The question is, do those of us who travel the burning wastes under the crimson sun jump aboard the caravan(4th Ed.) packed with the pale soft slaves(everyone else) of other campaign settings? Or do we chance at a hope of freedom from the templar's(WotC) hypocritical laws(4th Ed.) that restrict us?
Sure, giving up life in the city(playing what everyone else plays) may be difficult. But open your eyes... even the freemen who live in the city are not truly free! The wastes may be dangerous(lonely at times) and we'll encounter monsters(poor gaming experiences) more often than not, but those rare times when good company(we the free) are gathered at a cool oasis are more valuable than all the false security(RPGA events that shouldn't even bear the name) the city could ever offer.
I believe it is in the wastes(3.5 Ed) away from the eyes of the Sorcerer King and his Templars(WotC) that perhaps we will have a chance at a real life of our own.
Rise up!(post) Shake off your shackles!(participate) Know the freedom that could be yours!(see what Alternity fans have made of their favorite game)
...as the traveler walked off those who were gathered began to plan. For this was not any dreamer, his dark hide and mutated scaly forearm gave him away. Wisdom of the Wanderer is not lightly dismissed by Athasians...
One, I believe Athas.org is contractually obligated as the current official developers of Dark Sun to use whatever system WotC tells them to use for the official products. So the outcry is pointless.
Two, plenty of us have converted DarkSun to use with various other game systems. I personally created an adaptation to the SAGA system some great number of years back. And I and a couple of board members used the setting material for a game of Donjon more recently. Other folks have used the Riddle of Steel and The Shadow of Yesterday.
The point is, no one here is shackled, oppressed, or enslaved; most people are just happy to use D&D of whatever sort for playing in Athas. I'm not one of them because I find D&D of any stripe is a poor system to use to support what's important to play in this setting...but that anyone else does so is fine with me, and I wouldn't call for anyone to cast aside their chosen preferences. It is likely that few people are interested in doing something else or we would see more on-going discussion of alternative rule systems.
BUT...it seems you've got an idea of what set of rules you'd like to see used with Dark Sun? Cool!
Me too. One of these days I'm going to get around to writing up rules for playing movers-and-shakers in Athas using the domain rules from Birthright. And my vision of Dark Sun for use with the Sorcerer rules and the Sorcerer & Sword supplement from Adept Press. Others have created DS hacks for Dogs in the Vineyard, and I'd love to see someone give it Burning Wheel treatment.
So, given all that, if you are as gung-ho as it seems about a project to redefine the rules used for DarkSun, then step-up-to-the-plate and start sharing your vision of what those rules are.
Maybe it will catch on. Maybe it won't. But at least you won't be cheering for other people to rise up and do something they aren't interested enough in to do for themselves.
for me the openness of 3.x pretty much killed parts of the game IMO, esp with the open class system of allowing "anything" to be any class.
I hear you adidamps2, there are draw backs to the openness as well. Non-human templars is rediculous as are halfling wizards. I've always run DS with a few house rules to keep the 2nd Ed. feel, one of which does limit what races can choose what classes. Maybe I should forward these to the Athas.org staff, see if they might be interested?
Quite honestly, edition-wars and system-wars are ridiculous and more-and-more aggravating the more of them you see, so let's not have one here, OK?
Alright, fair enough. Kind of felt nice to play the part of the wanderer once in a while. As for rules, had plenty to contribute to my "A" game... Alternity. Still the best core mechanic out there IMHO. Dark Sun is my favorite flavoring for D&D.
Thanks for the $0.04 you two... let's keep this $$ adding up...
-Jason
I hear you adidamps2, there are draw backs to the openness as well. Non-human templars is rediculous as are halfling wizards. I've always run DS with a few house rules to keep the 2nd Ed. feel, one of which does limit what races can choose what classes. Maybe I should forward these to the Athas.org staff, see if they might be interested?
