Show
The Ranger, Warlord, and Rogue remain unchanged. I'm working on a Bard paragon path for the Rogue.
Fighter
The Fighter's lack of perception skills just always bothered me.
Elemental Cleric (modified Cleric)
*I took the Channel Divinity feats and simply renamed/reflavored them. Bahumut's Shield is renamed "Stone Skin" and Corellon's Swiftness became "Wind at your Back".
Psychic Warrior (modified Paladin)
Most of this was changing the flavor and terms. My Psychic Warrior does away with the flashy powers of the Psion, in favor of physical/mental enhancements of him/herself and others when in the thick of battle.
Psion (modified Warlock)
Easy enough. I also added the Psionics skill, which essentially functions like Arcana, only for Psionics. I changed some of the Rituals, chiefly the Scrying and Exploration ones, to make use the Psionics skill.
Preservers and Defiliers (modified Wizard)
I didn't want to have Defiling designed in such a way that it would force the party to have to follow the Defiler around as they search for ideal spots to cast spells from, and I didn't want Defiling to harm fellow players by draining their Healing Surges or HP.
In terms of flavor and fluff, both options have the cosmetic effect of killing plants and small animals, and Defiling is still the more damaging option of the two.
*Literacy is a new feat I added. It's essentially the same as Linguist, only you can write instead of speak languages.
Why No Druids?
The first and foremost issue was the lack of a class that I felt could reasonably be modified into the Druid, since basing it off the Elemental Cleric would have made it too similar to the other Clerics. Furthermore, in the Dark Sun setting, Druids are more often tied to a particular piece of land, that they are devoted to protecting. In the end, I decided it would be better to leave Druids as NPCs- guides, mystics, and hermits with inscrutable motives that could serve as interesting allies or antagonists to the PCs. Being tied to a fixed region makes it easy to use them as havens or as the basis of the old, "There's a crazy old man in the hills. Go investigate." hook.
The Ranger, Warlord, and Rogue remain unchanged. I'm working on a Bard paragon path for the Rogue.
Fighter
- Skills: Fighters add Perception (Wis) to their list of class skills.
The Fighter's lack of perception skills just always bothered me.
Elemental Cleric (modified Cleric)
- Skills: Nature. From the following class skills after, choose three more trained skills at 1st level. Diplomacy (Cha), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (Int), Insight (Wis), Nature (Wis), Religion (Int).
- Class Features: Clerics do not worship deities, and instead must choose an element, which has an associated energy type. The Elements are Earth (Acid), Fire (Fire), Air (Thunder), and Water (Cold).
In addition to Undead, the Cleric’s Turn Undead class feature also targets and affects creatures that have a type opposite of the Cleric’s chosen element. Water opposes Fire and Earth opposes Air. They also get an additional Feat representing their element*. They do not gain training in rituals. - Powers: Clerics use powers taken from the Cleric list, but all powers that have the Radiant energy type, instead have the energy type of the Cleric’s chosen Element.
*I took the Channel Divinity feats and simply renamed/reflavored them. Bahumut's Shield is renamed "Stone Skin" and Corellon's Swiftness became "Wind at your Back".
Psychic Warrior (modified Paladin)
- Paladins are renamed “Psychic Warriors” and use the Psionic Power source instead of the Divine Power Source.
- Skills: From the following class skills after, choose four trained skills at 1st level. Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Intimidate (Wis), Perception (Wis), Psionics (Int), and Streetwise (Cha).
- Class Features: Channel Divinity is renamed “Battle Manifestation”. Divine Challenge is renamed “Battle of the Wills”. Psychic Warriors use psicrystals instead of holy symbols and Holy Avengers as their implements.
- Powers: Psychic Warriors use powers taken from the Paladin list, but all powers that have the Radiant energy type, instead have the Psychic energy type.
Most of this was changing the flavor and terms. My Psychic Warrior does away with the flashy powers of the Psion, in favor of physical/mental enhancements of him/herself and others when in the thick of battle.
Psion (modified Warlock)
- Warlocks are renamed “Psions” and use the Psionic Power source instead of the Arcane Power Source.
- Skills: Psionics. From the following class skills after, choose three more trained skills at 1st level. Diplomacy (Cha), History (Int), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Nature (Int), Perception (Wis), Psionics (Int), or Religion (Int).
- Class Features: Psions use psicrystals instead of rods, wands, or pact blades as their implement. Warlock's Curse is renamed "Psionic Focus". Fey Pact is renamed “Psychoportation”, Infernal Pact is renamed “Psychometabolism”, Star Pact is renamed “Telepathy”.
Easy enough. I also added the Psionics skill, which essentially functions like Arcana, only for Psionics. I changed some of the Rituals, chiefly the Scrying and Exploration ones, to make use the Psionics skill.
Preservers and Defiliers (modified Wizard)
- Skills: Arcana. From the following class skills after, choose three more trained skills at 1st level. Arcana (Int), Bluff (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), History (Int), Nature (Int), or Religion (Int), Stealth (Dex), or Streetwise (Cha).
- Class Features: Preservers use the standard Wizard rules. Defilers do not gain Implement Mastery, and instead gain Defiling Mastery.
- ]Defiling Mastery: Once per encounter, as a free action, you can expend a healing surge in order to treat any spell you cast that has special effects when using an implement as if you were wielding the appropriate implement. When performing rituals, you can expend a healing surge to gain a +5 bonus to your Arcana check.
Wizards gain Literate* as a bonus feat, even if they don't meet the prerequisites. They do not gain training in rituals.
I didn't want to have Defiling designed in such a way that it would force the party to have to follow the Defiler around as they search for ideal spots to cast spells from, and I didn't want Defiling to harm fellow players by draining their Healing Surges or HP.
