemies when making a ranged attack, a patently ridiculous rule that should be ignored by any sane DM.
Weapon material
If you have Feyweave cloth armor, it's +1 cloth armor just because it's made from special feycloth. They're toning down the magic and applying it here: if you have a +1 sword, it could be an obsidian sword that was enchanted, or it could be a mundane steel sword.If you have a +5 steel longsword, it's already enchanted. If you have a +1 steel sword, it could be mundane, but still costs as much as a +1 magic sword because in 4e a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword. Unlike 3e, a +1 masterwork sword and a +1 magic sword cost the same and have no mechanical differences, only fluff differences. 4e DS is just pointing that out more.
Now that is what I'm looking for! Thanks!
The thing is, can you even have a +1 Feyweave cloth armor? The table says it has a minimum enchantment bonus of +4, so that means the a +4 Feyweave armor has a +4 bonus to AC, or a +5?
If its not added, then what's the difference between a +4 cloth armor and a +4 feyweave armor? Or why would anyone bother to make the latter anyways?
If it is added, then am I making a +4 item, or a +5 item when looking for the price of the item? Can I make a +3 magic feyweave armor for a total of +4 bonus?
The plate armor material make me think its the latter, since godplate armor grants a +14 bonus to AC, while the maximum magic bonus doesn't go that far, so that means add them together. But there's no cost for such materials, it just says its included in the price of the item. If that's so, who in their right mind would make a normal +6 plate armor when it has the same cost as the godplate?
And you can't buy those materials mundane, right? They need the enchantement bonus? If that's so, then won't that mean that steel weapons will only be available if the are enchanted?
See? That's why its not clear in my mind.
All that being said, if what you say is correct, and you don't have a minimum enchantment bonus for steel weapons, that would work well enough. Iron doesn't seem to follow your theory, however, from what the playtesting HG's equipment says.
Kreen
You have no reason to assume their additional abilities won't appear as feats.
Seeing how they've nerfed everything else, I have plenty! :P But as I've said, I guess I could live with that.
Elemental Clerics
The devs have outright said "no divine power - there are no gods." Using clerics as elemental priests was a limitation of 2e, bringing in divine characters as elemental priests contradicts the fluff for divine power and is redundant: primal covers the whole "I worship fire" shtick.
I've seen nothing yet saying that you can't do an air priest or a wind priest, it's likely that you just pick different powers from the elemental priest theme.
A limitation of 2e... Wow. They wanted to put a twist on the clerics, and they made them champions of the elements instead of the gods. You simply could have changed the origin of the divine power source from gods to elemental powers and it would have worked fine. But I'm sure you could have improved on the sphere idea though.
That would also have distinguished the clerics, champions of the elements, from the druids and their spirit of the land, which is definitely closer to the primal power source you talked about. That said, they can certainly both work with the primal power source, making some merge between elements and spirits of the land (druids did have access to elemental spheres too anyways), but I still see no reason to remove the cleric class altogether. Anyways, I can live with that too, if the other classes can take up the role.
That said, Rich Baker, in his blog, did state that he didn't like the opposing elements idea, and indicated that elements may now be worshiped as a whole instead. That sort of kills the elemental champions the clerics where, with their pact and all that fluff. But I'm sure you'll be okay with that too once the devs confirm it.
Wild Talents
You don't seem to get what themes are: they are things that most classes can select. Any class can take the wilder theme.
And you're right, the flavor text indicates that most people with wild talents have weak defenses that have no mechanical effect (which makes sense evolution wise: if everyone gets a "level 0 mind blast," everyone's gonna develop a "level 0 immunity to mind blast.")
And if you want a "hey, I can move small objects with my mind" kind of wilder, multiclass feats do that perfectly. There's no need to introduce a new redunant mechanic when all you have to do is use the fluff "my character has wild talent" upon taking the multiclass feat.
If such feats exist, I'd be happy with those too. I handled Wild Talents that way too (in part) with my d20 conversion. As for the theme, I was only pointing out it gave the psionic character only a mindblast type power, which isn't really what I had in mind when thinking about wild talents.
Templars aren't templars
Again you are calling for the setting to fit with 2e mechanics instead of using 4e mechanics to liberate [...]
LIBERATE?!? Wow, you should really apply for that wizards spokesperson job. :P
the setting to work with the setting. It is only because 2e was a limited and broken system that the templars got divine power by channeling power from arcane/psionic characters. The templar class was only created because there wasn't the other cleric substitute (elemental priests) completely didn't work fluff wise, and 2e was too limited to handle various kinds of templars as efficiently as a theme.
Good to know all that as for the reason why the templars were created. I assume you've read that somewhere? And here I thought it was because they thought it would be cool to have these uber powerful sorcerer kings have their own priesthood of minions endowed with powers to coerce the populace to do their biddings. That'd not have been metagaming enough a reason I guess.
Templars were not a theme for a very simple reason: They are clearly a distinct class! The Templarate is not just a group of fighters, clerics and wizards working for the sorcerer king, they are his priesthood and administrators, and they all have basically the same training, hierarchy, power and spells. Why would they NOT be a class back in 2e?
Also, templars are a theme, the SK pact warlock is something in addition to that, they are not the same thing anymore than elves are automatically rangers. Just because the players have the option of playing an SK pact warlock does not mean they are common. They did mention that martial classes could become templars, which works with the templars that had little to no spellcasting but were a bit more buffed than standard clerics.
So these guys are now definately not a priesthood anymore, they are simply agents of the sorcerer king with a few minor abilities granted to them by the SK.
There's also no reason to assume that they're making templars out to be heroes, they're just making them available.
...to PCs, so what's the difference? If they had intended them to be only NPCs, they would not have needed a theme or a class to do so anyways, just a stat block.
The whole vortex bit was an afterthought, page 34 of the original Dark Sun rules says "A templar's spells are received directly from the sorcerer-king he worships." End of story. Not that he gets it from some other power for which his sorcerer-king can shut him off from, but that he gets it from the sorcerer-king. It's only in the revised edition that they added the bit about vortexes
So? The backstory to Rajaat and the Dragon and dragon kings too was not mentioned in the earlier edition, that doesn't change anything about how the setting was. Quite the contrary, these additions just tried to explain the various aspects of the SKs, not CHANGE them, as the current edition will.
Defilers
There's nothing saying they don't defile all the time, it just doesn't have any mechanical effect until they try to boost one of their most powerful powers. Honestly, killing plants wasn't a real mechanical effect either, the charts were just for lazy and stupid DMs and players who didn't feel like coming up with plants dying on their own (you cast a small spell, some small plants wither; you cast a big spell, lots of little plants turn to ash, big plants wither, water gains the consistancy of baby oil, and some of the lower con folks feel a little queasy; it's not that hard to make up). You've only read the power, not the actual description of defiling: you have no reason to assume that there will be nothing about defiling in the actual product, you are just unreasonably looking for the worst in this. The each ally bit is mechanics, and it's in the mechanics section of the power. You might as well complain that they don't squeeze some fluff in between the D and the 4 when magic missle is described in previous editions so that it would read "2d-attacks the darkness effectively-4".
I don't get the latter part at all, but it doesn't matter, since you're right in saying they may very well defile all the time, without mechanical effects, and that the vegetation destruction mechanics of 2e were lacking. However, there was an advantage to defiling all the time in 2e: the lower xp requirement for leveling up. Was that a good idea? No. Does it represent why people use defiling according to source material. No. Does that mean there shouldn't be a mechanical advantage to defiling. Absolutely not. Now they could have fixed it though, but what they propose seems rather weak, and makes no sense anyways, as I've demonstrated.
Also, enemies are damaged, because your reroll is going to boost damage against them. The damage they take from defiling is part of the increased damage from rerolling.
What a completely bogus argument from one so quick to lecture me about math!
What if the reroll is LOWER than the original?!?
Checkmate.
The only thing you demonstrated with the latter is how much you WANT the conversion to make sense, even when it clearly doesn't.
Sorry if some of the above is offensive, but I get really tired of criticizing obvious flaws when people desperately trying to defend official rules can't accept that the devs could be wrong about somethings. These people must have real big crisis of faith when the erratas come out. :P
Defiling does not demoralize people, be they your allies or enemies. It didn't do that in 2e or 3e, or the novels. It saps life. People felt queezy as a very small portion of their life was taken, the rest was plant-life, soil bacteria, and some fictional life-giving quality of the earth itself.
4e is now a departure on canon in terms of mechanics, if mechanics can and could ever have been said to have canonical properties (I somehow doubt it), in that it inflicts sizable actual damage to people, while 2e and 3e defiling only imparted minuses on initiative and skill checks and the likes. Only dragons inflicted damage.
Still, I imagine once we read the fluff on defiling it will indicate it does defile the ground and any trees and other big plants nearby, in addition to hurting people, and will even mention how it affects plant monsters and plant-based terrain and traps.
Nobody should be able to hide defiling use. Perhaps a feat can help you transform your defiling close burst into a ranged area burst (athas.org had a feat that could do that).
Big_Goon's explanation is actually the best explanation I've seen on this, but even then, it's a fairly laughable idea. Are all allies within 20 squares going to lose a full healing surge if they see their gladiator friend butcher a young animal for no apparent reason too? ;)
D&D4e is really more of a game than a role-playing game, for the amount of things you have to "suspend disbelief" for in order for it to work.
Before I get into the specifics, the main problem I have with the conversion is that designers (namely, James Wyatt in the Q&A of the announcement of Dark Sun as the new campaign settings) claimed that the D&D4e system could adapt to a variety of settings outside of traditional medieval fantasy. Evidently, it is the SETTING which had to adapt to the system. So, it will not really be a new edition of dark sun so much as a remake, justified by the need to fit the system, which is a poor justification, in my opinion.
We agree in so much as the setting had to adapt to the system. However, I disagree with your opinion that it is a poor way of converting Dark Sun. Dark Sun 4E will essentially be a remake indeed, but I do not see it as a bad thing for the setting. Note that while I disagree with you, I'm not saying that your opinion is not valid.
Regular Attributes
Not that big a deal for me actually, but this is an example of how the system trumps the setting. Dark Sun characters were supposed to have gone through a harsh "survival of the fittest" which led to better stats and racial modifiers which exaggerated and enhanced the strengths and weaknesses of each race.
That's all gone, because it seems, according to Rich Baker, high stats are no longer necessary, since 2e bonuses kicked in at high stats, while now they start earlier. That bit of reasoning is a great example of my main problem with the conversion: Mechanics trump setting. This argument completely disregards the flavor that the high stats brought to Dark Sun PCs and races in favor of maintaining current D&D rules.