-Jason
what killed me on 3.x for DS was when I started seeing people trying to put armor on thri-kreen and braxat...people trying to play M-U Thri-kreen's and other such non-sense that essentially was not, IMO, DS flavor as written in the 1st or 2nd box set.
3.x in and of itself is playable, just not for DS rules IMO.
what killed me on 3.x for DS was when I started seeing people trying to put armor on thri-kreen and braxat...people trying to play M-U Thri-kreen's and other such non-sense that essentially was not, IMO, DS flavor as written in the 1st or 2nd box set.
You realize that DS flavor as written in the 1st and 2nd edition boxed sets was written that way because of the rules for 1st and 2nd edition, right?
That is, the only reason the flavor is what it was is because 1E/2E's rules didn't allow for thri-kreen or dwarf M-U's, and etc. and not because the nature of Athas itself required it. Essentially, the rules being used wrote parts of the setting.
You realize that DS flavor as written in the 1st and 2nd edition boxed sets was written that way because of the rules for 1st and 2nd edition, right?
That is, the only reason the flavor is what it was is because 1E/2E's rules didn't allow for thri-kreen or dwarf M-U's, and etc. and not because the nature of Athas itself required it. Essentially, the rules being used wrote parts of the setting.
DS was and is it's own setting and although I am sure the rule set of the PHB of 2E played a minor role in some fo the "flavor", other aspects such as armor wearing and character classes could have been used however the game designers wanted...thats why in DL you could play a Minotaur M-U or an Irda M-U. campaign setting's are only as BtB as the designers of that setting want it to be. so if the 2e DS designers wanted thri-kreen to be m-u's in DS they could have been, same with dwarves or even half-giants, but they didn't create the campaign design that way.
If you are the DM, you can tell people the simple word that makes DS stick to the older racial restrictions. You are entirely within your rights as the DM to use this word, and unless your players are rules lawyers, they should respect what you have laid down. As a DM, you control what comes into your DS with one simple word:
No.
If you don't want your players to do something, tell them. They will understand. I would recommend laying down the rules of the house before you start the campaign, so people don't try to play a human black touched half-sun elemental shadow wizard psion dragon, but that is me. I find that people (at least that I play with) respect the restrictions I put on the story. Remember, as the DM, you can say no. It really doesn't hurt that much to hear. (In fact, while dating, if you hear it enough, you get used to it. Ask for 100 numbers a night, you'll get used to NO.)
what killed me on 3.x for DS was when I started seeing people trying to put armor on thri-kreen and braxat...people trying to play M-U Thri-kreen's and other such non-sense that essentially was not, IMO, DS flavor as written in the 1st or 2nd box set.
Though I do disagree with Greyorm's idea that DS has it's flavor because of the 2nd Edition rules, as you very reasonably stated already I must agree with cnahumck. Just as the writers of DS adapted 2nd edition rules to create the exotic flavor of Athas, we who shepard Athas in the 3.5 edition must regulate how the rules are used to maintain that flavor.
The only caution I would suggest with "no" is say it before they ask. Good preparation is the key to good game-mastering. This equates to fair 'house rules' that give the players all the information they need before they start gaming. Also, breaking a house rule for a PC that has earned it in game is worth it's weight in gold. "Holy crap, how did that dwarf just pull an ash circle around him... FIREBALL!!"
If you've ever sat down with the late Gygax for a game you would see a shining example of good prep work. Full fleshed out maps for where-ever you were going, npc character sheets with a reminder of personality and tactics to jog the brain of the storyteller, well written modules ready to be plugged in at the drop of a hat.
That said, I'm working on my house rules for 3.5 to submit them to the Athas.org templars, maybe keeping some old 2nd Ed. flavor is worthwhile to a few of us (besides me) ?