In terms of flavor and fluff, both options have the cosmetic effect of killing plants and small animals, and Defiling is still the more damaging option of the two.
*Literacy is a new feat I added. It's essentially the same as Linguist, only you can write instead of speak languages.
Why No Druids?
The first and foremost issue was the lack of a class that I felt could reasonably be modified into the Druid, since basing it off the Elemental Cleric would have made it too similar to the other Clerics. Furthermore, in the Dark Sun setting, Druids are more often tied to a particular piece of land, that they are devoted to protecting. In the end, I decided it would be better to leave Druids as NPCs- guides, mystics, and hermits with inscrutable motives that could serve as interesting allies or antagonists to the PCs. Being tied to a fixed region makes it easy to use them as havens or as the basis of the old, "There's a crazy old man in the hills. Go investigate." hook.
Also, as for Templars, I would suggest a Charisma (+Wisdom) Warlord/Warlock variant, to represent their presence, their intimidating commands and the supernatural powers bestowed upon them by their Dragon King.
but rituals are vital, I see no reason why folk don't have rituals as standard when i'ts important part of their class.
Instead of spell books, most folk would just "know" them, except for templars or preservers/defilers who would have books and thus..more rituals htna any one else cna remember.
Interesting, works quite well, though I find that the Half-Giant and the Mul are a bit on the similar side, to the point where they overlap. Honestly, I would perhaps relinquish the Half-giant; being that big is a rules/balance issue.
Noticed that as well. I'm loathed to remove the Half-Giant, however, seeing as it's an iconic Dark Sun race.
I'm revising the Half-Giant now. The skill bonuses are changing to +2 Athletics and Perception (they tend to watch and imitate others), and change the Metabolic Boost to Stomp. That should encourage Half-Giants to be a more proactive in non-combat, and a bit more aggressive in combat compared to the Mul.
Also, they aren't going to be nearly as big in 4E. More around seven feet instead of ten or more. A cosmetic change that seems to work better, like how 4E Elves don't live 300+ years, and halflings are more than 3 feet tall in comparison to earlier editions.
but rituals are vital, I see no reason why folk don't have rituals as standard when i'ts important part of their class.
In my (admittedly limited) experience running 4E, Rituals aren't that vital, save for a few such as Cure Disease and Raise Dead, which can't be used until at least level 6+. They're very useful, and convenient but not vital, and in a Dark Sun setting, I'm trying to do away with conveniences. I expect skill challenges for the purposes of finding food and shelter in Athas's bleak environment as opposed to the party caster just using Traveller's Feast or Endure Elements ritual.
Since the Elemental Clerics and Preserver/Defilier have more options and changes that make them a bit more powerful compared to the original classes, I figured the removal of free Rituals was a good compromise. It also puts them on par with the Psion, which I wanted to be just as viable a Ritual Caster as they are.
The Elemental Cleric, Psion, and Preserver/Defilier are also the only classes that get Psionics, Religion, or Arcana for free, so while everyone else has to spend two feats to get any rituals, they only spend one.
Of course I am open to giving rituals back to them, although that were the case, I'd like the Psion to be able to perform rituals right out of the gate too. I'd definately outright remove several of the Rituals though, or move their levels up.
How does that sound?
....................................................................................
Templars and Druids I'm not worried about class-wise. They'll be NPCs, and will have appropriate abilities.
Also how about Ptreen as a race where are the leeezards
I added some Psionic Talent feats I had been working on. I'm interested in hearing what kinds of little Psionic powers people would like to have.
Think you are off to a real good start here. Looked at the athas.org forums and your attempt is the best ive seen so far.
Also how about Ptreen as a race where are the leeezards
Thanks for the compliment. Most of the Class stuff was taken from ideas I read here and on the Enworld forums.
I didn't plan on doing Pterrans, but stats-wise, I think Gnolls would work failry well. Just replace the bonus to Intimidate with a +2 bonus to Athletics and Acrobatics.
I modified Half-Elf racial traits and added General and Racial feats. I'm working on Class feats and equipment.
I like how the defilers can spend a healing surge on a ritual since it shows how addicted and focused they are on spells. How should the defiled ground be determined? This is where the difference between defilers and preservers would show up.
How should the defiled ground be determined? This is where the difference between defilers and preservers would show up.
Flavor. When preservers use powers, all surrounding terrain becomes dried up and plants become withered husks while small creatures like insects or mice are wracked with pain. Defilers essentially blacken an area, as if there had been a brush fire there, turning plants to charred killing small animals. More powerful the spell, bigger the radius.
All plants and small animals are pretty much screwed, but terrain modifiers and difficult terrain still exist. You don't get bonuses/penalties for being in more lush/barren areas.
I want the player playing the Wizard to be encouraged to move around and choose their position based on where the team needs them to be. Not to try to find the best piece of terrain and start casting from, leaving the rest of the party to either work their positioning around him/her or be handicapped. Or turning large patches of terrain from difficult terrain into regular terrain just by spamming At-Will and Encounter powers.
Flavor. When preservers use powers, all surrounding terrain becomes dried up and plants become withered husks while small creatures like insects or mice are wracked with pain. Defilers essentially blacken an area, as if there had been a brush fire there, turning plants to charred killing small animals. More powerful the spell, bigger the radius.
Interesting...I guess I would see the preserver as drawing enough power to possibly wilt the surrounding plants and not dry them up. Drying up the plant life might be a little harsh if you are trying to preserve the land as a preserver.
I would probably leave out the insects and mice because you are getting too close to the dragon abilities and that power is typically focused through the obsidian orbs they use as well as combining that with their psionic powers to achieve the ability to draw the life force from animals/insects.