Now, having done a lot of rules and mechanics work before (having completely converted Dark sun for 3e before), I understand full well the importance of balance issues in the d20 and D&D systems. However, I really think d20 and D&D designers really overreact about the importance of the higher stats, especially in the 3e and 4e system, in which raising an ability by 2 points grants only a +1 bonus on a d20, so basically, you have a FIVE PERCENT better chance of succeeding than without it. If that's a game breaker to you, you must be a maniacally paranoid DM when it comes to loot, because that means if you hand out a +2 sword instead of a +1, you've broken the game too.
It's not a big deal for you, so I won't make a big deal out of it as well. The attribute bonuses in 2E have been indicative of the fittest surviving, yes. But in 4E, the PCs by definition are already the fittest. They operate under different rules compared to everybody else - they have more healing surges, they have feats, and the like.
That being said, I do agree that the difference between a +2 and +4 would not be that far. But with the exception of humans, WotC has been fairly consistent with the dual +2 modifiers, and I do not think we will see them deviate from that pattern anytime soon.
Half-Giants are Goliath
Pretty much says it all. Half-giants have not only been changed mechanically, but "flavor-wise" as well. They were 10-12 feet tall, over 1000 lbs, pure brawn, no brains brutes. Now, they have shortened 4-5 feet, 1/3 the mass, just as strong as human fighters (because they'll put their +2 in Str most likely) and just as smart. Oh, and they can have stony hides too, apparently. Great.
It's hard to think of a better example of how the setting was made to fit the system than this. Makes you wonder if they were trying to make the Half-giant into the D&D system the easiest, or if they simply bumped the Half-Giant to put the Goliath in.
Of course, Half-Giants were a challenge to convert, because of their great strenght and size, and dumb wits (since 4e doesn't give penalties to races, because penalties are no fun! *sigh*). So faced with a challenge, they just gave up.
I'm quite certain being large alone can't break the game if you offset it correctly. The extra reach doesn't even give you AoO anymore anyways, and starting HPs don't have to be adjusted. Sure, a higher strength might be nice, but why not make the HG +4 strength alone, no other stat? I know increasing the bonus in one stat makes it even more effective that 2 different +2s, but they don't need other racial powers really. Leave their speed at 6 sq. (tall but lumbering). normal vision, no racial power. Thats not even counting the game penalties they'll get for bigger equipment and provisions needs, and the flavor penalties for sleeping outside or not getting the jokes.
Anyways. Easier to use the existing system and dump the big guys. Too cumbersome, it seems.
Having been inducted to the game in the 3.5 era, all our half-giants have been medium (albeit with powerful build). I believe having them as medium in 4E wouldn't be too much of a problem either. As for the goliath reskinning, well, I'm not too fond of that either. But I guess I'll work with it and just reflavor the racial power to something less stone-themed.
I want to point out, though, that goliaths are good with big two-handed weapons through their feats. So a goliath fighter can wield bigger weapons with more efficiency than, say, a human. It still doesn't make them half-giants, but I suppose it helps for the feel of having them wield big, brutish weapons.
Gladiator theme
I don't really mind those actually, and I don't really care about them being a class or not. You might ask why I care about the high stats or the size of the HG but not the gladiator class, which was pretty core in the old DS. The reason is simple: You can still have gladiators without a gladiator class. A "class" is a purely mechanical term, and you could have a rogue arena fighter who'd be considered by any athasian a "gladiator" just as much as a fighter would be. Indeed, I agree that many classes could fit the gladiator role, and since fighters work equally well as soldiers or gladiators anyways, this purely mechanical distinction isn't necessary to respect the original setting.
I did want to mention, however, that I'm quite happy they DIDN'T make a class out of it, because again, they were thinking about the mechanics, not the setting. When you think about the gladiator (both old-mechanics-wise and flavor-wise) you think about a really tough fighter with little armor, good at using many weapons, and great at 1-on-1 fights and matches. An expert melee combatant. So, Rich Baker looks at that, and he goes: "Wow, that'd make a great martial CONTROLLER!" (see his blog)
REALLY?!? Does anyone here seriously think that's how their thought process went? Clearly, the gladiator would be a striker/defender, i.e. a tough melee combatant excelling at killing solo targets but able to take damage. What happened is quite simple, they weren't looking at how to present the gladiator class with D&D mechanics, they were seeing the gladiator class as an opportunity to bring a new mechanics to the D&D system, namely, a martial controller, which they don't have. Pure mechanics.
The way I understood his blog, he presents it as a way to give a martial character some controller aspects (possibly in the form of imparting status effects such as dazing in addition to damage - yes, I'm speculating). I do not think slapping a gladiator theme into, say, a ranger will turn the character into a controller. It will still be a striker that can do some battlefield flamboyance.
Muls
Same stats as goliaths is my guess, so kudos for the nerfed 4e stats in really bringing forth that flavor difference I talked about earlier. I'm sort of puzzled by the tireless ability, just because I don't understand how it works. Does it mean Muls can sleep 2 hours every night and get his extended rest benefits on the third night? So he can sleep 5 hours on night and 1 hour in the afternoon and get the benefit too? Or does it mean he has to sleep 6 straight hours, but doesn't need to sleep the other nights. The former seems rather a game breaker actually, since you'll have mul characters sleeping 5 hours during the night and taking a nap during lunch to regain powers and HPs lost in the morning. The latter seems completely useless, since characters will want the benefits or an extended rest EVERY night anyways. I need someone to explain it to me.
I think I heard Mr. baker say in a podcast that one of the reasons for leaving out half-giants in the DS Campaign Setting book is because it has too much overlap with the muls. I've also heard about the +2con no matter what, and +2str/+2something else. Since I haven't seen the complete race yet, I don't want to state an impression yet.
As a side note, I'm currently running the Verdant Passage as a 4E game right now, using pregenerated characters. My Rikus, for lack of official material, are reskinned half-orcs for now (hey, it's half-right...). He's strong, he's nimble, and the resilience racial trait makes him tough without any bonuses to con. It's working fine so far.
Weapon Materials
I really have to read those better materials D&D rules again, because they make little sense to me. Do you add the material bonus to the magical bonus or are those included in the item bonus? Is it possible to enchant a +5 normal steel wepaon? I'll have to check the errata.
I think the conversion could work IF it doesn't mean EVERY steel weapon will be magical, but simply grant bonuses equivalent to a magical weapon of worse material. They only thing I don't get is that the HG starts with an Iron sword, and it doesn't seem to make a difference compared to bone weapons. It has a higher attack bonus, but I wonder if that isn't from a feat or from his specialization bonus anyways. Will need to see more.
Right now, your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps a +5 steel weapon can only be enchanted with +5 or higher enchants? I'm still watching out for how these ones will work.
Going back to that 4E game we're playing, I incorporated the optional weapon breaking rules that I found (with Agis's metal weapon more resistant to breaking). Nothing has been broken yet, though, so I don't know what to make of it yet.
Kreen
*sigh* Paralizing venom? Huge Leaps? Exoskeleton? Kreen weapons? ... Lets hope they make it in as racial feats or powers. The claws powers at least is interesting.
Ah, I've heard of at least a racial paragon path to make them closer to the more powerful thri-kreen versions.
Elemental Clerics
Traditional elements and their competing clerics seem dropped. Instead we have primal casters with "elemental theme". This seems to be an instance where the "theme" is more or less appropriate, although it means the different "divine" archetypes will be linked to the elemental powers, which is good. The switch from divine to primal makes sense though, and I can live with the shamans as elemental and spirits of the land casters, which also works. As I've said, I'm less attached to classes than concepts. That said, the clerics themselves, the "elemental champions" should not be discarded, and although that isn't clear, I'm afraid that will happen, as the designers hinted the divine power source classes would not necessarily make it in, and that the idea of competing elementals (fire vs water, for example) didn't appeal to them.
Ian.thomson was perhaps a bit harsh when he refered to it as a limitation of the 2E system. Now, I can neither confirm nor deny that, as I've never played 2E. However, part of what he's saying, to a certain extent, seem to stem from the fact that Dark Sun was designed in the 2E era. So to a certain extent, the very existence of the elemental clerics might be pinpointed back to a meeting were they asked, "Okay, so how do we make clerics available in Dark Sun?" (yes, speculating again)
Of course, the elemental clerics have evolved from that into something that is inherently part of the setting. From the sun priests of Kled to the Windsinger of the Faenaeyon's elves and beyond, characters have given life to what otherwise would have been a simple mechanical adaptation. In the same way, 4E adapts the elemental clerics mechanically as a theme. Had Dark Sun been originally created here in the 4E era, I see a distinct possibility that elemental clerics won't even have been included. But they exist, and it has been adopted. I think the fluff of it all will just be as rich in 4E.
Wild Talents
Do they exist? Seems not, as only the psionic character has the wilder theme. It seems to me the wilder theme was exactly what was needed to let any character be a wild talent, and I hope that is what they'll go for. The only thing is I would like wilders to get at least 1 "utility cantip wizard-like" power, and not have wilders be a bunch of people who can mind blast each other. Feats could also do the trick, and the multiclassing feat could work too, I guess.
By the way, I don't need EVERY PC to have a wild talent. From the flavor text, it seems clear that while wild talents are common, they are by no way so common that every PC, or even the majority, need to be a wild talent, so that old mechanic can be replaced with no problem, as long as there is a replacement.
I agree. Wilder might be available for everyone, I think.
Templars aren't templars
The worst decision in the whole conversion in my opinion, templars are definately not a theme for all the "agents" or buddies or a sorcerer king. They are litterally his priesthood, and there's bunch of fluff that Rich Baker apparently doesn't like, or hasn't read, but his interpretation, again, is priceless: Templars were priests because the old game PC parties needed clerics. So he does read the fluff, but that only reads: mechanics, mechanics, mechanics...
Seriously, you all had templars in your Hero parties? That must have been swell with those veiled alliance adventures... I only used the templar class twice, one being a double agent (a practice that leads to interesting discussions in-game and fights out-of-game ;P) and the other in a mercenary/near evil campaign, because templar are NOT heroes. That doesn't mean that they couldn't be, working against the SK since he can't keep tabs on ALL his lowly templars, but I never ran any as heroes, so too bad for his theory.
In any case, the elemental vortex idea for the SKs is clearly explained in the source material, and while he or you may not like that story, I do. They simply can't use it themselves, as they are the conduit, not the receiving end of that power, and can only funnel that power to others, which have learned to use it with ritualized spells. It also means that the SKs appeared to their followers as true gods (they are indeed the closest thing to it), and also ensures, to a point, the loyalty of their templars, something which isn't true of apprentice wizards, which don't NEED the SK to maintain their power, which also explain why they would train so few (not mentioning all the side effects defiling has on their domains or the fact that they might become potential rivals). It all worked quite well as it was.
Now, it seems templars are arcane casters. I don't really mind the sorcerer king pact for warlocks, in fact I think its a great idea to include warlocks in the game, but make them templars is completely different. So now the Sorcerer kings have an army of DEFILERS INSIDE THEIR CITY AND LANDS, and you can't see what's wrong with that?
