Firstly, almost every designer I have heard on the subject has claimed they were a first boxed set purist. However, the first boxed set in second ed was deliberately unique and disparate with other DnD worlds. In Fourth,the setting is being altered in order to make it more like core DnD. The Dawn War, the Eladrin and Tieflings, et cetera.
Secondly, the first boxed set made it clear that Dark Sun heroes were more powerful than core DnD characters. Ourstats were higher, our caps were higher, Wild Talents were abundent, and there was no such thing as a first level DS PC. In Fourth, we get Themes, which give us one extra Encounter power at first level. While Fourth heroes are generally stronger than low level heroes of previous editions, already, this still feels a little weak in comparison, to me.
Thirdly, I do not care fore Goliaths as Half Giants. See the Races thread for more of my thoughts, there.
Fourth, Defiling in Fourth makes me cringe. Is every arcanist a Dragon, now? Yes, I understand that hurting plants is not a terribly effective deterrent for runaway PCs, but this is a big departure from established fluff. Additionally, the effect of Defiling on spells is weak. Hopefully there is more to this than what we've seen.
Fifth, the new weapon breakage mechanics are awful. Players get to decide whether their weapons break or not? Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? What player is going to willingly break his weapon, out in the middle of the desert, during a fight?
All that being said, there are a few things I do like. I enjoy the setting being brought back to the liberation of Tyr. So far, I have enjoyed most of the artwork I've seen for the update. I do like the Thri-Kreen and Mul races, from what we have seen of them. As a fan of Dregoth, I'm interested in what they're doing with the Dray. I'm just worried that they are changing the atmosphere of Athas.
1) The original darksun did the same thing every race aside from gnomes was shoe-horned in, and every class was shoe-horned in. If they didnt do that with the current edition I would have actually been a bit worried.
2) The aspect of every DS pc being more powerful than non-DS pc's was really important to me when I was younger, however now it holds no interest to me, especially if keeping it out makes it easier for meto pick and choose what I want to bring into darksun as a DM
3) I agree 100 percent with you on this one, especially since I do not feel that being large as a pc is really that big a deal. I know that the fine tooning of all the balancing ever that has lead to the amazing that is 4E will be thrown into complete and utter chaos by 1 of potential alone of 1 of my pc's being large, but I just dont care. Once in actual play I dont think it will upset the play experience of my game group, let alone shatter it into a million pieces of jealousy and hate lol
4) I like making defiling even more nasty that way. I much prefer the idea that maybe people can find defilers simply because having one in their midst makes them ill, sick, or in pain. Plus gamewise it works better.
5) I love the change to weapon breakage rules. 1st of all I hate rolling a one in combat, I hate seeing it, it almost always feels like it shows up at the least opportune time, and rarely if ever makes the narrative more fun. So the ability to swap a 1 rolled in combat( if the player chooses) into a great piece of narrative I think is awesome.
Now all that being said I whole heartedly support the rights of all DM's and game groups to change the game, and settings to fit in anyway for maximum fun for them,because after all these are just rules for our imagination.
Firstly, almost every designer I have heard on the subject has claimed they were a first boxed set purist. However, the first boxed set in second ed was deliberately unique and disparate with other DnD worlds. In Fourth,the setting is being altered in order to make it more like core DnD. The Dawn War, the Eladrin and Tieflings, et cetera.
Not more like, but it is incorporating the basic mythos. Why recreate the wheel when you just need to change the look? Also, new players unfamiliar with the original setting will want their favorite "new" races, so why not incorporate them? Why take the chance of turning them away? I've seen nothing which screams "not Dark sun" to me so far. The takes on eladrin, tieflings et al all look good so far.
Secondly, the first boxed set made it clear that Dark Sun heroes were more powerful than core DnD characters. Ourstats were higher, our caps were higher, Wild Talents were abundent, and there was no such thing as a first level DS PC. In Fourth, we get Themes, which give us one extra Encounter power at first level. While Fourth heroes are generally stronger than low level heroes of previous editions, already, this still feels a little weak in comparison, to me.