-Jason
Though I do disagree with Greyorm's idea that DS has it's flavor because of the 2nd Edition rules, as you very reasonably stated already I must agree with cnahumck. Just as the writers of DS adapted 2nd edition rules to create the exotic flavor of Athas, we who shepard Athas in the 3.5 edition must regulate how the rules are used to maintain that flavor.
The only caution I would suggest with "no" is say it before they ask. Good preparation is the key to good game-mastering. This equates to fair 'house rules' that give the players all the information they need before they start gaming. Also, breaking a house rule for a PC that has earned it in game is worth it's weight in gold. "Holy crap, how did that dwarf just pull an ash circle around him... FIREBALL!!"
If you've ever sat down with the late Gygax for a game you would see a shining example of good prep work. Full fleshed out maps for where-ever you were going, npc character sheets with a reminder of personality and tactics to jog the brain of the storyteller, well written modules ready to be plugged in at the drop of a hat.
That said, I'm working on my house rules for 3.5 to submit them to the Athas.org templars, maybe keeping some old 2nd Ed. flavor is worthwhile to a few of us (besides me) ?
-Jason
I agree with both of you here on the "no" aspect adn prior planing to account for the 2e flavor if one was to use 3.x with DS setting.
And they laughed when I said "Dark Sun types" are different...
How about some advice for other 'homebrew' ideas we could use to get that DS flavor just right using 3.5 rules? AWESOME!!
Good Gaming!
-Jason
I hear you adidamps2, there are draw backs to the openness as well. Non-human templars is rediculous as are halfling wizards. I've always run DS with a few house rules to keep the 2nd Ed. feel, one of which does limit what races can choose what classes. Maybe I should forward these to the Athas.org staff, see if they might be interested?/QUOTE]
I don't know what athas.org is doing, but halfling wizards should not exist in DS regardless of what they can do in other settings. The halflings existed before the creation of magic on Athas, and therefore are not able to use it. That is the reason Rajaat had to use human champions.
The rules should never define the setting. The rules should just set the groundwork for people who *play* in the setting. The setting should define the setting, and the rules should never get in the way of a good story/game, at least in my opinion. 1E and 2E were notorious for getting in the way in my personal experience. 3.x was kind of like putting a claustrophobic person in a dark closet when you compare the settings vs. the rules in a lot of ways. 4E honestly, to me, seems like a breath of fresh air, a turn in the right direction, where the rules are less inhibiting, and the settings are a bit more open to allow for smoother gameplay.
That said, like I previously mentioned, you've made your position very abundantly clear -- you apparently hate 4E, and WotC for coming up with it. So be it, pick up and carry on. Trying to stir up some kind of a edition war is just plain silly.
Trying to stir up some kind of a edition war is just plain silly.
Xlorep, try approaching this problem from the other direction. If a majority of DS fans attempt to refit this setting into the 4th Ed. rules system then all 3.5 effort and support will be lost. This means that there already is an edition war raging as 4th Edition subsumes all D&D gaming into itself.
Yes, I do have a few bones to pick with WotC. However, the d20 system was created from some of the best elements of the Alternity system which was by far the most open, free, playable system I've ever seen. 3.5 captures the D&D flavor where Alternity did not (was designed to be Sci-fi and realistic), and with some tinkering we all know how well DS plays under the 3.5 rules.
Just because WotC hasn't 'declared war' on our way of life, the change to 4th Edtion is a quiet war of assumed apathy. I'd rather preserve this collective here than see anymore slip away from DS.
If this isn't the right place to voice these ideas, tell me where is? If I state the same opinion in various locations maybe it's because this problem effects all aspects of the game and I *GENUINELY* believe 4th Edition conversion for DS is a mistake.
-Jason
i'll continue to support athas.org by eating up the 3.5 material they produce, and i'll eat up any 4e that wotc publishes as well.
i'd really prefer they start it off at the point of the original boxed set, but maintain some of the historical elements from the novels. the ages of athas are sweet and great in a non-standard fantasy world sort of way...halflings rule, mess things up in an environmentals disaster, save the world by messing with the sun and the nature of things, develop new races to continue to thrive into an age of psionics, where a powerful being develops magic, goes on a xenocidal rampage in order to make the world as it once was...awesome stuff...i've always dug it...