Yes, templars will be prime candidates to receive the SK pact. Yes, they will be tempted to defile. But I believe that templars who do defile (especially within their own city) still risk the wrath of their ruler. Also, I think a bunch of SK warlocks won't be templars... But I see it as a character hook opportunityrather than as a flaw in the fluff.
Defilers
Defilers don't appear to defile all the time, it seems, and when they do, its only for daily attacks, and only for rerolls, and to top it off, look at this mechanic. An hommage to meta-gaming:
"each ally within 20 squares of you takes damage..."
And no mention of vegetation or ash! But why the hell would defiling ONLY DAMAGE ALLIES? Of course, there's a simply answer: Damaging enemies too would make it an attack power too, so mechanics trump flavor AND LOGIC!
Yep, it's a game-balance issue. As a DM, I would rather have fluff issues as opposed to game-balance ones, since I can always roleplay the "heedless of the harm you cause the land and animals" part.
So there it is...
I'm still looking forward to seeing the end result, but I'm quite certain I'll be making my own homebrew Dark Sun conversion, maybe not for the D&D system though, since 4e has other bugs I really don't like (MMO concessions, flip-a-coin saves, etc.). I hope it works out for them anyways as I can always use the fluff and the adventure ideas too.
The biggest benefit of the 4E official conversion is that it will make the setting available to a new generation of fans. While I am quite new to DS myself, I've been a fan long enough to not necessarily like all changes. I am willing to work with it, though, especially since 4E is already my preferred ruleset anyway. And if something really doesn't feel right, then I will just change it for my own games.
Shei-Nad, however you decide to enjoy Dark Sun, I hope it works out for you.
I mentioned something similar to Morskittar in another thread. I took the rules as: Defiling damages your friends "emotionally". Seeing a friend and ally defile is so discouraging, so moral-draining, that it sucks the will to fight out of you. Mechanically: it's the opposite of a Warlord's "inspiring word" power that gives you hit points.
This will, no-doubt, be explained better in the rules.
Yeah, I'd align the HP damage more to the queasy feeling and a general sense of feeling ill or not good (as Pennarin noted) as life forces are unraveled; *but* I'd say this would have more impact on friends and allies (as I vaguely remember from the PP novels), as the physical effects are heightened by mental or emotional.
Still my main point was that we *haven't* seen any indication that defiling is fundamentally changing. Getting an additional, ally-affecting mechanic (that's consistent with the books); sure, but there's no indication it's fundamentally changing background-wise. I'm really not sure where that impression came from.
Isn't the rerolling about the attack roll, not the damage roll? In which case it makes a difference between inflicting no damage (or Miss damage) and actually inflicting damage with the daily.I don't think you can reroll the damage dies, though.
Arcane Defiling is there to give you one more chance to damage with your daily when it misses from a bad attack roll.
IIRC it's an immedate reaction usable when your daily misses.
You're allowed to reroll either. "Trigger: You make an attack or damage roll as part of an arcane daily attack power. Effect: You can reroll the triggering roll... Special: You can only use this power to reroll each attack roll and damage roll only once."
Well, if you WANT something different, good for you, but it's not what I want. I want Dark Sun with D&D mechanics, not D&D with a Dark Sun feel.
2e DS was D&D with a Dark Sun feel, not Dark Sun with D&D mechanics - or else they would have completely rewritten the magic rules (the whole vortex issue was made up so allow TSR to shove standard D&D fluff onto Dark Sun to keep the templar cleric substitute intact).
Ah, another mechanical metagamer. I never said they NEEDED the higher stats (though it sure helped), I said the flavor justified them, and that they, in turn, added to the flavor of the setting, by having really strong fighters, really tough gladiators, really agile thieves, and races with exaggerated attributes. Now, a halfling fighter will be BARELY weaker physically than a half-giant, and that... ahem... makes MORE sense to you.
But you haven't done the math. Average ability scores in 2e DS was 14. This means the average halfling fighter would have Str 12, and the half-giant fighter would have Str 18. That does make a difference in 3e and 4e: but this is 2e, and 12 Str gets a +0 to attack rolls and 18 Str only gets a +1 bonus to attack. Half-giants were not that really all that much stronger than halflings to begin with. It's only 2 points difference in later editions. And oh, that's just what bonus Half-Giants are getting compared to halflings.
You say you want them tougher, but they don't need to have higher ability scores: well guess what, that's how toughness manifests itself in the game.
Another completely metagaming perspective, which ignores everything what the race was. Half-Giants were pretty much useless indeed as anything but a meat grinder if you made them fighter types, which was kind of the point: They were created as soldiers who follow orders. Which made roleplaying them pretty fun actually, since you had all these weaknesses you had to compensate for out of combat, but you absolutely crushed everything in combat.With 4e, they could be any class, and you could add a lot more versatility to the race without sacrificing either height, mass, strength or dumbness, just reduce the bonuses and penalties to something more 4e, like +4 strength period, and still keep them large. Now, they are suddenly great athletes, with the goliath package (see racial ability), which certainly doesn't fit the clumsy half-giants.
Half-giants are only good for fighting from a mechanical perspective.
Uh, ok. That sure makes a lot of sense that the 300 pounds of pure muscle race gets an OPTIONAL STRENGTH BONUS! Sure, that makes sense!
Their strength bonus on average meant nothing to begin with. An average 2e mul's strength was 16: they still a +0 to attack.
Yeah, it fits very well for them to have no inclination to get metal weapons over bone ones. Makes a lot of sense too. After all, isn't weapon and armor materials a purely cosmetic choice for warriors? ;)Anyways, as I've said, I don't really mind this part yet, since I don't really understand the materials rules anyways, simply because they don't really make sense either. I do understand that you'll have magic weapons of inferior materials, and metal weapons will be for higher bonuses, but the iron sword example at level 1 sort of contradicts that. Anyways, we'll see.
Actually, they do have an inclination to get weapons that are sharper and break less often. Metal weapons are +1 weapons just from being metal. If you roll a natural 1, you have the option of rerolling, but if you have a non-metal weapon it will shatter after you resolve the attack, while with a metal weapon, it's only going to break on a roll of 5 or less. So there is a reason to get metal weapons, but it isn't because non-metal weapons are completely useless.
In 4e, a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword. Whether the sword is a +1 sword from being made of a special material, or because it is well made, or because it is enchanted is entirely a fluff issue: a +1 sword is a +1 sword is a +1 sword.
... if you sacrifice enough feats and powers to do so. Seems like a bad idea to me, but I can live with it, but it hardly makes more sense to have *some* kreen be able to make big leaps and others just can't. Or some have exoskeletons for that matter.
The Thri-Kreen character sheet that has been released as a +2 bonus to Acrobatics even though she has a strength of 10. They're better at jumping than other races. Although the Thri-Kreen in Dark Sun started with the leap ability, the rules said they didn't start with that ability until level 3 - which would imply that the leaping isn't something they get for just being an adult Thri-Kreen. PCs did start at level 3, but there would likely be some Thri-Kreen that just hadn't gotten leaping down yet.
These needs. The GAME needs, of course. I'm not saying your game needs clerics, I'm saying Dark Sun had them, and now they're pretty much gone, it seems. Sure they'll be elemental themed spells and powers, but the elemental champions of a single element seem to be gone.
Dark Sun had them because the game couldn't function properly without clerics. That was the only reason. If the option to run templars as something other than a cleric was there, it would have been done.
Also, you are assuming things you have no reason to assume: you have nothing to show that would indicate that the elemental priests aren't aligned with a particular element. The Thri-Kreen Shaman's Elemental spirit mentions "sand, stone, and obsidian," no fire, no water, no air. It is perfectly safe to assume that the Thri-Kreen is an earth priest, and that there will be different Elemental Priest theme powers for fire priests, water priests, and air priests.
If that is true, I have no problems with it, except I doubt they'll live up to the idea of what a wild talent is. The wilder template seems to give you a sort of limited mind blast power. Not what it's supposed to be.
If you want a "I can move small objects with my mind" wild talent, you take a multiclass feat. If you want a somewhat more powerful wild talent, you take the wilder theme. Also, ballistic attack, inflict pain, detonate, disintegrate, and project force were on the 2e wild talent charts. "Boom" was available from the beginning.
If that's true, then I really don't get how you think. Well I do, you think: "Defend wizards 4e conversion at all costs", but that's another problem all face when criticizing official rules.
And you're thinking "Wizards can't do anything right, but I'll make a few concessions so it won't appear this way." Otherwise, you wouldn't be assuming the worst in so many cases.
You're defending offical rules instead of the setting as well: you're just defending 2e mechanical limitations on the setting.
How did the templar class, being a priesthood of spellcasters in the service of a sorcerer-king from which the get their powers and for whom they exercise authority, not make sense as a class? The current 4e version makes so little sense they have to completely rework the canon for sorcerer kings NOT to grant divine spells in order to work!With the theme, templars are now simply agents of the sorcerer kings, and they already had those, but they are completely different from what templars were.
The divine power source specifically comes from gods, not would-be gods, but gods. There are no gods on Athas. It does not make sense that the templars get divine spells while the sorcerer-kings cannot use any divine power. There is no reason why the Sorcerer-Kings wouldn't have limited their power some just to get ahold of the ELEMENTAL (not divine, but ELEMENTAL) power that they were channelling to their followers. And that was a rework later on. Originally, templars just got their powers from the Arcane/Psionic Sorcerer-Kings.
Templars typically worked three main jobs: guards, administrators, and priests. The guy who would otherwise be a fighter except that he gets some small spellcasting ability? He's a templar just as much as the priest who does nothing but "maintain the illusion that the sorcerer-king is a god." 2e did not have a class that could cover spellcaster as well as magic-user while still having good melee and armor options, except for cleric. So they went with a modified cleric. 4e doesn't have that problem, and so it can represent a templar guard as something not completely identical in ability to a templar priest.
Yeah, they'll think about using it, but not too much, since then they would ask the same question I did: Why would defiling ONLY AFFECT ALLIES?!? Makes absolutely no sense flavor-wise, only mechanics wise, but even then, barely.Preservers don't defile because it DESTROYS their environment! Not because it hurts their allies!!! The WHOLE POINT of not defiling is completely missed! Good preservers don't defile to preserve the environment, period. Defilers don't CARE, which is why they defile ALL THE TIME!
You are metagaming and only thinking mechanically here: from an in-game perspective, the caster's spell has more of an effect than it otherwise should because of defiling, and everyone is weakened by him casting that spell. The damage that the opponents take from defiling is assumed to be a part of the damage roll.
Defilers are usually loners and don't have party members to worry about.