Yes, the characters in 2E were more powerful, but this was because the designers wanted players to have their characters start with bonuses which were much harder to come by back then. Increasing the power level of the characters meant increasing the power level of the creatures they battled, too. This was an early precurser to how things are now (and how they changed in 3E). In 2E it was much more work to bring something into the Dark Sun world than it will be now, which is exactly what is wanted. Too much disparity and people be disgruntled at the work to bring things over.
Thirdly, I do not care fore Goliaths as Half Giants. See the Races thread for more of my thoughts, there.
I like them.
Fourth, Defiling in Fourth makes me cringe. Is every arcanist a Dragon, now? Yes, I understand that hurting plants is not a terribly effective deterrent for runaway PCs, but this is a big departure from established fluff. Additionally, the effect of Defiling on spells is weak. Hopefully there is more to this than what we've seen.
The established fluff is still that defiling damages and destroys life. If you defile you will lay waste and whether or not this impacts your game and your roleplaying only your group can say. Depends on how important it is for you to emphasize it. The mechanics of defiling mean that it impacts your group which make it something to think about. Sometimes it may be a necessary evil, but used too willingly and your group may dump you. As to its effect, it is a new free ability (for arcane users) that gives an advantage, however small you may see it, so I think it is doing its job.
Fifth, the new weapon breakage mechanics are awful. Players get to decide whether their weapons break or not? Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? What player is going to willingly break his weapon, out in the middle of the desert, during a fight?
In 2E it was a race to get a metal weapon. The sooner you got one the better off you were. I like that all materials are on an even playing field. Now you can have your Bone Longsword of the Undead +2 or whatever and you do not have to worry about it snapping off on you. It is by your choice whether it happens or not. This means more variety to me, which is good. A lot of Dark Sun for me were the bone or obsidian weapons, but they were cast aside as soon as a metal one came along. Being able to continue to use all these other materials means this will be more Dark Sun for me.
Well as someone who has also been a longtime Darksun fan I can appreciate your apprehension.However not much of what you mentioned really bothers me.
1) The original darksun did the same thing every race aside from gnomes was shoe-horned in, and every class was shoe-horned in. If they didnt do that with the current edition I would have actually been a bit worried.
2) The aspect of every DS pc being more powerful than non-DS pc's was really important to me when I was younger, however now it holds no interest to me, especially if keeping it out makes it easier for meto pick and choose what I want to bring into darksun as a DM
3) I agree 100 percent with you on this one, especially since I do not feel that being large as a pc is really that big a deal. I know that the fine tooning of all the balancing ever that has lead to the amazing that is 4E will be thrown into complete and utter chaos by 1 of potential alone of 1 of my pc's being large, but I just dont care. Once in actual play I dont think it will upset the play experience of my game group, let alone shatter it into a million pieces of jealousy and hate lol
4) I like making defiling even more nasty that way. I much prefer the idea that maybe people can find defilers simply because having one in their midst makes them ill, sick, or in pain. Plus gamewise it works better.
5) I love the change to weapon breakage rules. 1st of all I hate rolling a one in combat, I hate seeing it, it almost always feels like it shows up at the least opportune time, and rarely if ever makes the narrative more fun. So the ability to swap a 1 rolled in combat( if the player chooses) into a great piece of narrative I think is awesome.
Now all that being said I whole heartedly support the rights of all DM's and game groups to change the game, and settings to fit in anyway for maximum fun for them,because after all these are just rules for our imagination.
1. I think they have generally done a good job with adding in the the eladrin in such a way that they are interesting and make sense. The dragonborn seem decent. I haven't heard what the explanation is for the tieflings. If they start adding in gnomes and some of the other races that died out or don't fit the theme very well, I may start getting displeased.
2. I agree with you on this. There isn't any reason why DS characters need to be more powerful.
3. It is a big deal having large characters in play. I played a large creature (half ogre) in 3.x. It isn't as unbalancing in 4e but it does cause problems. You can't fit in or on places the rest of the PCs can, you cause scaling issues with effects (due to the 4 squares you occupy), and reach was an ability whose utility cannot be overstated. Large size is simply too hard to balance and has too many problems to be worth trying. It is just as well they prevent PCs from having it in 4e. You can get some of the effect by using the rules for goliaths/bugbears/minotaurs without the problems associated with large size characters.