I want the player playing the Wizard to be encouraged to move around and choose their position based on where the team needs them to be. Not to try to find the best piece of terrain and start casting from, leaving the rest of the party to either work their positioning around him/her or be handicapped. Or turning large patches of terrain from difficult terrain into regular terrain just by spamming At-Will and Encounter powers.
This would be a great RP aspect since the preserver is interested in....well...preserving the landscape and its life force.
Interesting...I guess I would see the preserver as drawing enough power to possibly wilt the surrounding plants and not dry them up. Drying up the plant life might be a little harsh if you are trying to preserve the land as a preserver.
I would probably leave out the insects and mice because you are getting too close to the dragon abilities and that power is typically focused through the obsidian orbs they use as well as combining that with their psionic powers to achieve the ability to draw the life force from animals/insects.
This would be a great RP aspect since the preserver is interested in....well...preserving the landscape and its life force.
This works too.
Regarding the harm of living creatures- I upped Presevers (the land is still usable and the plants can recover) and Defilers so that Sorcerer Kings and the Dragon of Tyr can seem more fearsome. They'll be killing larger creatures up to and including human and livestock, with their defiling if they see fit which I personally feel is more menacing than them killing insects, mice, and small birds.
But that's all fluff, and can be altered as one sees fit for their campaign.
Added weapons. I'm very interested in hearing people's opinions here, since I'm a little apprehensive. The PHB weapons cover a surprisingly large number of combinations to the point where new weapons end up feeling somewhat redundant.
Bone: +0 Hit / 1-2 Break Chance
Stone: +1 Hit / 1-2 Break Chance
Obsidian: +1 Hit / 1 Break Chance
Soft Metals: +2 Hit / 1 Break Chance
Steel: +2 Hit / No Break Chance
Pretty nifty there Alex! Re: Templars, in my setting a Templar was more of an office than a class. They were basically an elite version of the city guard and could be of any class or race the local SK would allow, but they worked for the SK as his/her enforcers, investigators, and secret agents. Just a little tweak on what a Templar is, and it can still be dropped into your DS game.
That's a really good idea. I'm going with that.
Very cool descriptions and setup. I would be careful of all the additional bonuses for the different materials... A +4 bonus is pretty steep in 4e so I would be cautious with that high of a bonus. If you include the prof bonus, the material bonus, half your level, and stat bonus (and not even talking about a magic enhancement), you are really buffed with attack bonuses...
I wasn't suggesting a +4 bonus on top of any enhancement bonus. Being made of a superior material such as steel is what gives it the enhancement bonus, and that alone.
For instance, instead of having a greatsword +4 Terror, you'd be using a steel great sword that has the Terror enhancement. The magical/psionic enhancement is represented in the fact that it has a secondary effect. The flat bonus to hit and damage are representative of the fact that it's made out of a superior material.
Implements and the like would just represent more finely crafted implements. An obsidian orb may give a +1 bonus, and a finely crafted and ornate bronze one would give a +2 or something. Psicrystals would just be purer.
As far as the Magic/Psionic Item rituals go, they'd be removing or converting the secondary effects, as opposed to the enhancement bonuses (if say transferring from a steel sword to an obsidian sword). I'm toying around with the idea of a feat to allow a character to perform a ritual to craft mundane arms and armor.
Is there any way of incorporating a decreased hardness for the poor quality materials...i.e. maybe instead of a one being only a miss maybe a one will force a chance to break and even extremely poor quality would increase that break chance to a one and two... Then you could keep the bonuses to a +1 and +2, but the break chance is different for them....
Bone: +0 Hit / 1-2 Break Chance
Stone: +1 Hit / 1-2 Break Chance
Obsidian: +1 Hit / 1 Break Chance
Soft Metals: +2 Hit / 1 Break Chance
Steel: +2 Hit / No Break Chance
I personally don't like the idea of break chances, just like critical misses and failures. The martial classes who rely on weapons the most are pretty much the only ones affected by it. The casters, who just hold an implement in their hand, are rarely affected.
An interesting idea I heard regarding weapon breaking though is the idea of a "break" not rendering the weapon useless, but merely reducing its damage by one dice level. You're a resourceful adventurer, and can still attack with what's part of the blade, the chunks still remaining in your mace, or what's left of your flail. You just aren't as effective.
Re: Templars, in my setting a Templar was more of an office than a class. They were basically an elite version of the city guard and could be of any class or race the local SK would allow, but they worked for the SK as his/her enforcers, investigators, and secret agents. Just a little tweak on what a Templar is, and it can still be dropped into your DS game.
Playing off of this, and modeled on the Warforged Paragon Paths from Dragon, you might be able to make a Templar paragon path that was open to a wider array of characters (i.e. not limited by class).
Or perhaps even a couple different ones, such as a Leader Templar and a Defender Templar. Maybe even Striker and Controller Templars too, though those seem less typical.
It might even make sense to do a different Paragon Path for each SK, and then have the Role vary from SK to SK depending on what their Templars are typically like.
An interesting idea I heard regarding weapon breaking though is the idea of a "break" not rendering the weapon useless, but merely reducing its damage by one dice level. You're a resourceful adventurer, and can still attack with what's part of the blade, the chunks still remaining in your mace, or what's left of your flail. You just aren't as effective.
I like that idea...maybe an automatic miss, 1, forces a saving throw on the weapon and based on the weapon's material there are different modifiers. If the saving throw fails the weapon's damage is reduced by one dice level and if you miss the saving through by more than X amount that the weapon does break.
Added the Bard paragon path.