The difference between preservers and defilers in 2e was that defilers needed less XP to level up, which doesn't make sense in neither mechanics nor fluff. Fluffwise, preservers and defilers use the same magic, preservers are just better at managing the energy than defilers, defilers are greedy and wasteful with it. Says so in the "Preservers and Defilers" sourcebook. They should have been the same class from the beginning, with only the difference of defiling spells being more powerful than they otherwise would be.
The whole "destroying the environment" bit is a ROLE penalty, not a ROLL penalty. You can't balance a ROLL bonus with a ROLE penalty, because in 2e you really didn't have a reason not to play a defiler (sure, you might have a druid or cleric in the party, but some of those guys did work with the Sorcerer-Kings, the biggest defilers of all). And if the only difference between defilers and preservers is role based instead of roll based, there is no reason to play defilers. This time, there is a role penalty for a role bonus, and a roll penalty for a roll bonus.
I'll stop you right there to point out that no, I thought the mechanics of AD&D Dark Sun were pretty flawed in many ways, especially balance wise. The gladiator vs fighter is a great example (who'd play a fighter anyways?), the Half-Giants were way overpowered (Hit points boost and 24 strength in the old rules was way too powerful), elemental clerics with no general sphere spells over level 3, etc. Of course, back in the day, it all looked fine, but now I prefer the d20 system over AD&D. Not sure about 4e though.
So wait, first the 4e Half-Giant isn't powerful enough, and now what you're saying it should have been based on is too powerful? Make up your mind.
Its going to break some things. Perhaps, but why not break only that which needs breaking? Templars did not need to be re-written to make them sorcerer king buddies who are arcane spellcasters. Like Rich Baker himself said, they could easily have been "evil clerics" without changing the rules much at all! Even that would have been a lot closer to the original, and even then, a lot more 4e (you use a base class!).
Templars didn't need to be re-written as weird elemental priests, which is what the second printing did (it was not part of the original Dark Sun). And the original was done because 2e's system couldn't handle the setting properly. You're not defending the setting, you're defending the limitations placed on it by the system that couldn't handle it properly.
I haven't done much research? While I can't really argue as there is pretty much nothing to research, I fail to see how much research you need in order to fully appreciate the fact that they took the goliath race and stamped the name Half-Giant on it, and according to the PHB2, Goliaths are definitely not half-giants.
I'm sorry, but you are being completely unreasonable in assuming that they're going to bring the goliath fluff into Dark Sun. Just stop, unless you're going to assume that they're going to use the standard elf fluff for the Dark Sun elves.
I'd also point out that the character sheet had the Stone's Endurance power of the Goliath, stating that blows deflect off their stony hides. That didn't take a lot of research either, and that's clearly not Half-Giant material. Now, you can still try to justify it by saying ignore the flavor text and make it as though it was his ability to shrug of blows from smaller attackers, but you're still only trying to make the Goliath fit into Dark Sun, and not the Half-Giant work with D&D.
"Stony" =/= "Stone." "Stony" = "Tough, kinda like stone." This power does not make 4e Half-Giants into rock monsters. Getting damage is a pretty good translation of doubled HP rolls.
I'd finish by saying that Goliath, by themselves, would have made a pretty good addition to the Dark Sun races on their own anyways, being large and powerful humanoids tied to the elements of earth. A great fit in a world with huge mountains, powerful races and prominent elemental powers.
"Tied to the elements of earth" is fluff - just like the Elves being from the Feywild instead of the material plane. You have no reason to assume that any fluff from the standard PHBs that go against Dark Sun is going to be a part of Dark Sun. You have no more reason to assume that Goliaths being rock monsters means Half-Giants becoming rock monsters than someone would to assume that Dark Sun elves live in the woods and aren't known for running like the Tarahumara.
Wow, that's a pretty bold statement, especially after I've just demonstrated how the 4th edition of D&D nerfs and constrains much of what Dark Sun was so it fits its mechanics, but lets see.
Again, you're misusing the word nerf. Applying penalties is nerfing. Or wait, I forget, is it Nerf guns the police department carries, since they're so much deadlier than regular guns?
I sense a slight exaggeration. So by giving the races an extra +2 in strength (so an extra modifier of +1) they go from plowing their fields to lifting mountains? Sure. +1 modifier in a system with a d20 for variable, and the whole world falls apart... right.
I was exaggerating some, but you're misreading. Your average 2e DS peasant with 14 strength has a +0 modifier to attack. A 4e peasant with 14 strength has a +2 modifier to attacks. There's no reason why things can't be done so that the average peasant has a +0 modifier. The numbers actually are matching up once the math is done, you just aren't doing the math. A 4e character with 12 Str is just as strong as a 2e character with 16 str.
Really? Good thing I'm good at math, but of course that's completely besides the point. I don't care that characters don't NEED the extra bonus now (though if a dark sun campaign is run right, they probably will), I said they were justified by the survival of the fittest idea of Dark Sun and the exaggerated traits of the races. Take them out and you take something away from what Dark Sun characters were.I'm not saying give all characters the ability to have 2 scores of 20 or a 24 with racial bonuses, but you still could have a measure of it without breaking anything. Like I said, there is no way a +1 modifier difference will make or break the game. If that were the case, loot would be completely impossible to manage. (especially in Dark Sun, where they'll probably lose equipment often enough)
4e characters are on par with 2e dark sun characters, and better than 2e characters from other settings. 4e characters already match up to the "survival of the fittest" stuff taken into account.
And the math is important because you are talking about things that affect the mechanics of the game: you don't think the mechanics match the fluff (see your complaining about half-giant), when in fact they actually match them at least as well as they did in 2e.
Well I sure hope not! That would just be completely ridiculous, and of course I never thought they would do that, but dress them up as you will, Goliaths are not Half-Giants mechanically. By the way, the same thing can be said for elves, who will now have bonuses in wisdom (where they had a penalty before), abilities to ignore woodland penalties (which makes sense since THEY NEVER GO THERE, hence the ignoring part)
Oh so you've forgotten about your statement "I'd also point out that the character sheet had the Stone's Endurance power of the Goliath, stating that blows deflect off their stony hides."...? You are pointing to fluff, not mechanics, when you say that Goliaths don't work as Half-Giants.
From a mechanics perspective, 10 feet works as medium in 4e. In a system where HP isn't rolled, damage reduction represents toughness better than doubling HP.
That's actually an interesting point, but it makes little sense logic-wise. So a 10 feet creature isn't necessarily physically stronger or have larger weapons than a 5 feet one. Sure. Try that out, let me know how it goes.
Half-Giants didn't get any mechanical benefits from being 10 feet tall in second edition, it was just their racial modifiers that gave them those benefits. The only time being 10 feet tall made any difference was when the DM said "Oh, btw, this shelf in this inexplicably large room is eleven feet up for no adequately explained reason." In the official video games, half giants appeared larger but did not get reach, did not occupy more space in combat, they were effectively medium sized characters with bigger sprites. +2 Str does well enough for half-giants being stronger. (Again, if you look at the actual bonuses from abilities, rather than the ability scores, 4e half-giant matches up to the 2e half-giant).
And while they would have larger weapons, the issue is are they large enough to justify extra damage other than what they get from their str bonus? Not absolutely.
So, making them large is actually a HINDRANCE now? So being large breaks the balance because it WEAKENS the race? Wow. Didn't see that one coming. And there I was trying to point out that being large doesn't only have bonuses. Thanks.And, by the way, by squeezing everywhere, you mean when not outside and in the 5 feet wide passages that don't appear anymore on any 4e maps? Ok.
I'm not saying they won't have to sometimes, but hardly all the time. But yes, that's part of why making them large isn't a game breaker either. You have penalties on AC and attack and hide, have to squeeze, need more provisions, but you get reach (non-threatening) and use bigger equipment (which also prevents you from using some smaller equipment too, unless they all magically resize like in most MMOs, D&D4e trying their best to mimic those)
5 foot corridors may appear on pre-made tiles from WotC, but not everyone uses those. And who on Athas is going to build everything to accomodate large characters? And why are all the adventures going to take place outside just because there's a half-giant in the party? Talk about metagaming.
I agree with that part, but with the higher HP total snow, I wouldn't put extra hps for them necessarily. Could be an ability or a feat I guess, but don't really need them. Could also be damage reduction, too, perhaps even a copy of the Goliath power, but changing all the fluff of course. In any case, that's not necessary.
If the power is exactly the same as the Goliath power, then just use the Goliath power, and realize that "stony" is metaphorical, not literal (otherwise they would have said "stone skin.")
I have done the math actually, and what you haven't done is that unless you rolled all 14s, you still would often put lower scores in Int or Wis or Cha, making them below average. Like I said, old AD&D was flawed, so that meant you didn't necessarily get penalties, but now you would. Also, if your guy had an Int score below 10, you could reasonably ask the player to play him a bit retarded, which he has no reason to do now unless he puts his lone 8 there. So the problem isn't I haven't done my math, the problem is you're only looking at numbers, and those should at least reflect the role of the race you're choosing.
The average is 14, so for simplicity's sake I'm working with all stats starting at 14.
You keep talking about numbers and how they should reflect the RP stuff, but when the numbers show that they match up as well as they did in 2e, you accuse others of not paying attention to lore. Stop that, it's hypocritical.
Let's say they did include an Int penalty for half-giants, and it was equal to what they had in 2e. OK, -2 typically moves someone from +0 to +0, but if they're at the low end of a modifier, they could get bumped down, maybe. To move from a +1 bonus to a -1 bonus requires moving 10 points. So, half-giants in 4e would have an Int penalty of -0.2. Well, all we have to do is add in a completely unnecessary decimal point to ability scores, and we've got our penalty. OR, we could just realize that -0.2 is not really going to make a difference and just leave stuff in the fluff saying "Half-Giants are not known for being especially bright, nor are they very educated" and rely on the players to have their Int scores represent a cunning not unusual for a dullard who has done nothing in life but fight.
Wow, talk about looking only at numbers. Maybe because you don't want to play a dumb brute? Maybe because you like the other racial abilities and role of dwarves, for example. Yeah and a great example it is:Dwarves don't even have a strength bonus, why would anyone play a strength based dwarf fighter when a Human fighter can have a Strength of 20 while they are at a lowly 18? If you can answer that, you'll know why you can want to play another race that gets strength 20 even when HGs get 22.
Ah, but fighters operate on Str and Con. And by adding the bonus to Str, the human fighter isn't that much better off than the dwarf fighter. They are balanced out.
LOL!!!That one takes the cake! Are you serious?!? Do you even KNOW what a gladiator is?!?
It's basically a duelist! They go in the arena and fight one on one or in team matches. They are melee fighters almost exclusively and put on a show with a variety of weapons and little armor. Or couse, real ones staged fights to make them last longer, but in a world with completely real fights (unlike roman gladiators, whose fights were partly staged, BTW) they take down their opponents quick as possible to avoid getting wounded. So fluff wise, you're completely off!