4. There are really two types of defiling in 4e: what the players do, and what the npcs do. The npc effect IS nasty. The player version can't be that potent because it has to work into the game framework of being balanced against what the other players have, especially since it is basically a free ability. Also a free ability to re-roll damage dice is not something to be scoffed at. I also suspect that there will be feats to boost the effect. Should I mention again that it's free?
5. I trully hate weapon breakage rules. I loathe them as much as I loathe critical miss effects. It is too much bookkeeping for too little real effect, and it feels very unheroic. I've never seen a set that is worth implementing. I'd be just has happy if they left them out, but I am ok with them being optional for those people who like them.
Firstly, almost every designer I have heard on the subject has claimed they were a first boxed set purist. However, the first boxed set in second ed was deliberately unique and disparate with other DnD worlds. In Fourth,the setting is being altered in order to make it more like core DnD. The Dawn War, the Eladrin and Tieflings, et cetera.
If the lore of the first boxed set was replicated in perfect fidelity, I would rage.
Dark Sun wasn't perfect; which means that it can be both improved or simply changed without too much worry. I am a "first box purist" and I am thrilled by the perspective of seeing the original lore significantly changed.
Plus, it's been 20 years now. If you want to play 2nd edition DS, play 2nd edition DS. I want a new edition with expanded, changed or new lore, new rules, new areas and a new vision of DS. I don't want a mechanical adaptation of the same setting I played 15 years ago. I could do that myself.
Secondly, the first boxed set made it clear that Dark Sun heroes were more powerful than core DnD characters. Ourstats were higher, our caps were higher, Wild Talents were abundent, and there was no such thing as a first level DS PC. In Fourth, we get Themes, which give us one extra Encounter power at first level. While Fourth heroes are generally stronger than low level heroes of previous editions, already, this still feels a little weak in comparison, to me.
I would argue a single extra encounter power had a far greater impact than getting a slight increase on stats budget would have done.
Besides, the fact that DS characters were stronger was a huge problem in 2nd edition. One thing that worked really well was the absence of caps, but that's something that 4ed fixed already and you can simply roleplay the effects in DS.
Everything else was a mess. DS was meant to be a deadlier setting, and yet as soon as you used something that wasn't in the specific bestiaries the game became easier? My half giant fighter was basically unkillable. Sure, the DM made my life hell as he should, but what were the odds that I would end up in Faerun and show how powerful I was compared to the people there versus the chance the DM would use a non-DS monster and us feeling the encounter was significantly too easy?
Consistency is very important. No setting showed that like DS. It's still my second favourite setting (right after Planescape), and the only reason I preferred Planescape was that it was a setting were you could use all the source materials (including those from Dark Sun), while DS was an "autistic" setting that made it hard to use all the manuals you had in your library.
Thirdly, I do not care fore Goliaths as Half Giants. See the Races thread for more of my thoughts, there.
I'll simply disagree here. I loved 2nd edition Half Giants but they ruined every game where someone was playing one.
Fourth, Defiling in Fourth makes me cringe. Is every arcanist a Dragon, now? Yes, I understand that hurting plants is not a terribly effective deterrent for runaway PCs, but this is a big departure from established fluff. Additionally, the effect of Defiling on spells is weak. Hopefully there is more to this than what we've seen.
Limiting defiling to NPCs weakens its narrative and atmospherical values. I'm glad that I don't have to device a reason for the PCs to witness a SK defiling to give them a significant example. The mechanics may lack some oomph, but the narrative value is increased.
Fifth, the new weapon breakage mechanics are awful. Players get to decide whether their weapons break or not? Seriously, who thought that was a good idea?
Someone wise. The ONLY discussion I had with my players when I told them we would return to Athas this summer was about the weapon breaking rules. It's the kind of rule only DMs liked, in the end. I've yet to meet a player who felt considering every nonmetal weapon temporary junk a boon.
With these rules, you can finally make metal RARE (as in, "you'll maybe see it at paragon tier") instead of a mandatory lvl 6 upgrade.
I'm just worried that they are changing the atmosphere of Athas.
While I hope they don't "ruin" the setting for the new people, I want a change of atmosphere. Not a radical change in how the setting works, but a change nonetheless.
1) Oninotaki brings up an excellent response.
2) This has utterly nothing to do with the flavor of the setting. In fact, it was only a mechanics thing. In 4th edition, a 1st level character is already more powerful than a 3rd level character in 2nd. Themes, in fact, add more power and customization than previously existed in Dark Sun.