I don't know what athas.org is doing, but halfling wizards should not exist in DS regardless of what they can do in other settings. The halflings existed before the creation of magic on Athas, and therefore are not able to use it. That is the reason Rajaat had to use human champions.
I agree. Athas.org laid the groundwork for DS to be played in 3.5 rules and did a fantastic job. 3.5 rules however, do not have limitations on what races can select any given classes except for prestige classes that can be race specific. Homebrew rules solve this problem well and can add some limitations that definitely add that old DS flavor into a 3.5 game.
I've been toying with the idea of putting down my homebrew rules for a few days now. Do you think there would be interest? Any Athas.org people want to show me how to make my rules 'look pretty' with your excellent page set-ups?
-Jason
Personally, one of the things I really detested about the older systems, was I think that restricting a class based on race is needlessly restrictive, and just plain dumb. That's one of the things which I really didn't care for with the old 1st & 2nd Boxed Sets for Dark Sun, and I was happy when it no longer was the case moving forward (with Athas.org's work). It seriously cripples creativity from the players, forcing them into specific limited choices. Personally, I believe that the less common a class/race combo is, the more I expect my player to explain how it came to be... but completely cutting off the combination and preventing it entirely? Foolishness.
besides your reasoning of "the less common a class/race combo is" is flawed when it coems to 3.x since there is no race restrictions, so no need to explain anything as to why your halfgiant defiling/gladiator/druid exhists.
Gnomes! it was Gnomes! not halfling Illisionist.
What gnomes?
and race restriction did not resctrict RP creativity IMO, it simply set guidelines on what and how certain races worked. Thri-kreen by nature are not magic using creatures and it makes plenty of sense to me why, when reading the Thri-kreen handbook, same with halflings..maybe shamans, but not straight up magic missle slingers!
There is a difference between controlling the numbers in a group, and outright banning it. I feel the race/class combination should be valid, if there is no realistic reason that it can't work. There is no realistic reason why a Thri-Kreen can't use magic. Sure, there is a certain limitation on their numbers because of social limitations and such, but if a Thri-Kreen was to have been trained by some wandering Preserver to be a Preserver as well, is there some sort of physical (or rather metaphysical) reason this can't happen? No. The only reason it can't happen in 2E is because Thri-Kreen can't be wizards, and they can't be wizards because there are no Thri-Kreen wizards, and there are no Thri-Kreen wizards because they can't be wizards. It is circular logic, and fails for me.
Now, for my campaigns, if someone goes outside the normally accepted combinations, I permit it, but that person better provide a darned good back story to fully explain how that happened, and better roleplay it up. If that player doesn't... well... the life expectancy of that character is probably measured in seconds. I have no qualms killing off characters, especially when the player doesn't want to lift a finger to make me believe that character belongs in the game world.
besides your reasoning of "the less common a class/race combo is" is flawed when it coems to 3.x since there is no race restrictions, so no need to explain anything as to why your halfgiant defiling/gladiator/druid exhists.
Incorrect. There is a difference between something being possible and something being probable. The rules help define what is or isn't possible, the setting helps explain what is or isn't probable. While yes, I'd say it is possible for a Halfling Defiler... I personally would say that it isn't probable to happen. Why? Because of the nature of Halflings, the Halfling society, etc. So, without there being sufficient explanation to help show something improbable could happen, I am left weighing it in according to the bounds of the social structures and such on Athas, I would find it wanting, and I either would not allow it, or I'd use that character as an example of what *not* to do in my campaigns. I'm the DM, it is my game, and I make sure that the players play by the rules I follow in my campaigns.
In other words, just because A can be B, that does not mean that it is likely for A to be B.