Why would they take on a bunch of opponents at once? Even if there were a bunch of them in a free for all, they'd still only take them on one at a time, or possibly 2, but only because the others would gang up on a lone target, only before fighting together in the end, 1 on 1.
And mechanically, from the old rules, what makes you say that? They could train and spec in lots of weapons, had a good attack progession and good THAC0, and was good in unarmed combat, and that's it. Oh, and of course, they got the biggest Hit Dice (d12), which didn't make them meat shields, according to you.
Please take off your "defend wizards conversion at-all-costs" goggles for further reading. It'll work a lot better and I won't have to spend so much time making so obvious a point.
You're reading in fluff that doesn't exist with the gladiator: there is nothing in Dark Sun that says they mainly go one on one. In fact, you might want to look at the illustration on page 78 of the Gladiator's Handbook. Also, on page 122 of the Gladiator's Handbook, one on one matches are mentioned just one type of fight that goes on in the arena, not the most common kind. Pages 123-124 mention that the most of the cities commonly have matches featuring over a dozen opponents in which only 1 or 2 gladiators win, and for the other cities the book does not mention the fights being between two people.
And you take off your "assume the worst of wizards at-all-costs" goggles first. I know some actual problems with Dark Sun 4e, and you haven't spotted them yet. Most of the problems you are seeing are from not understanding the ability modifiers and the assumption that WotC is guilty until proven innocent.
Not sure I follow. I wasn't saying it would be an accurate representation of the Muls ability, I'm just not sure how (or if) it works. As for the penalties being nerfing, they can be if not balanced out by bonuses, but penalties should be there when circumstances clearly determine they should. However D&D4e seems to thinks its players are so immature they can't cope with them and thus will not find the game fun, apparently, if they are there. So much so that they've even removed the friendly fire option from their MMO, and now allies don't count as cover for enemies when making a ranged attack, a patently ridiculous rule that should be ignored by any sane DM.
But the penalty didn't actually result in a penalty to rolls in 2e, and it would in 4e. To keep the math the same, you actually wouldn't apply a penalty, you just wouldn't apply a bonus. There's no need for penalties, because a -2 in 2e is a -0.2 in 4e. And it is just easier to not apply a bonus instead of applying a penalty. BTW, the MMO is still under 3e rules.
Also, if you're looking for realism, play some other system. This is D&D, and it has never been realistic, nor has it done a good job when it tried to be realistic. 4e is designed to be a good game, not accurate simulation.
Now that is what I'm looking for! Thanks!The thing is, can you even have a +1 Feyweave cloth armor? The table says it has a minimum enchantment bonus of +4, so that means the a +4 Feyweave armor has a +4 bonus to AC, or a +5?
If its not added, then what's the difference between a +4 cloth armor and a +4 feyweave armor? Or why would anyone bother to make the latter anyways?
If it is added, then am I making a +4 item, or a +5 item when looking for the price of the item? Can I make a +3 magic feyweave armor for a total of +4 bonus?
The plate armor material make me think its the latter, since godplate armor grants a +14 bonus to AC, while the maximum magic bonus doesn't go that far, so that means add them together. But there's no cost for such materials, it just says its included in the price of the item. If that's so, who in their right mind would make a normal +6 plate armor when it has the same cost as the godplate?
And you can't buy those materials mundane, right? They need the enchantement bonus? If that's so, then won't that mean that steel weapons will only be available if the are enchanted?
See? That's why its not clear in my mind.
All that being said, if what you say is correct, and you don't have a minimum enchantment bonus for steel weapons, that would work well enough. Iron doesn't seem to follow your theory, however, from what the playtesting HG's equipment says.
Ah, you're misreading. It's minimum enhancement bonus, not minumum enchantment bonus. Whether it's +3 from masterwork and +1 from enchantment, or +1 from masterwork and +3 from enchantment doesn't matter in 4e, it's a +4 item. Enhancement could come from mundane sources such as superior material. The difference between a +1 enchanted steel sword and a +1 mundane steel sword is nil. From p. 6 of the Adventurer's Vault:
"Masterwork armor always has an enhancement bonus, and the price of the masterwork armor material is incorporated into the overall cost of the magic armor. For example, +4 crysteel mail armor costs 45,000 gp—the same as nonmasterwork +4 chain armor. Thus, an adventurer of higher level is generally better off shopping for masterwork armors than the armors he or she used at lower levels.
A magic armor’s enhancement bonus is still added to the armor bonus to determine a character’s overall armor bonus. For example, +4 stormscale armor provides a +13 bonus to the wearer’s AC, +9 for the armor bonus and +4 for the enhancement bonus."
In the case of Godplate, you really only have RP reasons to not buy that or Tarrasque plate instead of +6 plate. However, the only reason to get metal weapons instead of enchanted non-metal ones is that they are don't automatically break if you choose to reroll natural 1s. It isn't out of the question that they might some enchantments that are only available for non-metal weapons.
A limitation of 2e... Wow. They wanted to put a twist on the clerics, and they made them champions of the elements instead of the gods. You simply could have changed the origin of the divine power source from gods to elemental powers and it would have worked fine. But I'm sure you could have improved on the sphere idea though.
They hadn't separated druids from clerics yet, there was no primal source power, so they had to go with clerics. What else would they have done? There wasn't any real healing options outside of cleric, so they had to include them in some form or another.
That would also have distinguished the clerics, champions of the elements, from the druids and their spirit of the land, which is definitely closer to the primal power source you talked about. That said, they can certainly both work with the primal power source, making some merge between elements and spirits of the land (druids did have access to elemental spheres too anyways), but I still see no reason to remove the cleric class altogether. Anyways, I can live with that too, if the other classes can take up the role.
The elements are part of nature, just as this land or that lake is a part of nature. They're all nature worshippers, not deity worshippers.
And in 4e, divine classes don't have the market on healing folks anymore, so other classes can take up where .
That said, Rich Baker, in his blog, did state that he didn't like the opposing elements idea, and indicated that elements may now be worshiped as a whole instead. That sort of kills the elemental champions the clerics where, with their pact and all that fluff. But I'm sure you'll be okay with that too once the devs confirm it.
Except that the Elemental priest released so far appears to be an earth priest. So it does appear that you can still do the "priest of X element," but you the option to have "I'm a general purpose elemental priest" also exists.
If such feats exist, I'd be happy with those too. I handled Wild Talents that way too (in part) with my d20 conversion. As for the theme, I was only pointing out it gave the psionic character only a mindblast type power, which isn't really what I had in mind when thinking about wild talents.
Head 'Splody stuff was always available.
LIBERATE?!? Wow, you should really apply for that wizards spokesperson job. :P
I do know some problems with bringing Dark Sun to 4e, and you're not hitting any actual problems.
Good to know all that as for the reason why the templars were created. I assume you've read that somewhere? And here I thought it was because they thought it would be cool to have these uber powerful sorcerer kings have their own priesthood of minions endowed with powers to coerce the populace to do their biddings. That'd not have been metagaming enough a reason I guess.
I'm not saying that the templars as a story elements were only included to provide heals, but they were stuffed into a cleric variant because back then, clerics were the only healer types, and the sorcerer-kings needed to have healers on their side to balance things out.
Templars were not a theme for a very simple reason: They are clearly a distinct class! The Templarate is not just a group of fighters, clerics and wizards working for the sorcerer king, they are his priesthood and administrators, and they all have basically the same training, hierarchy, power and spells. Why would they NOT be a class back in 2e?
Themes weren't available back then, and they had to have a healer type available for the Templar forces. Back then, clerics were the healer types.
The fluff does say that there are various clerics performing different duties, some more mundane, some more magical.
So these guys are now definately not a priesthood anymore, they are simply agents of the sorcerer king with a few minor abilities granted to them by the SK.
Uh, yes, the template are still a priesthood. But just as not everyone in the Catholic church is a bishop, not everyone in Tibetan Buddhism is the Dalai Lama, not everyone in Islam is an Ayatollah, the templarate has always had a variety of jobs within it. Limiting the entire templarate to one class doesn't make sense, especially if druids and priests of different elements are bothered to be distinguished. "They all worship a sorcerer-king, so they should have the same class" makes as much sense as saying "Druids, fire priests, wind priests, earth priests, water priests, and Thri-Kreen all worship some part of nature, so they should be completely identical in class features." There are some templars that are agents with a few abilities, and there are some folks that do nothing but get spells from sorcerer-kings.
...to PCs, so what's the difference? If they had intended them to be only NPCs, they would not have needed a theme or a class to do so anyways, just a stat block.
PCs are not automatically heroes. They can be anti-heroes, or they can even play villains, especially if the group is mature and capable of having fun role playing instead of min-maxing.
So? The backstory to Rajaat and the Dragon and dragon kings too was not mentioned in the earlier edition, that doesn't change anything about how the setting was. Quite the contrary, these additions just tried to explain the various aspects of the SKs, not CHANGE them, as the current edition will.
Except that you have no evidence that the explanation was anything other than an afterthought to make the setting fit with the edition.
What a completely bogus argument from one so quick to lecture me about math!What if the reroll is LOWER than the original?!?
Checkmate.
The only thing you demonstrated with the latter is how much you WANT the conversion to make sense, even when it clearly doesn't.
Sorry if some of the above is offensive, but I get really tired of criticizing obvious flaws when people desperately trying to defend official rules can't accept that the devs could be wrong about somethings. These people must have real big crisis of faith when the erratas come out. :P
What player would honestly reroll when they could get a lower result? No checkmate, I want to meet this player that would reroll a damage roll when he's likely to roll lower. I would like to meet this player that would reroll a 13 that misses instead of waiting to reroll a natural 1. Where is he?
I have no problem with defiling hurting people, in fact, I had made that a feat in my d20 conversion. The problem is it only targets ALLIES within 20 squares, which is pure metagaming mechanics that makes absolutely no sense. Why would the defiling energies discriminate between friend or foe?
There is no such thing as defiling energies, just magical energy that the defilers do not manage properly. Preservers use the same energy, but are more efficient. The defiler can discriminate between friend and foe. It is pretty much assumed that there are going to be feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies that deal damage from defiling.
Big_Goon's explanation is actually the best explanation I've seen on this, but even then, it's a fairly laughable idea. Are all allies within 20 squares going to lose a full healing surge if they see their gladiator friend butcher a young animal for no apparent reason too?
Gladiators aren't mucking with the supernatural.
D&D4e is really more of a game than a role-playing game, for the amount of things you have to "suspend disbelief" for in order for it to work.
It's a role-playing game, not a role-playing simulation. The role-playing part is not mechanical, to attach mechanics to RP stuff is only encouraging metagaming. If you need mechanics to role play, you aren't role playing, you're roll playing.