Playing off of this, and modeled on the Warforged Paragon Paths from Dragon, you might be able to make a Templar paragon path that was open to a wider array of characters (i.e. not limited by class).
Or perhaps even a couple different ones, such as a Leader Templar and a Defender Templar. Maybe even Striker and Controller Templars too, though those seem less typical.
It might even make sense to do a different Paragon Path for each SK, and then have the Role vary from SK to SK depending on what their Templars are typically like.
Given how I don't expect the players to be Templars working for sorcerer Kings, let alone become Sorcerer Kings themselves, I don't personally feel the desire to work out actual paragon paths for them.
NPCs don't have to use Paragon paths. However I do like the idea of each Sorcerer King having a general Templar style, which I can represent with common abilities and traits. I can combine this with DarthCestual's idea...
The party can face off against several Templars. Some will be strikers, others will be controllers, and others leaders. However, they will all have some common abilities as granted by their particular Sorcerer King to distinguish them as Templars, and those abilities will vary from one Sorcerer King to the next.
I feel this encourages a lot more room and variety in designing them for NPC encounters.
Given how I don't expect the players to be Templars working for sorcerer Kings, let alone become Sorcerer Kings themselves, I don't personally feel the desire to work out actual paragon paths for them.
Ah, true. I guess I should've said "If you want Templar PCs, paragon paths would probably be a nice way to go."
And what's up with the retcon on the half-giant, having it be the same as the 3E XPH half-giant instead of the actual DS one? (i.e. since when are Large humanoids in the service of the sorcerer-kings psionic and can stomp their feet to create a deadly wave....rmmm rmmm)
Where's the Elf Run ability for elves?
Elves have a higher base speed than other races, can shift in difficult terrain, and a racial feat that increases their overland speed, making them nearly as fast as someone on a mount. They're easily the fastest race around.
And what's up with the retcon on the half-giant, having it be the same as the 3E XPH half-giant instead of the actual DS one? (i.e. since when are Large humanoids in the service of the sorcerer-kings psionic and can stomp their feet to create a deadly wave....rmmm rmmm)
2E Half-Giants were primarily big and strong. They could also change alignment every day, but in 4E this feature is of limited function. They also gained higher HD per level, but I'm not fudging with HP. Mul and Dwarves are more on the defensive side, so I looked for another way of distinguishing them by making them more offensive.
That's why I went with Stomp. Other than that, the stats are based on their description in the 2E Dark Sun box set.
Only some Half-Giants serve Sorcerer Kings. They're bred as warrior slaves for exactly this purpose. A significant number, however, live their own lives in communities mostly along the Sea of Silt.
Then it comes down to the choice of distinguishing elements for the 4E half-giant. I would not choose Stomp, but other things related to immense strength, like maybe a daily power, or a racial ability that says each time you use a power that pushes a creature you gain +1 square.
That would actually work very well. I already had a racial feat that did something similar. Making the edit...
I'm just wondering why the fighter wouldn't have the proficiency with chainmail, I thought all fighters have heavy armor proficiency. Maybe its that way in the 4th edition but I haven't had time to look at it. Good catch on the perception skill though. :D
Metal depleted world, so nobody has automatic proficiency with chainmail. It still exists, though, and players can take the feat to become proficient in it. Fighters and Psychic Warriors are still proficient in Scale, which is generally superior to Chainmail. Clerics and Warlords would be the hardest hit.
I'm interested in substitutes if you've got any suggestions though. I don't want to leave that big gap in armor choices for balance reasons.
Allow them the access to chainmail since they probably would have trained with it in the pits.
Making them proficient with Simple, Military, and Superior Weapons (both melee and ranged).
Others.....???
Any thoughts on adding in the Gladiator class? I was trying to think about how to make them different enough from the fighter class so they can be separated...
Allow them the access to chainmail since they probably would have trained with it in the pits.
Making them proficient with Simple, Military, and Superior Weapons (both melee and ranged).
Others.....???
In 4E, classes are more about fighting styles, not your actual profession. I see gladiators as a profession, and one gladiator might be a nimble guy who bleeds you from multiple wounds (Rogue), or a tumble around with a pair of weapons (Ranger), combine psionics with their fighting (Psychic Warrior and multi-class), work better in group combat (Warlord), or just go for the good old fashioned beat down (Fighter).
They're all gladiators though.
So instead of just going with a single class, I was going to distinguish the gladiator with skill and feat options. Skill training in Bluff or Diplomacy can be used to woo the crowd, and Intimidate used to cow enemies into surrender. Feats can also be used to get weapon proficiency with the Superior Weapons, seeing as I'm against just handing them out in larger numbers. Mul Galdiator, Impressive Kill, and Improved Unarmed Combat were a couple of feats I added specifically for gladiators. More to come, and feel free to suggest others.
I'm also looking at Paragon Paths. The Fighter class already has Pit Fighter, which works well for a no frills guy who just fights to win. For the Rogue, I was thinking of a more flamboyant fighter who bluffs and taunts their opponents.
I'm also looking at Paragon Paths.
Most of the Kits from The Gladiator's Handbook are pretty much begging to be converted into Paragon Paths. (I might even jump into this when I get home today, just for fun.)
You could also allow a wider array of classes to get them by making the prereqs more generic. Stats, role, power source, those sorts of things.
Most of the Kits from The Gladiator's Handbook are pretty much begging to be converted into Paragon Paths. (I might even jump into this when I get home today, just for fun.)
You could also allow a wider array of classes to get them by making the prereqs more generic. Stats, role, power source, those sorts of things.
Definately.
Any chance we could get your stomp text as well? As much as I like your ability I'm trying to do a conversion for an existing game and am unsure my current HG would appreciate the removal.