3) Races discussed.
4) The opposite actually: it is assumed that arcanists are preservers by default, with the temptation to defile. Defiling will be enhanced via feat support, paragon paths, legendary boons, and finally an epic destiny. This is not, in any way, a departure from established fluff. Also, a reroll on a missed daily is amazing.
5) Random, arbitrary punishments are terrible, terrible game design. Reckless Breakage allows you to make a choice to take a risk and give a pretty substantial benefit.
4e vs. 2e Fluff
House rule the 4e assumptions out. That's what I'm doing. I've already instructed both groups I'll be DMing DS for that I'm ignoring the junk about the Dawn War. Eladrin I'll allow. But they're going to be (very) rare. Tieflings get the boot. If a PC wants to play one, I'll shoe them in a wasteland mutant. They won't look like demons however.
PC Power Levels
I saw in one of the previews that they're will be optional rules for Psionic Wild Talents. I'll be using them, I recommend you do as well. If you STILL want the PCs to be more powerful, start them at 3rd level. It's your prerogative. So what they won't have ubar stats like they did in 2e. I think most people have done away with rolling for stats anyway by this point. If it's really THAT important to you, give your players a much more generous point buy for stats, and assign a cap to starting scores, say 24, as an example.
Goliaths as Half Giants
Not much I can do for you here. I don't have a problem with them. I do happen to think that large PCs present a dangerous balance problem, so I don't have an issue with Half-Giants being medium-sized. I am house ruling that they don't look like Goliaths in the least, however. They look like "small giants."
Defiling
As it was stated before me, it's more power for the PCs, which is something you complained about. It's mediocre...but it does present a tangible effect for Defiling. Got an NPC who's pretending to be a Psionicist travelling with the party? Well, they'll know for sure that he's not the first time he Defiles around them. Wondering if that NPC villain you've been tracking across the waste is Defiler? Wonder no more...when the minions surrounding him drop suddenly, you'll have your confirmation. Again however...don't like it? Re-skin/flavor it.
Weapon Breakage Mechanics
I think it was in the same preview in which I read about the Wild Talents, it mentioned the availability of other optional Weapon Breakage rules. If the one I've already house ruled isn't included (roll a 20 with a non-metal, non-magical weapon it breaks if you apply crit damage. Otherwise, you roll your damage and keep your weapon) I'll use my house rule. (Unless something better is included in the optional variants.)
I just haven't seen ANYTHING previewed yet that screams "YOU CAN'T PLAY 4E DARK SUN WITH A 2E FEEL!" WotC's just presented a baseline that looks like 4e's PoL set in Athas. Any DM worth their salt can reskin the setting to whatever they like, and I think the devs understand that fact.
But I have every intention of tempting my players, VA or not, with defiling.
I want an "oh god what have I done!?" moment from them. 
1) I disagree with Oninotaki. Clerics definitely felt shoehorned until Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, but there's a difference between changing core concepts to fit the setting and changing the setting to fit core concepts. I could understand an attempt to include the Eladrin if it didn't involve altering Athas to include the Feywild. And one of the alluring questions about Dark Sun has always been, "Did gods exist here once?" It was an awesome open-ended question that even the creators couldn't agree upon. Now, it's been answered with all the creativity of "like the core world, but in REVERSE!" Athas isn't supposed to be just opposite world.
2) The power level thing, I admit, is a personal quirk. One of the things that drew me to Dark Sun was my love for playing characters with a legendary feel. This is easily houseruled, so it's not a huge deal.
3) For Goliaths, I care less that they are Medium sized than for the fact that WotC is using their design and physical appearance. Heck, they could barely be bothered to use the term Half-Giants, in describing them. If they wanted to rework the Half-Giant concept, that's all well and good. Get rid of Half-Giants entirely and use Goliaths in their stead. But trying to shoehorn Goliaths into HG fluff is absurd. They look neither like Athasian Giants, nor like Humans. Why would a union of the two result in something that looked like neither? Not to mention, grey tiger stripes don't make much sense for a desert creature's skin color.