Are you aware that there were Halfling Wizards even in the 1st Boxed Set (I believe it was 1st)? Yep.... Illusionists.
I've got both boxed sets here and don't see any Halfling Illusionists. It was explained that halflings can't use magic because they came from a time before magic... not that I completely buy it. Though Thri-kreen were from the same time as halflings so that explains that.
I don't completely buy into the circular logic theory either. Elves can use magic and there are quite a few elves who do so. If dwarves had the capability to use the arcane I am sure they would use it like any other tool and as such it would influence their society. Any race can be an elemental priest but their rarity amongst all peoples has limited their social influence... so it seems to go both ways.
Instead of allowing a thri-kreen to start off as a preserver, I would start him off as an acceptable class for his kind and build the preserver status into our gaming sessions. Make the player make some hard choices to be who he wants to be and it becomes part of the storyline. This is what gaming is all about after-all, not just writing good back story then going about kicking down doors with magic missles.
Just my $0.02
-Jason
If a majority of DS fans attempt to refit this setting into the 4th Ed. rules system then all 3.5 effort and support will be lost.
Then shouldn't Athas.org actually be producing material for 2E D&D still? Should we be incensed over leaving the players of the original edition of the rules used with Dark Sun behind? And how come we stopped producing games for the Atari 2600? You know, I still have mine and I want more game cartridges! Especially given all the years I put into learning to program in COBOL to make cartridges for the system.
Point made?
Here's the thing: if you want to continue support for 3E/3.5/2nd/1st/Basic, you will likely have to do so for yourself. If you can't, demanding others spend their time doing for you what you won't (but could) do for yourself won't achieve anything.
Especially when the point is moot because Athas.org does not control what edition they are allowed to develop for, given WotC must sign off on any product produced by Athas.org.
This means that there already is an edition war raging as 4th Edition subsumes all D&D gaming into itself.
That's not an "edition war"...an "edition war" is people thread-crapping their hate for edition/system in any thread referencing some other system, with supporters of the crapped-on system responding in defense.
Edition war behavior -- the act defined above -- is not excusable or acceptable behavior, regardless (especially!) of whether a so-called "edition war" (ie: actually, "product evolution") is occurring.
I've got both boxed sets here and don't see any Halfling Illusionists.
I'm looking at the original boxed set right now. Halfling Illusionists. Rules Book. Page 4, Table 3: Halfling Illusionist level limit of 16. Page 28, under "Illusionist", "Races Allowed:" Halfling is listed.
Less than one minute to find, BTW.
This is what gaming is all about after-all, not just writing good back story then going about kicking down doors with magic missles.
Why can't gaming be about that? And don't say "I mean, good gaming" because then I have the same question. I know I certainly enjoy my time kicking down doors with magic missiles as much as I enjoy any other form of gaming.
I've got both boxed sets here and don't see any Halfling Illusionists. It was explained that halflings can't use magic because they came from a time before magic... not that I completely buy it. Though Thri-kreen were from the same time as halflings so that explains that.
Look, you are trying old, tired arguments here that have been beaten to death on this very forum. Greyorm offered you the response for Halfling wizards.
I don't completely buy into the circular logic theory either. Elves can use magic and there are quite a few elves who do so. If dwarves had the capability to use the arcane I am sure they would use it like any other tool and as such it would influence their society. Any race can be an elemental priest but their rarity amongst all peoples has limited their social influence... so it seems to go both ways.
What you are talking about right there is less about a specific race, and more about social taboos. I'm all for there being a social taboo. I really dislike it when that social restriction ends up being a completely controlled rule mechanic totally preventing a race from doing something. Just because a society, a culture, or what have you does not like something to exist, that doesn't mean there should be rules in place to prevent it from happening. The rules should be guidelines, not cages.