How about I just make it a Wild Talent feat? Afterall, I made Telekinetic Leap one in the hopes that Thri-Kreen would pick it up so they could get back their massive jumping powers. I figure Half-Giants will like stomp. Check there to get it.
To adapt it to a racial power, make it a minor action, give them the option to use Constitution instead of Strength, and increase the attack hit to +2 and 2d6 at 11th level, and +4 to hit and 3d6 at 21st level.
Given how I don't expect the players to be Templars working for sorcerer Kings, let alone become Sorcerer Kings themselves, I don't personally feel the desire to work out actual paragon paths for them.
Alex, first great, great work. Thank you for all of it. Second, I understand your decision of the Templars, but instead of Paragon Paths what if Templar just the equivalent of Divinity Feats for Warlords? Possibly Authority Feats/Channel Authority Powers? I unfortunately don't own either box set of Athas or I'd take a stab at working up the different powers granted by the different Sorcerer Kings.
Once again great job!
I guess I don't want to see psions be nukers anymore. I always thought they were stuck being nukers because...well, I don't know why, actually. I can't fathom a single reason why people would stereotype a class that uses the power of the mind as a nuker. I've always thought of psions as mind-*******, with maybe a few psychokinetic abilities. When I think psion, I think Professor Xavier first, and Jean Grey second. Xavier's telepathic powers were way past anything Jean could ever hope to muster. But he had no psychokinetic power, and she had near godlike psychokinetic ability. That guy from X-2 who could make people hallucinate would be another good example.
I suppose it's just preference. Overall, good work, keep it going.
Defilers should be strikers, they really are more about destroying foes, than controlling, when you think of it.
Thanks for all the support so far. It's really helped to keep me interested i the project.
I'm curious, why warlocks for psion? Wouldn't wizard be better?
I guess I don't want to see psions be nukers anymore. I always thought they were stuck being nukers because...well, I don't know why, actually. I can't fathom a single reason why people would stereotype a class that uses the power of the mind as a nuker. I've always thought of psions as mind-*******, with maybe a few psychokinetic abilities. When I think psion, I think Professor Xavier first, and Jean Grey second. Xavier's telepathic powers were way past anything Jean could ever hope to muster. But he had no psychokinetic power, and she had near godlike psychokinetic ability. That guy from X-2 who could make people hallucinate would be another good example.
IMHO, psions should be controllers, not strikers, but alas...tad hard to work out at the moment, IMHO, without makign the SAME as wizards, and thus a "spare wheel".
Defilers should be strikers, they really are more about destroying foes, than controlling, when you think of it.
I did, at one point, consider turning the Warlock into the Defiler/Preserver, and making Wizards into Psions. However, upon closer inspection...
1. More of the Warlock spells deal with things like Psychic powers, Charms, Invisibility and manipulation of time/space than do Wizard spells, especially the Star Pact Warlocks. Far fewer Wizards spells have anything to with the mind. 4E Wizards are nothing like Professor X or Jean Grey in terms of the flavor or feel of their powers.
2. In terms of how they play, the 4E Warlock is not a "nuker". They're more like "snipers". In 4E, the Wizard remains the "nuker"- the class that launches the fireballs and lightning bolts to deal damage to multiple enemies at once. Warlocks concentrate on single targets.
3. Most secondary effects of most Wizard spells deal with mobility- they push, pull, shift, conjure walls, and create difficult terrain. Warlock secondary effects are more often geared towards that specific target's body and mind. They lower their will defense, render the Warlock invisible, deal additional damage if the enemy attacks, etc.
4. Warlocks have heals, and Wizards do not I didn't want Defilers/Preservers having healing magic while Psions didn't.
5. I really didn't want to muck with ability scores. Classes are no longer dependent on a single ability score, and how they all interact is an important factor in how they balance against one another. Charisma (overcomming their will your dominant will and psyche) and Fortitude (for psychometabolism) make more sense for a Psion's ability scores than they would for a Defiler/Preserver.
6. I wanted the Defiler/Preserver, like the Wizard, to be the seeker of forbidden knowledge, and by extension, the superior ritualist. This would mean fewer tweaks to the Wizard class, but more to the Warlock class.
7. In going back to the area affect vs single target attacks, I like to think of Wizards/Defilers as the ones using spells that lay waste to larger tracts of land. They cast spells that engulf entire groups in fire, create fields of ice, and clouds of blades, and they have to drain the energy of the world around them to do that. Warlocks/Psions are more precise and mostly affect a single, and likewise, have virtually no impact on the surrounding environment. Wizards/Defiliers/Preservers have to study spells in a spellbook every day and chooe which ones to use, while Warlocks/Psions hav a set list of powers and have access to them all the time.
When the Psion class finally comes out, I've heard it will be controller. However, at the moment, all I have to work with are PHB classes, and when you really look at how you would go about imagining a character that used their mind to hinder and befuddle their foes with psychic powers, the Warlock seems to me to be a much better fit.
Hope that clears thing up.
Alex, first great, great work. Thank you for all of it. Second, I understand your decision of the Templars, but instead of Paragon Paths what if Templar just the equivalent of Divinity Feats for Warlords? Possibly Authority Feats/Channel Authority Powers? I unfortunately don't own either box set of Athas or I'd take a stab at working up the different powers granted by the different Sorcerer Kings.
Once again great job!
Again, if I were doing work on Templars as PCs, this would be another good option. However, as mentioned before I'm not keen on presenting Templars- who're often under the direct control of the Dragon Kings and very common antagonists- as player options.
Thanks for the encouragement though.
Added new Paragon paths. The first four are for the Elemental Cleric to help give the different elements more personality. The Thri-Kreen paragon paths are based on role rather than class (like the Warforged Juggernaut and Lifeseeker paths).