I hope this was not a real factor in revamping defiling...
Are all allies within 20 squares going to lose a full healing surge if they see their gladiator friend butcher a young animal for no apparent reason too? ;)
Ha! All I can imagine is evil beings chasing kittens!
That's actually not a stupid scenario... and in some cases... yes. Here's a couple of existing powers who's effects should be altered by circumstances (just my personal opinion here):
Inspiring Word
Character A is dead or dying. Character B, a Warlord, just chopped off the head of Character A's lover who'd been psionically dominated, then uses a Minor action to "heal" Character A by using "Inspiring Word". As a DM, I would either rule that the Inspiring Word has no effect, or, at most, half-strength.
Healing Word
Character A has just killed a swarm of Kittens. Character B, a priest of the God of kittens, wants to heal Character A using Healing Word. DM rules that God of Kittens says "NO" and Healing Word has no effect.
Defiling
Character A is fighting a Sorcerer King, an immortal being that Character A just found out is responsible for the destruction of his world and his current miserable, dehydrated state. Character A has many battle scars and wounds in the battle: both mentally (from the SK's psionic attacks) and physically (from the SK's magical attacks and dragon claws). In support, Character B casts a magic fireball, who's power is enhanced by Defiling the land around. Character A presses on, but is severly wounded (emotionally) after discovering that the real advisary is not the SK, but Defilers the world over.
Don't discount how important life and survival is on Athas: Take away a dollar from a millionaire and he won't care. Take a dollar away from a begger and he'll be insanely angry.
OH MY GOD PEOPLE!!! WALLS OF TEXT!!!!
I just got to this thread this morning as I've been away for a few days, but my god I can't even follow what everybody is saying here. So I'm going off of the very first page and a few tidbits here and there from the other pages.
Mouthymerc said it best in my opinion. To fit the 4e design, I'd say that WotC has done a fantastic job thus far. A lot of the flavor of DS2e is still there, just worked a different way to fit the rules of 4e. I think it's up to the DM to give it the true DS feel, not the specific rules and mechanics.
You should join our Facebook group: People who go away and come back to walls of text in their favourite forum.
I hear it has more fans than Nickelback.
beej_silver
I have no problem if you want a remake of Dark Sun, that is a new setting inspired by the original work but different in many ways. What I was looking for was the old setting with modern mechanics, and that's not impossible to do, since I did just that with d20 at the time, and athas.org had done it too (to a certain extent) with D&D3 and 3.5.
I'll actually be checking out the new setting I'm sure, and I'm not saying it can't be fun to play (although some mechanics still won't make any sense), but I'll mainly use it for my own conversion, I guess. It's a bit like Paizo's 3.5 conversion of the setting, which got so many people here grumbling. I didn't care for that conversion either, but some of the ideas were rather interesting, and the 300 year timeline jump and its result was kind of cool, but that didn't mean it wasn't flawed.
Ian.thomson
Look. I know nobody ever changes positions on a forum (or near enough), but there's just no point in debating these issues if you blatantly ignore obvious points I try to make while making the most bogus arguments to defend undefendable things. I know it sounds harsh, and I could show what I mean by coming back to the gladiator or half-giant points we talked about (or your hilarious assertion that 3e was the MMO, not 4e), but for the sake of time and text space, I'll just use the last point about the silly defiler mechanics, because in that one you are most definitely, mathematically and unarguably checkmate, and still you can't see my point.
Please show me where I'm wrong:
Trigger: You make an attack roll or damage roll as part of a daily spell.
Effect: You can reroll the triggering roll and use the second roll, but each ally within 20 squares of you takes 1/2 healing surge damage.
My original point:
Why would defiling ONLY AFFECT ALLIES?!? Makes absolutely no sense flavor-wise, only mechanics wise, but even then, barely.
Your response:
enemies are damaged, because your reroll is going to boost damage against them. The damage they take from defiling is part of the increased damage from rerolling.
My baffled point:
What a completely bogus argument from one so quick to lecture me about math!
What if the reroll is LOWER than the original?!?
Checkmate.
Your latest laughable attempt to defend you position no matter the odds:
What player would honestly reroll when they could get a lower result? No checkmate, I want to meet this player that would reroll a damage roll when he's likely to roll lower. I would like to meet this player that would reroll a 13 that misses instead of waiting to reroll a natural 1. Where is he?
What the hell is that? Are you serious? Your answer is really phenomenal considering it completely misses my point and is obviously wrong anyways.
1- My point is that gathering the energy needed for the spell hurts only allies, and you say it doesn't because it damages the enemies anyways, and the damage is taken into account by the spell. Of course, that's only true IF YOUR SPELL TARGETS ALL ENEMIES WITHIN 20 SQUARES OF YOU AND YOUR SPELL HITS!
2- If your spell targets a single target, then all enemies within 20 squares ARE NOT DAMAGED while your ALLIES ARE.
3- If your spell targets a group of targets, but not all enemies within 20 squares then ALL ALLIES ARE DAMAGED but ALL ENEMIES ARE NOT.
4- If your spell MISSES, and your REROLL ALSO MISSES, ALL ALLIES ARE DAMAGED BUT ENEMIES ARE NOT.
So CLEARLY, your argument DOES NOT WORK. And as for your response: Who'd reroll a 13 that MISSES?!? I have to assume that's a mistake on your part because you can't possibly be asking that question, since the answer is: EVERY PLAYER!!!
And just before you say, I meant rerolling damage, points 1, 2 and 3 show that even if you hit you targets with MAXIMUM DAMAGE, you'll still end up NOT DAMAGING ALL ENEMIES within 20 squares and DAMAGING ALL ALLIES.
I don't think I can make it any clearer than that. Checkmate, most definitely.
Sir_Sparhawk
As an amateur rpg designer myself, I'm always picking apart RPG mechanics to take out inconsistencies and illogic rules or mechanics, so I freely admit I am often nitpicking.
However, if you call substituting half-giants with half-sized goliaths, removing many racial traits from major races, changing the vocation of elemental clerics and templars, changing the backstory of the Sorcerer-kings and implanting silly defiling mechanics, then we don't have the same definition of being picky.
Anyways. Like I said, I'm sure that setting can work to a point, if you ignore certain obviously dumb mechanics, but it's indeed not what I'm looking for. I'm still looking forward to its ideas and art though, I must say.
To preserve it mechanically, however, I'll be focusing on the environmental effects, and describe both friends and allies wincing and suffering from a slightly ill feeling. While it will take friends a moment to shake the effects off (representing the damage) I'll end up describing enemies pushing themselves forward, translating the illness and unease into rage or determination to kill the caster who unsettled them so (representing the lack of damage).
I can almost see parallels between the setting's vague sense of "life force" and a psychic power source (see: the Wraiths in the final PP book with a bit of life energy binding them together); if you're already intending to kill, harm, or just have your "psychic defenses" up against a defiler, the minor drain on your spirit will be regenerated or shrugged off more easily. Plants and allies will be affected more.
This rationalization actually adds to the setting, in my mind. It's asymmetrical mechanically, but preserves some of the older concepts (in form, if not in detail) behind the setting.
Defiling requires a willing (or betrayed) individual to give the defiler a unique, distinguishing bit of their body: for example, a hair, a fingernail, a pint of blood. The defiler uses this mark in a ritual that permanently connects them to the Defiler. The ritual takes a long time to perform (an hour? a day?).
Whenever the Defiler needs an extra boost of energy for his/her spells - beyond draining the life force of vegetable matter around them - the defiler can choose to call upon the life-force of these marked individuals. The marked individual has no say in the matter.
Mechanically: an "ally" is one who has volunteered their "mark" to the Defiler - in general, that would be anybody who travels with the Defiler (i.e., the entire party). Anyone who does not openly volunteer their "mark" gets it stolen anyhow. Thus, anybody who travels with a Defiler is considered an "ally" for the purposes of the at-will defiling power. The power will not work unless there are enough marked individuals in the vicinity (this number happens to be the number of present party members).
Of course there are exceptions, and loopholes, but in general, it could work, no?
It just goes to show how little sense this decision makes if you guys have to come up with those ideas (not necessarily bad ones, mind you) for it to make sense. And that's also exactly what's wrong with the 4e Dark Sun conversion:
4e has a stupid mechanic, then lets change the setting to accommodate it.
Really sad.
A fix would be to target EVERY creature within a certain radius and deal that damage. I say a certain radius because if it hits enemies too, you might want to reduce it to 10 squares, or maybe 5. Also, minions would not be dealt damage in this manner (to prevent low-level defilers from slaying 10 minions outright just by gathering energy for spells. Powerful defilers though...). Since most monsters don't have healing surge, damage could equal half the caster's healing surge value instead, which would prevent the power from suddenly sucking dozens of hp from the big drakes (or 4e red dragon, just watch them! ;P) if you use 1/8 their hp (which is 1/2 their healing surge value)
The simplest fix, however, is quite simple: DON'T DRAIN ANY HP. Why? Because the penalty for defiling is destroying plants, and that's pretty much it. Like I pointed out, there are no mechanics that reward you for sparing brigands instead of butchering them, nor are there mechanics for punishment of characters who kill weak and helpless enemies. Preservers should always be tempted to defile, exactly because its advantageous.
That said, I'm sure they could find something more logical that could make sense. In my old conversion, I had adopted a Defiler Taint point system that balanced the benefits or defiling (that idea is actually not mine exactly. I took it from a Dragon magazine, I think, though I did modify it). This taint would accumulate the more you defiled and the more powerful the defiling spells you used, and it basically gave you 2 different penalties: A penalty to Wis and Cha based skills and alignment change (progressive, alignment change kicking in late), and a penalty to Con based checks and fatigue and exhaustion (progressive, fatigue kicking in late). It decreased when you stopped defiling for a while, but defilers were always stuck with a minimum penalty to Cha.
Now how were those justified? Well the revised defiler of AD&D had a charisma penalty that grew in level, from some sort of unnatural, evil aura he exuded. It seemed this aura would become more tangible the more the defiler defiled, and also provided me with a minimum and permanent penalty to defiling (and not that important a penalty, for a Int based wizard anyways, but still). The Con penalty was partly from the article (I think), and also because from the fluff and the novels, it seemed gathering energy while defiling was nearly and orgasmic experience, where you really felt the rush of power. I figured that using that to often or with powerful spells would take the wind out of you for a while, so that stayed in.
I wouldn't use a system exactly like that now, because bookkeeping for things like taint points and spell slots is something that's pretty much been dropped in D&D4e. (which is not a bad idea really, though they pushed the idea way too far for some things which could have used a little more substance than flipping a coin to know when an effect ends) but I'm sure something simpler along those lines could be done, and would work a lot better than the proposed system.
Anyways, I hope they come up with something better before its released.