If they did this with HG/Goliath, it's likely they've done similarly with the Dragonborn/Dray. Dray should not look like core Dragonborn do. Dregoth made them in his image; they should look like Athasian dragons. And if they use the name Dragonborn interchangeably for Dray, it won't make sense since they weren't born of a dragon or a dragon egg. Of course, this is just me jumping at shadows, right now.
4) Defiling actually is a minor thing for me. I actually do like that all Defilers can defile animal life, now. I just don't care for the mechanics. This could easily be rectified when more of the DSCG is revealed, though.
5) Again, the book may already have a solution to this problem, but I simply don't care for weapon breakage being the player's choice. I'm not advocating that weapons have HP, like 3.5 DS, but just some mechanic that doesn't let the player decide if his weapon will break or not. I'm probably going to use something like the system from 2e: if the player crits, his weapon breaks on a roll of 1 on a d20. I will say that I do like the fact that better materials give bonuses over inferior, rather than metal being the baseline and others incurring a penalty.
Again, I'm not saying 4e Dark Sun is the devil's work. I am quite excited to play in Athas with a more cinematic system fueling the game. I just want for people who are just being introduced to Athas to get that same sense of wonder that drew me in when I first rolled 4d4+4.
I truly believe, in 2e and 3e, no warrior on his right senses would go into the desert with ONLY ONE SWORD.
But if you find a metal sword, that weapon is A LOT stronger, since i know FOR A FACT that everyone carrying one of these will reroll 1's when they appear, because 1's make people sad and most people think their bad luck is already spent on that miserable roll. I believe this weapon-breaking ruling will be a succes just like Brutal property.
If you don't intend to use Low Magic Reward System then, i agree, the weapon-breaking rule is terrible
4e core characters with the standard array are more powerful than 2e DS characters with 4d4+4. In 2e, you needed a 16 Str to get a +1 bonus to attack. You only need a 12 in 4e. In 2e DS, your average ability score was 14 (2.5 x 4, + 4). In other words, bupkiss. In 4e core, your average ability score is 12 or 13 (13 with standard array, 12.5 with racial bonuses the highest). That's a +1. 4e core characters are actually more powerful than 2e DS characters.
Also, theme powers mean that a character has multiple encounter powers, something they don't get til level 3 normally. In effect, they are more powerful. There's also nothing preventing a DM from starting all Dark Sun campaigns at level 3, that is a former restriction that is now an option. One might as well complain that paladins are no longer required to be lawful good humans.
Speaking of options, if you don't like that weapon breakage is up to the player, it's easy enough to take the same mechanic and put it in the DMs hands. Also, there's nothing preventing the DM from saying "no eladrin, no tieflings," those are just options. 4e is about options, not restrictions. Defiling is another example of this, the 2e fluff did say that every wizard has the potential of being a defiler, but because they represented this mechanic in a dumb way (defilers need less experiance to level), they couldn't represent the fluff mechanically. If a player doesn't want to play a defiler, he just ignores the arcane defiling power, doesn't take any feats for defiling, and takes the avangion epic destiny instead of the dragon destiny.
The Dawn War being shoehorned in is no different than any plane but the material plane being shoehorned into 2e DS: alternate planes are an assumption that both system were built with and kinda require. The Dawn War actually provides a better explanation for the lack of gods (the gods died so long ago noone honestly remembers them) than 2e's "uh, Athas don't have, uh, conduits or whatever, and uh, the gods can't make conduits even though they're gods, but Rajaat and his Champions have conduits which they made, because, uh, magic. Yeah, that's it, and I totally didn't just pull that out of my ass. Really." Besides, if the players are powerful enough to be mucking about with other planes, they should be more concerned with the Sorcerer Kings, the Order, the Dragon, leading armies, and possibly becoming avangions or elementals.
IMHO, Spells and Magic actually gave (IMHO) the best 2nd Edition defiling system, where defilers could cast spells quicker than preservers, and easily boost the power of their lower-level spells. There was also the small iniative penalty. It was terrain based, complex, and very flavorful. Also completely unimplementable in 4e. Both the first boxed set, revised boxed set, and Defliers and Preservers systems feel a bit off to me in comparison.
Similarly, both 3.5 adaptations (Paizon and Athas.org) collapsed the defiler and preserver into one class, similar to the Spells and Magic approach in 2nd edition. Defiling grants a bonus in terms of metamagic or caster level, and can be terrain dependent.