Finally, I took a stab at the Sensei paragon path just for kicks. My attempts at an unarmed fighter paragon path feel a little clunky and heavy handed to me though.
I'm interested in substitutes if you've got any suggestions though. I don't want to leave that big gap in armor choices for balance reasons.
You can introduce new armors, made from material such as chitin.
Name: Chatkacha
Prof: +2
Dmg: 1d6
Range: 6/12
Price: 1 gp
Weight: 3 lbs
Group: Light blade
Prop: Off-hand, heavy thrown, returning*
New Property, returning: If this weapon is thrown by someone proficient in its use, on a missed attack the weapon returns to the thrower, so long as the thrower is standing in the same square, at the end of his turn, from which he threw the weapon.
I really like the work you have done here. Its pretty awesome. I may end up using some of it to run a Dark Sun game. That being said, I just want to take issue with your version of the Chatkacha. I don't think the sherukin is a good model for the Chatkacha. The reason I don't think it is a good reason is twofold: a) the chatkacha is supposed to be a much larger weapon than a sherukin and b) the sherukin in no way represents the chatkacha's returning property. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the chatkacha supposed to be usable as both a melee or ranged weapon? From what I remember, it could be thrown, but was also often used as a sort of "short sword" like weapon by the thri-kreen... I think the Chatkacha would work much better if it was modeled to look something like this:
Name: Chatkacha
Prof: +3
Dmg: 1d6
Range: 6/12
Price: 1 gp
Weight: 3 lbs
Group: Light blade
Prop: Off-hand, heavy thrown, returning*
New Property, returning: If this weapon is thrown by someone proficient in its use, on a missed attack the weapon returns to the thrower, so long as the thrower is standing in the same square, at the end of his turn, from which he threw the weapon.
In this Dark Sun conversion, the "Shuriken" doesn't really exist, and the Catchka takes its place mechanics and fluff-wise as the most commonly encountered thrown weapon. There's no need to differentiate the two.
All magic thrown weapons have the returning property. I didn't feel it was worth introducing a new quality just for the Chatchka that ends up being redundant with an ability that every thrown weapon has by level 4 or so. That would be a trivial additional rule.
There's also the issue of balance, what with the Chatchka having the same accuracy and range, but higher damage dice than the Shuriken. Using the same stats as the Shuriken keeps the Chatchka in line with all the other PHB weapons, and with the Thri-Kreen specific feats and abilities, they still get more out of using it than other races, ensuring that it remains uniquely tied to them.
You can introduce new armors, made from material such as chitin.
Duly noted. Just updated with the new approach to armor (under the now renamed Armor and Weapons) section.
Up next are lists of new adventuring gear and vehicles, as well as items I would personally remove from the game. I'm also having fun designing creatures.
Here's an example from the RGPA preview, if you hadn't seen it:
Moonshae Isles:You know Elven as an additional language, and you gain a +2 bonus to saving throws against charm and fear effects.
Others add a skill to your class skill list and give you a bonus to go with it, while others let you reroll all of your checks for a certain knowledge skill. Its hardly necessary, but it would be a nice little tweak I think.
Awesome work so far by the way. Looking forward to seeing some of your monsters. I'm trying to get a 4e dark sun campaign up and going myself, and dealing with the differance in monsters has been the most difficult part (since you pretty much did all the other hard work already :D) .
In this Dark Sun conversion, the "Shuriken" doesn't really exist, and the Catchka takes its place mechanics and fluff-wise as the most commonly encountered thrown weapon. There's no need to differentiate the two.
All magic thrown weapons have the returning property. I didn't feel it was worth introducing a new quality just for the Chatchka that ends up being redundant with an ability that every thrown weapon has by level 4 or so. That would be a trivial additional rule.
There's also the issue of balance, what with the Chatchka having the same accuracy and range, but higher damage dice than the Shuriken. Using the same stats as the Shuriken keeps the Chatchka in line with all the other PHB weapons, and with the Thri-Kreen specific feats and abilities, they still get more out of using it than other races, ensuring that it remains uniquely tied to them.
I still think my version would work better, mechanically, than using the stats for the sherukin as written. First of all, my weapon is still balanced mechanically. If you take a look, its written in as a "heavy thrown weapon" instead of a "light thrown weapon." Basically, while the sherukin is a superior version of the dagger, what I wrote up is a superior version of something like the throwing hammer or throwing ax. It does the same damage (1d6) but has slightly better range, and bonus to hit. Thats a direct translation from the sort of benefits you get for using the sherukin (a superior weapon) instead of a dagger. Heavy thrown weapons, according to the rules, are supposed to do more damage than light thrown weapons (but are penalized by being usable with less thrown weapon based weapon powers).
On the other hand, a sherukin does only 1d4, and the damage of a dagger, but the chatkacha is supposed to be about the same size as a short sword, which does 1d6 damage. Thats a bit of a gap in believability.
Also, under your rules, the best chatkacha wielders would be rogues. They would get to deal 1d6 damage with the chatkacha, and use powers that allow them to toss chatkachas in fistfuls.... IE: only light thrown weapons are usable with rogue powers that allow you to toss multiple thrown weapons at the same time. The chatkacha, however, was supposed to be one of the primary weapons used by kreen hunters (read: rangers).
The fact that a chatkacha was always depicted as a throwing weapon of about the same size as a short-sword just makes me feel that my write up is more true to its previous incarnations. I also think its better mechanically, as your chatkacha would only be appealing to kreen rogues, and my chatkacha would be appealing to the races (most common and thus) primary class choice (from a point of view of fluff), the ranger.