Morskittar, Big_Goon,
It just goes to show how little sense this decision makes if you guys have to come up with those ideas (not necessarily bad ones, mind you) for it to make sense. And that's also exactly what's wrong with the 4e Dark Sun conversion:
4e has a stupid mechanic, then lets change the setting to accommodate it.
...
Huh. In my view it's a strength that the mechanic can support in-depth nerd hypotheses and internally consistent metaphysics.
It seems we're coming at it from very different angles.
Morskittar, Big_Goon,
It just goes to show how little sense this decision makes if you guys have to come up with those ideas (not necessarily bad ones, mind you) for it to make sense. And that's also exactly what's wrong with the 4e Dark Sun conversion:
4e has a stupid mechanic, then lets change the setting to accommodate it.
Really sad.
I think the alternative is no 4e Dark Sun.
I think given the differences between 2nd edition and 4th edition, there are going to have to be some changes. 4e Dark Sun will inevitably be Athas as viewed through a 4th edition lens, with all of it's mechanics and game design ethos.
But I think when it comes to adaptations, whether it be editions of an RPG or adapting a comic book to a movie, the more it is like the original, the happier the fans will be. But I think in any adaptation there is going to be change. But it's not like the original has gone anywhere.
Even I don't have such a low opinion of 4e mechanics. Of course they could do better within the existing system. The problem isn't the mechanic of defiling itself, whose benefit is ok I guess, it's just that the effect makes no sense! You draw upon all rearby life EXCEPT the only people you'd really want to draw it from!
And what about bystanders then? Not damaged because they are not allies, right. So what if you have an NPC who fights on your side, but he was really a traitor and he later betrays you, do you defile his life force or not? Does the magic energy know his intentions, or does it use tactical positioning to figure out if its allowed to leave his body or not? HAHAHAHAH! Pathetic!
And I just can't forget to mention Morkskittar's awesome take on this:
In my view it's a strength that the mechanic can support in-depth nerd hypotheses and internally consistent metaphysics.
LOL!!!! :D
Yeah, gosh its so great that wizards comes up with such nonsensical ideas, 'cause its gives us fanboyz opportunities to use our originality to find cool far-fetched explanations to make them sort of work anyway!
;)
And I just can't forget to mention Morkskittar's awesome take on this:In my view it's a strength that the mechanic can support in-depth nerd hypotheses and internally consistent metaphysics.
LOL!!!! :D
Yeah, gosh its so great that wizards comes up with such nonsensical ideas, 'cause its gives us fanboyz opportunities to use our originality to find cool far-fetched explanations to make them sort of work anyway!
;)
4e is a tactical skirmish game. Considering this and that WotC wanted to force non-roleplayers to consider how defiling might affect their own party; what's nonsensical about the mechanic? It seems pretty deliberate and reasoned to me. As an added bonus, it matches original descriptions in the novels for defiling (though not the original mechanics) - in fact, it explains some of those descriptions (like Sadira's use of captured wraith life force to cast in The Cerulean Storm) *better* than the 2nd edition mechanics.
You seem to be clear in why you don't like it, which is fair. But why, then, try to assign qualitative judgments like "nonsensical"? Are you trying to state opinion or fact?
Or are you just indulging in a fun bit of debate?
I'm really baffled by how resigned some people here are. The last posters actually justify a stupid mechanic by saying: "Well, if Dark Sun is going to be 4e, well it can't possibly be done in any other way (...than idiotically :P)."
Even I don't have such a low opinion of 4e mechanics. Of course they could do better within the existing system. The problem isn't the mechanic of defiling itself, whose benefit is ok I guess, it's just that the effect makes no sense! You draw upon all rearby life EXCEPT the only people you'd really want to draw it from!
And what about bystanders then? Not damaged because they are not allies, right. So what if you have an NPC who fights on your side, but he was really a traitor and he later betrays you, do you defile his life force or not? Does the magic energy know his intentions, or does it use tactical positioning to figure out if its allowed to leave his body or not? HAHAHAHAH! Pathetic!
And I just can't forget to mention Morkskittar's awesome take on this:In my view it's a strength that the mechanic can support in-depth nerd hypotheses and internally consistent metaphysics.
LOL!!!! :D
Yeah, gosh its so great that wizards comes up with such nonsensical ideas, 'cause its gives us fanboyz opportunities to use our originality to find cool far-fetched explanations to make them sort of work anyway!
;)
I doubt you will listen, because people have explained this to you, but: hit points are an abstraction. They do not actually represent life force. They represent life force, luck, injury, the narrative trope that the protagonists are hard to kill, and the simple will to keep on trucking. When a defiler defiles the damage to hit points does not have to represent the defiler actually sucking out a character's life force. Like in the old Dark Sun, when a defiler defiles the plant life around him withers and dries up. However, watching your ally perform such an act is: demoralizing, bad luck, and a shift in direction away from the role of the heroic protagonist. As a result your allies suffer some hit point damage. Do they suffer injury? No. Does their actual life force get sucked out? I don't know what the Dark Sun book will officially say, but I am hoping it will say no. Do they still suffer hit point damage? Yes. Why? Because as the defiler preforms such despicable deeds in the name of his own power the group that chooses to travel with him looses some of the invisible narrative protection that stops them from dying the first time someone swings a sword at them. They loose this narrative protection either because they have lost the will to keep on trucking with such a despicable ally, or because their total disregard for his despicable actions shifts their narrative role towards a locus that is not protected by the trope of character survival. I am hoping that the fluff for the power is well written, or sufficiently abstract. Perhaps it won't be. We will have to wait for the product to be released to know. But the mechanics in and of themselves work and work well, so long as you do not insist on viewing hit points as actual life force, and the rules as a simulation of what happens to a groups life force.
Now, it is totally fair if you don't like this approach to gaming. Some people really prefer rules modeled on more of a simulationistic attitude towards design. But if you are actually a burgeoning game designer you should try and understand how various products from across the scope of the industry operate, not just the products you personally prefer. There is nothing objectively inferior to the approach that the 4e iteration of Dark Sun has chosen to take. There is nothing about this that is objectively "not Dark Sun." There is only differing attitudes towards the role of the rules, the mechanical representation of that role, and subjective taste. So, perhaps you should stop being so surprised that the subjective tastes of various posters in this forum do not align to your own. Some of us prefer more of a narrative approach to the rules instead of a simulationist approach to the rules. That is all.
I say that just to say that the demoralizing nature of defiling is not enough, and that there is a physical cost to it.
Which brings me to my issue with defiling, at least as we have seen is so far: it does not damage everyone in the radius. This seems to be the issue for me, as I would have liked to see something more than what we have so far. I see two options:
1) This is the default for PC's, so that it is an option, and the pull is so weak that only your allies would voluntarily accept this. This would make it even weaker than it has been detailed in the past, and make it so that the pull of life force to defile is more controlled than before. Obviously, NPCs and monsters don't follow the PC paths, so they do there own thing and can be designed to drain any target the designer/DM wants.
2) This is the entry level of defiling, so that PCs who want to play defilers and one day be dragons have an option in the name of feats and paragon paths that open up the equivalent to raze feats to them that allow them to become better at how they defile and who they hurt. Maybe there attacks end up simply being something similar to the distant raze feat, where they suck the life force from someone during a move action, and then empower another action later. There are some interesting combinations that could come about that wouldn't break the game if handled right. That said, I haven't played 4e, and don't fully understand the mechanics.
just my thoughts
Maybe it's not my place to voice this, since it's a free-speech forum, but this thread should stop.
Shei-Nad, you've already voiced your dislike of the preview of 4e DS, and think other editions have done better.
Alright, so please play 2e or 3e.
This forum is for all editions, so you can post about past editions as well, which many are still playing.
Please post about anything, for that matter. Anything else than your opinion of 4e, which has now been immortalized through 80+ posts and soon a second page to the thread.
It's just a suggestion, which you may not follow, but this thread's subject matter is getting ridiculous.
I'M JUST KIDDING!!!!P.S. Sorry for the f**king "erdana", work is still using IE5.
Have you considered Mozilla Firefox portable on a USB drive?
Shei-nad...seriously man. Just don't play it. Wizards has obviously made all the wrong choices for you so just bust out the 2e material and make your own 4e conversion. Or just play 2e or the Athas.org 3.5 version. Just don't call people idiots for liking what they've seen so far, or I might have to destroy this thread with some Global Warming talk. I'M JUST KIDDING!!!!
If my memory serves me well, this isn't the first time Shei-nad has gotten so upset that he is reduced to name calling. Give him some time, he'll calm down, he usually does.
I want to add to this discussion a few things. First, defiling in the original setting was something that caused physical pain to those who were in the radius. It was not just a demoralizing effect (though that matters, cause it also applies) but rather, it was painful because life force was still drawn from living creatures in that their lower level biological activities were effected and this caused pain. (this is an extrapolation from the destruction of lower level biological organisms that are needed for soil nutrition and health as animal life uses the same kinds of extra species cooperation to help in the maintenance of their homeostatic systems)
I say that just to say that the demoralizing nature of defiling is not enough, and that there is a physical cost to it.
Which brings me to my issue with defiling, at least as we have seen is so far: it does not damage everyone in the radius. This seems to be the issue for me, as I would have liked to see something more than what we have so far. I see two options:
1) This is the default for PC's, so that it is an option, and the pull is so weak that only your allies would voluntarily accept this. This would make it even weaker than it has been detailed in the past, and make it so that the pull of life force to defile is more controlled than before. Obviously, NPCs and monsters don't follow the PC paths, so they do there own thing and can be designed to drain any target the designer/DM wants.
2) This is the entry level of defiling, so that PCs who want to play defilers and one day be dragons have an option in the name of feats and paragon paths that open up the equivalent to raze feats to them that allow them to become better at how they defile and who they hurt. Maybe there attacks end up simply being something similar to the distant raze feat, where they suck the life force from someone during a move action, and then empower another action later. There are some interesting combinations that could come about that wouldn't break the game if handled right. That said, I haven't played 4e, and don't fully understand the mechanics.
just my thoughts
Um, from what I remember, no it didn't. I could be wrong, but from what I remember the sorcerer kings could suck the life out of beings by defiling. Same with very powerful and high level defilers. The basic run of the mill defiler, however, damaged nothing but plant life by defiling. So all they really need to do is add an epic destiny which causes all creatures in a radius to suffer damage when a defiler defiles, not just allies...
The progression was easy, guys. 2e said defilers defiled terrain and inflicted minor penalties to people in the radius. Dragons defiled terrain and inflicted damage to people.
3e said the same thing, but added a special PrC - the Leech - which made regular defiling also inflict damage to people.
Further, it said that those penaties to people in the radius were caused by pain. I am away from things now, but I will look it up. For me that is the problem with allies only defiling. It doesn't fit the way that defiling has been used in the past. I really hope that there is more to it (which I assume there must be), and I know that monsters (and therefore SK's and the like) won't have to worry about it the same way.