In 4e, we get the arcane reroll option. I really love that its a temptation sitting there for all arcane classes. It has a slight penalty associated with it (about on-par with the old initiative penalty, except its a bit of damage instead). A reroll of the attack or damage on daily powers could be huge, and it ditches the slightly arbitrary distinction in class between preservers and defilers. My only real complaint is that there's no benefit of defiling with at-wills, cantrips, and rituals in sight (yet?). Terrain dependence would be cool, but seems a bit against the spirit of 4e and there aren't caster levels or metamagic to modify.
I'm not sure how to modify the 4e defiling mechanic to really affect all powers with the arcane keyword though. What they did is pretty good in my book.
How about a defiler theme, the encounter power for which is identical to arcane defiling, but applies to all arcane powers? And future theme powers would revolve around defiling (perhaps reroll with a bonus, roll twice, etc)? That way, the character could potentially defile with encounters and at-wills, but in the long run would have fewer powers (effectively, fewer spells per day). This would also give a difference both mechanically and thematically between preservers and defilers: defilers (like dark jedi) become powerful quickly but taper off as they become more dependant on that power, but preservers (like jedi) through their careful study and control, gain a lot more knowledge and power in the long run.
A Committed Defiler theme might help, and I'd be a little surprised if there wasn't a feat for defilers in the new material. 4e Defiling is still pretty good from what we've seen of it. The rest just has to be flavor, rather than mechanics.
According to the latest design & devel article, the Divine power source classes have been deliberately removed from Dark Sun in 4e. You cannot play a Cleric, Paladin, or Invoker in Athas without houserules.
So how does that jive with their inclusion of Tieflings and Eladrin based on player favorites?! They don't want to alienate players who play favorites with Race, but they have no such compunction in regard to alienating players who only enjoy playing Paladins?
Again, this is a minor qualm-- and I am actually enhused that Divine power source is out, entirely-- but any inconsistency in design philosophy tends to make me apprehensive.
Alright, this has me confused, now.
According to the latest design & devel article, the Divine power source classes have been deliberately removed from Dark Sun in 4e. You cannot play a Cleric, Paladin, or Invoker in Athas without houserules.
So how does that jive with their inclusion of Tieflings and Eladrin based on player favorites?! They don't want to alienate players who play favorites with Race, but they have no such compunction in regard to alienating players who only enjoy playing Paladins?
Again, this is a minor qualm-- and I am actually enhused that Divine power source is out, entirely-- but any inconsistency in design philosophy tends to make me apprehensive.
There's no inconsistency.
"No divine power source" was and apparently still is a defining element of Dark Sun.
"There's no Eladrins nor Tieflings" was never a point of DS, since there were no playable Eladrins nor Tieflings in 2nd edition. WotC had to take a stance with all the new material, deciding what to add and what to exclude. Including Eladrins and Tieflings makes as much sense as allowing Warlocks and Ardents - expecially when you consider that the Cleansing Wars are barely hinted in the new canon.
Tieflings make especially little sense if they are sticking with the lack of Divine power source. Over on EN World, it was confirmed that Tieflings had made "pacts with dark powers." How is that reconciled with the lack of Divine?
Tieflings make especially little sense if they are sticking with the lack of Divine power source. Over on EN World, it was confirmed that Tieflings had made "pacts with dark powers." How is that reconciled with the lack of Divine?
Primordials or demons, I'd bet.
Also, Dark Powers do not mean Divine. Dark can mean Shadowfell (the Grey), the creatures that hide in the underworld (assuming Athas has now been given an Underdark), Primordials or Elementals, or even Sorcerer Kings.
On RPG.net, one guy came up iwth a cool idea where the Tielfings could be the people of Ur Draxa, the Dragon's city.
Tieflings actually did exist in 2e.
Notice how I said "as a playable race".
Tieflings were fundamentally introduced in Planescape, which I'm fairly sure was released at least 3 years after DS. They simply weren't an issue when DS was released.
And about the double standard problem, Joe, I think you're overlooking the point of my argument. It's a matter of "ubi maior minor cessat". Removing the Divine power source was important because that was a previously present element of the setting. When they had to decide what to do with the Divine Power source, fidelity to the source material suggested removing it.