Also, while you don't necessarily need eastern "sherukin" in dark sun, small throwing daggers (ala the sort used in Assassins Creed) could still be present, and would be a much more suitable fit for the sherukin stats.
Anyways, if I get a chance to use your work, I will be using my version of the chatkacha. If, after reading what I wrote here, you still don't like the idea... cool. I wasn't trying to insult your work, just give some constructive criticism on a project I think is by and large amazingly well done. Didn't mean to be pushy, I just really think that my stats for the weapon would work much better.
I still think my version would work better, mechanically, than using the stats for the sherukin as written. First of all, my weapon is still balanced mechanically. If you take a look, its written in as a "heavy thrown weapon" instead of a "light thrown weapon."
Basically, while the sherukin is a superior version of the dagger, what I wrote up is a superior version of something like the throwing hammer or throwing ax. It does the same damage (1d6) but has slightly better range, and bonus to hit. Thats a direct translation from the sort of benefits you get for using the sherukin (a superior weapon) instead of a dagger. Heavy thrown weapons, according to the rules, are supposed to do more damage than light thrown weapons (but are penalized by being usable with less thrown weapon based weapon powers).
The Dagger is a simple weapon, which is already less powerful than the Throwing Axe and Throwing hammer, which are Military weapons. That's part of the reason why your design is more powerful- it starts with more powerful weapons as the base.
Heavy thrown weapons, according to the rules, also have lower accuracy to compensate for the higher damage dice.
On the other hand, a sherukin does only 1d4, and the damage of a dagger, but the chatkacha is supposed to be about the same size as a short sword, which does 1d6 damage. Thats a bit of a gap in believability.
If this really strains "believability (even more than the idea of humanoid praying mantis people with psychic powers) I think the simpler solution would simply to change the fluff and make Chatchka smaller.
That, and ignore the Throwing Hammer and Warhammer, or the fact that according to the PHB, a Shuriken is half the weight of a Dagger and deals just as much damage, and all the other discrepancies that exist in the mechanics as compared to the images and descriptions.
Also, under your rules, the best chatkacha wielders would be rogues. They would get to deal 1d6 damage with the chatkacha, and use powers that allow them to toss chatkachas in fistfuls.... IE: only light thrown weapons are usable with rogue powers that allow you to toss multiple thrown weapons at the same time. The chatkacha, however, was supposed to be one of the primary weapons used by kreen hunters (read: rangers).
Actually,with the Kreen Hunter feat they get statistically better damage thn a Rogue (1d4+2 vs 1d6).
When it comes to multiple attacks, all Thri-Kreen have the Thri-Kreen Assault racial power, which means any Thri-Kreen character of any class is able to attack with multiple Chatchka. Also, it's the Ranger class that grants all the powers that allow a character to make multiple attacks with ranged weapons, not the Rogue. The Rogue actually has no powers that allow it to make multiple attacks with ranged weapons.
Anyways, if I get a chance to use your work, I will be using my version of the chatkacha. If, after reading what I wrote here, you still don't like the idea... cool. I wasn't trying to insult your work, just give some constructive criticism on a project I think is by and large amazingly well done. Didn't mean to be pushy, I just really think that my stats for the weapon would work much better.
It's quite alright. I asked for critiques and suggestions, and I expected them. Not only does it expose me to different ideas and tell me what people are looking for, it allows me (like in this case) to better explain what I was thinking when I made the choices I did.
When the Psion class finally comes out, I've heard it will be controller. However, at the moment, all I have to work with are PHB classes, and when you really look at how you would go about imagining a character that used their mind to hinder and befuddle their foes with psychic powers, the Warlock seems to me to be a much better fit.
Hope that clears thing up.
Probably too early to tell, but do you think the Sorcerer, when its released in PHB II, might make a better stand in for the Psion? Or maybe even a Wilder?
Probably too early to tell, but do you think the Sorcerer, when its released in PHB II, might make a better stand in for the Psion? Or maybe even a Wilder?
Last I heard, the Psion was going to be in the PHB II. Did it not end up that way?
Last I heard, the Psion was going to be in the PHB II. Did it not end up that way?
All the hints that they've been dropping (giving out the first letters of all the included classes), and the fact that the PHB II cover says "Divine, Arcane, and Primal Heroes" would seem to suggest that, unfortunately, no, the psion didn't make it into PHB II.
Heavy thrown weapons, according to the rules, also have lower accuracy to compensate for the higher damage dice.
Good point. The chatkacha I stated should have a proficiency bonus of +2 instead of +3.
If this really strains "believability (even more than the idea of humanoid praying mantis people with psychic powers) I think the simpler solution would simply to change the fluff and make Chatchka smaller.
Meh. I would prefer stats that better reflect its stats in prior edition. Even in 3e it was a 1d6 weapon. I think it should still be stated as a 1d6 weapon.
When it comes to multiple attacks, all Thri-Kreen have the Thri-Kreen Assault racial power, which means any Thri-Kreen character of any class is able to attack with multiple Chatchka. Also, it's the Ranger class that grants all the powers that allow a character to make multiple attacks with ranged weapons, not the Rogue. The Rogue actually has no powers that allow it to make multiple attacks with ranged weapons.
Yes, but that requires throwing multiple chatkacha with multiple limbs. And, while the ranger class power does grant the ability to make multiple attacks with ranged weapons, its abilities are equally useful with light and heavy thrown weapons... so long as the weapon is of the "ranged" category. I was actually talking about such rogue weapon powers such as blinding barrage, which can only be used with light thrown weapons. I don't think that it makes sense, from a fluff point of view, for these powers to be usable with the chatkacha.
Anyways, I still think a 1d6 chatkacha is in order. But you are right, its attack bonus for weapon proficiency should only be stated as +2 instead of +3.