Monsters will run on a different system, for sure.
Maybe the Arcane Defiling power will say something like...affectes allies at heroic tier, allies and enemies at paragon. Or some other thing like that.
What we saw was the preview, and not necessarily the exact wording they will use.
USB drives at work are illegal, man, don't you know that? ;)
I guess it depends on your job. USB drives at my work are pretty essential.
I'm really baffled by how resigned some people here are. The last posters actually justify a stupid mechanic by saying: "Well, if Dark Sun is going to be 4e, well it can't possibly be done in any other way (...than idiotically :P).")
How about this. "Dark sun is going to be 4e, so it can't be done in any other way (...than 4e :P)"
What I was referring to were complaints such as these:
-Normal Stats
-Goliaths as Half-Giants
-Gladiator as a Theme, not a Class
-Kreen don't get handed all the abilities they used to
-Primal Characters as Elemental Clerics
-Wild talents as a Theme that not everyone gets
-Templars as a Theme, not a Class
These things aren't "idiotic". They are Dark Sun as seen through a 4th edition lens. I don't really need to explain to you why these changes were made, because I am sure you know already. What makes these changes hard to swallow is the fact that they are different than what you are used to. They are just different.
As for
-Muls: I believe this race is going to get a writeup next to the thri-kreen.
-Weapon Materials: I don't really know how the bonuses are going to work either, other than you can get masterwork weapons that arent magical in DS. I think the main thing about the material your weapon is made of is how it figures into the weapon breakerage rules. But this is mostly speculation at this point.
-Defiling: I am not real crazy about the defiler theme ability either. It is rather difficult to explain. Perhaps it is easier to draw energy from your allies than from your enemies, because your allies are more receptive to your spells than your enemies. Maybe that "opposition" forms a barrier against defiling. Also, it isn't clear how many abilities you can get from your theme. Maybe just the one. Maybe there is more than that. Perhaps there is a stronger ability that defilers get later where they draw energy from their enemies, and the 1st level ability isn't strong enough to do it. I don't know. Maybe there will be an explaination when the book comes out. Maybe there won't be. All I am suggesting is save your rage for when the book comes out.
tl;dr
Ahaha! ...dork
I'm really baffled by how resigned some people here are. The last posters actually justify a stupid mechanic by saying: "Well, if Dark Sun is going to be 4e, well it can't possibly be done in any other way (...than idiotically :P).")
How about this. "Dark sun is going to be 4e, so it can't be done in any other way (...than 4e :P)"
What I was referring to were complaints such as these:
-Normal Stats
-Goliaths as Half-Giants
-Gladiator as a Theme, not a Class
-Kreen don't get handed all the abilities they used to
-Primal Characters as Elemental Clerics
-Wild talents as a Theme that not everyone gets
-Templars as a Theme, not a Class
These things aren't "idiotic". They are Dark Sun as seen through a 4th edition lens. I don't really need to explain to you why these changes were made, because I am sure you know already. What makes these changes hard to swallow is the fact that they are different than what you are used to. They are just different.
As for
-Muls: I believe this race is going to get a writeup next to the thri-kreen.
-Weapon Materials: I don't really know how the bonuses are going to work either, other than you can get masterwork weapons that arent magical in DS. I think the main thing about the material your weapon is made of is how it figures into the weapon breakerage rules. But this is mostly speculation at this point.
-Defiling: I am not real crazy about the defiler theme ability either. It is rather difficult to explain. Perhaps it is easier to draw energy from your allies than from your enemies, because your allies are more receptive to your spells than your enemies. Maybe that "opposition" forms a barrier against defiling. Also, it isn't clear how many abilities you can get from your theme. Maybe just the one. Maybe there is more than that. Perhaps there is a stronger ability that defilers get later where they draw energy from their enemies, and the 1st level ability isn't strong enough to do it. I don't know. Maybe there will be an explaination when the book comes out. Maybe there won't be. All I am suggesting is save your rage for when the book comes out.
I couldn't have said it any better myself Nimblegrund. Not that I've tried to since I've been so short on time, but well said my friend. Great job on rolling a natural 20 on your Diplomacy check.
I couldn't have said it any better myself Nimblegrund. Not that I've tried to since I've been so short on time, but well said my friend. Great job on rolling a natural 20 on your Diplomacy check.
Heh. I try.Weapon Materials: I don't really know how the bonuses are going to work either, other than you can get masterwork weapons that arent magical in DS. I think the main thing about the material your weapon is made of is how it figures into the weapon breakerage rules. But this is mostly speculation at this point.
I didn't read it that way...but if it does work that way then...woot!
The idea that an "ordinary" +2 longsword was better than a metal weapon rang false for Dark Sun since its incept in 1991. A crystal weapon made from a crystal spider, or a steel sword, or a dwarven steel sword, ought to be better. Sure, one could make magic swords with these materials in 2e and 3e, but the benefits were outshadowed by the enchantment, and one needed the enchantment to stay competitive.
Now (if this is true) you can either get a magic sword to obtain cool benefits - like a daily item power, or a continuous benefit - or if you just want the bonuses you'd get from the sword's enchantment you instead get yourself a masterwork weapon.
What I'll be doing: In my campaign magic will be rare, rarer than in mundane D&D, and treasure will consist of masterwork armor and weapons and what the DMG2 describes as Divine Boons, Legendary Boons, and Master Training, and whatever other alternative rewards to magic treasure that the DS book introduces. Boons will have psionic or martial themes for most, and for those characters that use the arcane or primal sources the boons will be arcane or primal themed.
Those players that chose to have a wild talent, either by taking the Wild Talent Character Theme, or by taking multiclass feats, will get boons that thematically appear to unlock more psionic abilities, further pleasing and rewarding the player for his choice, and those players who chose to have nothing to do with psionics will instead be rewarded with other kinds of boons.
Weapon Materials: I don't really know how the bonuses are going to work either, other than you can get masterwork weapons that arent magical in DS. I think the main thing about the material your weapon is made of is how it figures into the weapon breakerage rules. But this is mostly speculation at this point.
I didn't read it that way...but if it does work that way then...woot!
The idea that an "ordinary" +2 longsword was better than a metal weapon rang false for Dark Sun since its incept in 1991. A crystal weapon made from a crystal spider, or a steel sword, or a dwarven steel sword, ought to be better. Sure, one could make magic swords with these materials in 2e and 3e, but the benefits were outshadowed by the enchantment, and one needed the enchantment to stay competitive.
Now (if this is true) you can either get a magic sword to obtain cool benefits - like a daily item power, or a continuous benefit - or if you just want the bonuses you'd get from the sword's enchantment you instead get yourself a masterwork weapon.
You know, I have forgotten where I got that information, so I haven't had a chance to re-read it just to make sure my guess is accurate.
Out of curiousity, how did you read it?
Templars were originally described with too many hats. Soldier, sorcerer-king priest, bureaucrat, guard, etc. This is why I think it is better suited to a theme or profession (much like the gladiator). As a theme you can have templar fighters, warlords, warlocks, etc. Also, a majority of their "power' came from role-playing benefits (ability to arrest people and such) which can be easily done outside the realm of mechanics.
As to their magic, the original Wanderer's guide described them as getting it directly from the sorcerer-kings. The character creation guide alluded to the fact that it was elemental in nature but went into no more detail. Earth, Air, Fire and Water was where the elemental vortices were gone into in more detail. But, really, it was just the designers making sense of the world they had created. There was no connection to gods so priests gain their magic from the elements and because templars were "priests" their magic had to be elemental. Thus were the vortices incorporated. It makes much more sense that if someone is going to receive power from arcane beings that that power be arcane. This is why I think the sorcerer-king pact warlocks make much more sense and are a better fit this time around.
Defiling
Originally defilers could only draw on the life of plants until higher levels. I think the novels described defiling as being a little more pervasive, but it has been close to 20 years since I read them. Why does the defiling ability only affect allies? Because they are going to be less annoyed with your use if the enemies are also affected. Yes, this is meant to be a balancing mechanic against its benefits. I do not think role-playing drawbacks are enough to stop people from using it as many players will just come up with reasons to justify its use. Cyber-Dave's idea was one way you could look at it and a pretty good one, too.
That is not to say that you can not still have said role-playing drawbacks. Plants can turn to ash, living beings can "feel the burn", all without actually applying mechanics. If you really want to have fun and add a mechanic, consider enemies in the area of effect Marked until the end of their next turn by the defiler to simulate the annoyance of having been affected by the defiling.
The more I read, the more I'm liking what I see.
...that's pure, worthless fluff in my opinion.
Now, though, if the tarrasque armor or the spider crystal sword can be good without ever being enchanted...now that's great!
From the Original Setting book, pg 59:
Defilers wield magic with no concern for their dying world: Indeed, defilers are much to blame for Athas's current state. With each spell they cast, defilers draw magical energy from the life force of plants in the vicinity and channel it to their own selfish ends.
Even the sorcerer-kings, however, are not the most dread users of defiler magic: the great dragon's defiler magic is so powerful that it destroys living animals as well. All magic cast by defilers up to 20th
level, including all 1st through 9th level spells, destroys plant life only. Any creatures in the area,
however, suffer great pain.
And on page 61:
Effects on Living Creatures: Though only plants are destroyed within the radius, living creatures are
caused great pain. Any being in the radius of a defiler's magic suffers an immediate initiative modifier penalty equal to the level of the defiler spell cast. No matter how high the resulting initiate roll, though, the pain can never keep a character from performing an action during a round. The initiative penalty only postpones when the action occurs.
I would homerule that undead are unaffected by any form of defiling.
Borys' wraiths are affected by casting in the Cerulean Storm. Sadira is able to drain their binding life forces to fuel spells.
She also struggles to do so while they're still largely intact or fighting against her.
Ahhh, but it is because those wraiths carry gems that contain the life force they once had as living beings, in the hope they will one day be ressurected.
Albeit the Pentad is touchy on this part, I guess it would need serious rereading and taking of notes. I'll do that and arm myself with postits!
Ahhh, but it is because those wraiths carry gems that contain the life force they once had as living beings, in the hope they will one day be ressurected.
Albeit the Pentad is touchy on this part, I guess it would need serious rereading and taking of notes. I'll do that and arm myself with postits!
Considering how... loosely it was written at times, not really the most consistent source, unless you're looking for specific, exceptional scenarios to support just about any theory.
That caveat aside, I'm pretty sure it outright states that Athasian undead do have a spark to bind them together; it just happens to take the form of the emeralds in the wraiths. I may not be remembering this correctly though. And I really don't think I could justify that in any way for non-sentient undead; animated zombies and the like.
But, as you note, it is touchy and this doesn't really support any mechanics or background in the actual rulebooks.