When it came to Tieflings and Eladrins, there was no precedent. That's what justifies the "player's favourites" argument. While sometimes you enrich a setting by removing options, it's a rare circumstance. They investigated if they could do something interesting and different with those two "new" races and they answered themselves "yes".
Plus, Tieflings have NOTHING to do with Divine Power. The "dark powers" even in the PoL core setting aren't divine, but tied to demons, devils and indirectly primordials (since we now know Demon Lords at least are corrupted primordials).
Regardless of justification, it remains an inconsistency. When they say, "We are including X because some players only play X; but we are excluding Y regardless of the fact that some players only play Y," that is inconsistent.
No, it is definitely not an inconsistency. Your comparison is faulty.
In 2e, they wanted to remove the divine power source, but were not able to. Now they can safely do so. No such comparison can be made with core races that never existed previously (or more accurately, we not previously playable). The two aren't even analogous.
Random other notes:
- They did replace half-giants wholesale with goliath. They do use the term half-giant a lot. Appearance isn't a big deal. They were created by ancient land-raping wizards, after all. Aside from Goliath looking much more interesting, IMO, there's any number of setting-appropriate reasons for their appearance.
- Dray are, most certainly, born of a dragon. There is literally no way you can suggest otherwise.
- It sounds like the DSCG includes Reckless Breakage (player-chosen) and Fumbling Breakage (arbitrary and dumb), so you can be happy about that.
My primary contention with your issues is that they seem to be based on the idea that a setting cannot evolve with time AND be true to the core, which I see at patently false. I believe the Seven Sentences to be an accurate depiction of the Athas in its truest sense, while you seem to be focused on defining the setting using elements that are, to me, superficial at best.
Tieflings can be corrupted by the deep Feywild (you know, all the nasties that live there, evil mother*******) from long ago, before it was ravaged, or they can be corrupted by the Gray or the Black, or the Far Realm, a cool new addition to DS.
No need to invoke devils or demons unless you want it to. I know I wont.
The comparison was not faulty. The 4e designers are picking and choosing which 2e design motivations they want to keep and which they want to toss out-- as is their prerogative! I just find it odd that they would choose to exemplify one deliberate restriction on character creation while ignoring another similar restriction.
As for Dray, I understand that one could argue that the race is "Dragon born" in that it was created by a Dragon. But Dray are not blood and culture relatives of Dragons the way the Dragonborn are. Heck, the vast majority of Dray likely have no clue that there are dragons other than Dregoth, just like the vast majority of Tyr region peoples don't know there are more dragons than just the Dragon of Tyr. Not to mention the aesthetic differences are still problematic-- Dray should look like a mix of human and Athasian dragon. Dragonborn do not.
I know I am jumping to conclusions, without having the book in hand. For all I know, the Athas that I know and love might be given an exceptionally awesome reboot in DSCG. I also know that many others are looking forward to an updated universe. I liked that every playable race in DS2e looked more or less human, except for the Thri-Kreen. I liked that DS was unapologetically exclusive. Yes, there were things that I didn't like in 2e and am happy to see removed. That doesn't mean I'll be happy to see the things I did enjoy being removed.
Regardless of justification, it remains an inconsistency. When they say, "We are including X because some players only play X; but we are excluding Y regardless of the fact that some players only play Y," that is inconsistent.
No, it is definitely not an inconsistency. Your comparison is faulty.
In 2e, they wanted to remove the divine power source, but were not able to. Now they can safely do so. No such comparison can be made with core races that never existed previously (or more accurately, we not previously playable). The two aren't even analogous.
Random other notes:
- They did replace half-giants wholesale with goliath. They do use the term half-giant a lot. Appearance isn't a big deal. They were created by ancient land-raping wizards, after all. Aside from Goliath looking much more interesting, IMO, there's any number of setting-appropriate reasons for their appearance.
- Dray are, most certainly, born of a dragon. There is literally no way you can suggest otherwise.
- It sounds like the DSCG includes Reckless Breakage (player-chosen) and Fumbling Breakage (arbitrary and dumb), so you can be happy about that.