Instead of allowing a thri-kreen to start off as a preserver, I would start him off as an acceptable class for his kind and build the preserver status into our gaming sessions. Make the player make some hard choices to be who he wants to be and it becomes part of the storyline. This is what gaming is all about after-all, not just writing good back story then going about kicking down doors with magic missles.
I don't see how your idea for the Thri-Kreen Preserver here is any different from what I am saying. I think you are arguing the same point I am, but from a slightly different stance. What I am saying is basically the same thing -- Roleplaying -- whether it is in the game, or a character being developed through a good background explaining it and then followed through with good roleplaying in the campaign by the player, to me... is a preferred thing for most of my campaigns. I tend top reward players for good roleplaying, and tend to get really harsh to those who are trying to exploit mechanics and "munchkin" or "min-max" their way through my game.
Now, at the same time, I've had a number of games that have just been good, clean fun -- hacking and slashing, no real major over-the-top plot running, just go out and kill things, get loot, and cause havoc. There is nothing wrong with those kinds of games... I don't run them as much, but I do every so often, especially after or in between serious campaigns (or a really serious adventure).
What 2E's racial restrictions did, was in the rules, it prevents Thri-Kreen from even getting a "preserver status" during the game. There are no rules in place, and in fact the rules dictate that is a no-no. With the 3/3.5e rules, it was possible, but not necessarily probable. Just because something can happen, that doesn't mean it will happen, or that every group should have it happen. I build up the campaigns I run, more often than not, as realistic of worlds as possible -- where the rules of cause and effect take place. I also believe that there are social and cultural structures in place that limit and restrict the normal options people have to play... I often model these off of the very racial limitations that were roadblocks in 2e... in my 3/3.5e campaigns, they were, for the people who were not.... creatively gifted to be able to put together a good character back story and follow through with top-notch roleplaying, just as much of a road block. Every character, after all, has to be approved by me in order for it to be played... and I'm notorious for making sure everything on that character sheet is exactly correct and nothing is fudged (call it the military accountant in me).
So, for all intents and purposes, for the vast majority of the players in my games, if they don't want to, or aren't sure how to take the roleplaying up a notch, the racial restrictions exist. For those who put a bit more effort into the game, and make it all the more enriched, they find I become more lenient and allow for exploration into strange ideas like Halfling Defilers and Thri-Kreen Preservers. It is, in my experience, far easier to take away a privalege afforded by rules, than having to come up with something on the fly -- a whole new set of rules surrounding it. I also find it is more fun for both the group and me as a DM, if I encourage those who are... well.... more gifted roleplayers some more freedom, as it tends to attract more people to motivate them and get them to roleplay more as well.
It was a lot more fun. People could actually die from one knife wound.
It tipped the class balance a bit. Fighters ruled. Mages and Psiconics were a little weaker.
A half-giant could kill any humanoid being with one hit.
So the balance was tipped. Which was good for character engineers who didn't really understand the dynamics of the new game.
I still play with 2 edition, I changed some of the rule with homemade rule (like multiclassed human) and everything work fine.
When Athas.org release a 3.5 dark sun material that I like, I convert it to 2 edition.
What gnomes?
so was I, then I read the 1st box set character creation book. and realized what you were refering too. hence, why I deleted my gnome respnce...I was thinking 1st edition for some reason.
There is a difference between controlling the numbers in a group, and outright banning it. I feel the race/class combination should be valid, if there is no realistic reason that it can't work. There is no realistic reason why a Thri-Kreen can't use magic. Sure, there is a certain limitation on their numbers because of social limitations and such, but if a Thri-Kreen was to have been trained by some wandering Preserver to be a Preserver as well, is there some sort of physical (or rather metaphysical) reason this can't happen? No. The only reason it can't happen in 2E is because Thri-Kreen can't be wizards, and they can't be wizards because there are no Thri-Kreen wizards, and there are no Thri-Kreen wizards because they can't be wizards. It is circular logic, and fails for me.