My primary contention with your issues is that they seem to be based on the idea that a setting cannot evolve with time AND be true to the core, which I see at patently false. I believe the Seven Sentences to be an accurate depiction of the Athas in its truest sense, while you seem to be focused on defining the setting using elements that are, to me, superficial at best.
The other reason is that thoughtful replies from peers who also loved the Dark Sun world help me to calm down and realize that the sky is not yet falling. Even when I reply in opposition to an opinion, the very fact of that opinion's existence helps me reconcile my issues with the changes.
I have no illusions that my opinions will somehow alter WotC's publications. Sometimes, it just helps to talk about things one can't control.
KungFuJoe, what do you wish to achieve through these rants, if I may ask? Venting is fine, but nothing you say will change what is to come.
In 2e, they wanted to get rid of clerics, but couldn't do that without breaking the game; so in 4e, clerics are gone. In 2e, they wanted to pare down and replace the races of the world for the express purpose of making it unfamiliar, and were able to do so; but in 4e, they won't do that?
And they, in fact, did just that! Also, they included some new races, but the two are not related.
The comparison was not faulty. The 4e designers are picking and choosing which 2e design motivations they want to keep and which they want to toss out-- as is their prerogative! I just find it odd that they would choose to exemplify one deliberate restriction on character creation while ignoring another similar restriction.
Because the relation between the two appears to be arbitrarily set by you?
Specifically, "Athas excludes dragon-like humanoids, devil-like humanoids, half-giants that are not large, and fey elves." is not a core design tenant that makes Athas unique and captivating. The lack of a divine power source is. This is where your comparison falls through. The addition and adaptation of lore-appropriate races does not violate or cheapen the setting.
As for Dray, I understand that one could argue that the race is "Dragon born" in that it was created by a Dragon. But Dray are not blood and culture relatives of Dragons the way the Dragonborn are. Heck, the vast majority of Dray likely have no clue that there are dragons other than Dregoth, just like the vast majority of Tyr region peoples don't know there are more dragons than just the Dragon of Tyr. Not to mention the aesthetic differences are still problematic-- Dray should look like a mix of human and Athasian dragon. Dragonborn do not.
- The Dray are born of the only dragons that even exist in Athas. Sometime, somewhere, someone knowledgeable (like the Wanderer, or perhaps they themselves) labeled them Dragonborn because that's what they are. When the peoples of the Tyr Region came to know them, this is how they were known.
- The aesthetic differences are anything but problematic. If you can't handwave them (I know you will), can't you just consider that of all the creatures on Athas, they do still look most like a combination of Athasian dragon and human? I understand what you're saying: the dragonborn do not look as much like Athasian dragons as the artwork of the Dray did, but the fact of the matter is that they still look like Athasian dragons. If you'd never seen a picture of an original Dray or a picture of a non-Athasian dragon, you wouldn't even question it.
none of my usual D&D pals are Dark Sun fanatics; I don't want to scare them away from the setting by pointing out my dislikes.
Why doesn't this same policy apply here?
none of my usual D&D pals are Dark Sun fanatics; I don't want to scare them away from the setting by pointing out my dislikes.
Why doesn't this same policy apply here?
We've already been to Athas. We've got a much different idea about what scares us, now. ;)
You do what you want!
Tieflings can be corrupted by the deep Feywild (you know, all the nasties that live there, evil mother*******) from long ago, before it was ravaged, or they can be corrupted by the Gray or the Black, or the Far Realm, a cool new addition to DS.
No need to invoke devils or demons unless you want it to. I know I wont.
I'm actually going with the tieflings being the Ur Draxans, and have the Ur Draxans be descendants of the dragon.
-The dragon has small horns, but he has them. All the noble Ur Draxans are depicted with hats or headdresses that could cover horns.
-Ur Draxa is located right on top of a vortex of elemental fire (fire resistance),
-Draxan culture encourages vengeance (infernal wrath), and underhanded tactics (bluff, stealth, bloodhunt)
-Although the Draxans favor warfare over study, Draxan culture is still the most advanced in the world, and the Draxans are brilliant tacticians (+2 Int)
-The Draxans values showmanship and grace in combat (+2 Cha)
-Draxan culture regards the child of a noble and a slave to be a fully blooded noble (tiefling blood breeds true).
Using the dragon as their ancestor would account for the supernatural aspect of infernal wrath, and for the low light vision.