I treat 2nd edition racial restricts just like you describe below. and like I said they are nothing more than RP'ing guidelines and help give reason why certain races don't have certain classes available. However the DMG goes into way's on how to get around this issue of racial lvl limits and class restrictions.
Incorrect. There is a difference between something being possible and something being probable. The rules help define what is or isn't possible, the setting helps explain what is or isn't probable. While yes, I'd say it is possible for a Halfling Defiler... I personally would say that it isn't probable to happen. Why? Because of the nature of Halflings, the Halfling society, etc. So, without there being sufficient explanation to help show something improbable could happen, I am left weighing it in according to the bounds of the social structures and such on Athas, I would find it wanting, and I either would not allow it, or I'd use that character as an example of what *not* to do in my campaigns. I'm the DM, it is my game, and I make sure that the players play by the rules I follow in my campaigns.
In other words, just because A can be B, that does not mean that it is likely for A to be B.
so all in all I agree here with you. My point more is that I'm not going to let just anybody, while using 2nd rules, play any thing they want, with out ample reaon why. (other than it be's the uberness of playing a 1/2 Giant Defiler!)
For me, it is easier to say "no" for such things I personally don't like, than to sit there, and have to come up with new mechanics for things that don't already exist in the rules. Once again, just because the rulebooks claim that someone can make a Halfling Defiler, that doesn't mean that there are millions of Halfling Defilers running rampant on the world, it just means that mechanically, there is no reason it can't be done. Now, if you leave it strictly to that, then I'd say you aren't necessarily doing your job as a DM. I expect that anything which goes against the grain for a society or culture that the character would come from, needs proper and complete explanation.
So... I also have a hard time with a Pterran Templar, or an Aarakoa (sp?) who lives in Gulg... Heck, a Halfling Slave, or a Mul Noble would be hard to play off too.
Instead of converting or even arguing about Dark Sun, people should just be playing it.
I roll a 17...
::waits for someone to tell him what happens next::
-Jason
The rules should never define the setting. The rules should just set the groundwork for people who *play* in the setting. The setting should define the setting, and the rules should never get in the way of a good story/game, at least in my opinion. 1E and 2E were notorious for getting in the way in my personal experience. 3.x was kind of like putting a claustrophobic person in a dark closet when you compare the settings vs. the rules in a lot of ways. 4E honestly, to me, seems like a breath of fresh air, a turn in the right direction, where the rules are less inhibiting, and the settings are a bit more open to allow for smoother gameplay.
Bravo, xlor, bravo.
Now i have moved back to Australia, and am playing DS on a regular basis again, my groups sticks to the old 2e flavour, sure we use most of Athas.org's material, but defilers ARE more powerful and we maintain most of the original rules from 2e in terms of who can be what - with the exception of level limits.
One classic example are the Advanced beings, in our house rules you have to be 20th level as Psion and Presever / Defiler / Cleric etc before you can begin the transformation. We just basically took the Athas.org material and changed things around, removed the psi-warrior, upped the requirements to 9th level powers etc.
Psionic enchantments? yeah, epic spells with a twist: characters with the ability to cast Psionic enchantments can make a PsiCraft check, which then allows them use 1psp for every point over a psicraft check of 30 to lower the spellcraft check for making an epic spell by 1.
So just use your imagination and roll with it. Enjoy!
There could be in game reasons why races aren't wizards. Perhaps Halflings kill any Halfling defilers or Kreen eat a Kreen prezerver but then you're always going to have the "what if an indidual was raised by another culture".
A Kreen PC wizard may be the 1st Kreen wizard ever. A Kreen Templar could be just because that particular Sorceror King thought "why the hell not" on XYZ day. BTW non human Templars did exist even in 2nd ed.
Note 3rd eds racial ability bonuses and penaltys effectivly barred certain races anyway. Most races with an ECL weren't used as spellcasters, never saw a half orc being a Paladin for example.