P.S. Please note, despite your thri-kreen hunter feat, the chatkacha will still be the prefered weapon of the rogue (and not the ranger). Its a light blade, is usable with rogue weapon powers, is a sherukin and thus does 1d6 damage in the hands of the rogue, who will be able to toss fistfuls of them in order to pull off maneuvers like blinding barrage, and the thri-kreen rogue can still take kreen hunter and thus get 1d6+2 damage (instead of 1d4+2 damage) with its chatkacha. Thri-kreen rangers, mechanically, will still benefit more from something like a bow. Thats a problem considering these are supposed to be the most popular weapons of their hunters (read: usually of the ranger class). I think a 1d6 +2 heavy thrown weapon would be much more comparable, and appealing to such characters, when it is compared with the combat capabilities of the bow.
Last I heard, the Psion was going to be in the PHB II. Did it not end up that way?
Psionics was slated for PHB II, but they held it back because they needed more work. We are getting the Primal power source instead. But that means druids and barbarians, so that still might be cool.
I'm toying with the idea of assining different materials enhancement bonuses. For instance, Obsidian would be +1, Bronze +2, Iron +3, Steel +4.
Any ideas on how you'd price that?
Good point. The chatkacha I stated should have a proficiency bonus of +2 instead of +3...
Anyways, I still think a 1d6 chatkacha is in order. But you are right, its attack bonus for weapon proficiency should only be stated as +2 instead of +3...
Thri-kreen rangers, mechanically, will still benefit more from something like a bow. Thats a problem considering these are supposed to be the most popular weapons of their hunters (read: usually of the ranger class). I think a 1d6 +2 heavy thrown weapon would be much more comparable, and appealing to such characters, when it is compared with the combat capabilities of the bow.
With your 1d6+2 weapon with a +2 proficiency bonus, Thri-kreen are still better off with the longbow. This version of the Chatchka not only deals less damage than a longbow, but has the same accuracy.
By using the stats of the Shuriken, one can at least justify the lower damage with the greater proficiency bonus (+3 instead of +2).
Yes, but that requires throwing multiple chatkacha with multiple limbs. And, while the ranger class power does grant the ability to make multiple attacks with ranged weapons, its abilities are equally useful with light and heavy thrown weapons... so long as the weapon is of the "ranged" category.
I don't see an issue here.
I was actually talking about such rogue weapon powers such as blinding barrage, which can only be used with light thrown weapons. I don't think that it makes sense, from a fluff point of view, for these powers to be usable with the chatkacha.
As far as which weapons could be use to create a "blinding barrage of projectiles" which " leaves your enemies clearing the blood from their eyes.", I don't think Crossbows or Slings are any more suited to the task than a Chatchka. It's not the only potential offender here. Reflavoring the power or the size of the weapon should help clear it up if it's really that impossible to swallow.
Meh. I would prefer stats that better reflect its stats in prior edition. Even in 3e it was a 1d6 weapon. I think it should still be stated as a 1d6 weapon.
However, doing so causes many issues. It's not like weapon damage dice haven't changed throughout the editions. I'm balancing it against material in 4th edition, not material across editions, and it should take into account how this particular edition plays, rather than what may have been expected in others.
Any ideas on how you'd price that?
There wouldn't be any need. Essentially I would be changing the fluff. Instead of getting +2 bonus to hit and damage by virtue of being magical, weapons would get a +2 bonus for being made of bronze. If you really wanted to make the weapon "feel magical", you would go with one of the more dynamic effects, not the static hit/damage bonuses.
With your 1d6+2 weapon with a +2 proficiency bonus, Thri-kreen are still better off with the longbow. This version of the Chatchka not only deals less damage than a longbow, but has the same accuracy.
Ah, but thats not true. The Chatchka would be usable as both a melee or thrown weapon, which the longbow is not. Also, the weapon is offhand, and can be thrown with one hand... with the use of a feat that can up damage with the chatkacha by +1 (at least in melee), and some ranger weapon powers will actually allow a chatkacha character to both make a melee and ranged attack in one round (which they could not with a bow). Also, with the kreen-hunter feat, damage becomes more than comparable. 1d6+2 comes out to very similar damage to 1d8. Of course, weapon powers of more than 2[w] will still add more damage, but between the melee/ranged capability of the weapon, and its status as both a light blade and heavy thrown weapon, the Chatchka will be far more comparable.
I don't see an issue here.
There was no issue... I was pointing that out to put something else into context.
As far as which weapons could be use to create a "blinding barrage of projectiles" which " leaves your enemies clearing the blood from their eyes.", I don't think Crossbows or Slings are any more suited to the task than a Chatchka. It's not the only potential offender here. Reflavoring the power or the size of the weapon should help clear it up if it's really that impossible to swallow.
Fair enough...
However, doing so causes many issues. It's not like weapon damage dice haven't changed throughout the editions. I'm balancing it against material in 4th edition, not material across editions, and it should take into account how this particular edition plays, rather than what may have been expected in others.
Yes, but some things are balanced across editions. Look at daggers... pretty much 1d4 (or something close) in all editions. And, the 1d6 heavy thrown version of the weapon I posted doesn't cause "many issues," its pretty much balanced ala all other superior weapons in comparison to the weapon they are a superior of.
Anyways, I guess (if you still don't agree with me) we can just use our divergent weapon stats. Come the official release of the setting (which I am sure we are both crossing our fingers for, and hoping will come 2010) we will see whose vision is closer to offical. ;) :P
Anyways, nice work all in all! I will definitely be stealing some of it for my version of Dark Sun pre-official release.
Ah, but thats not true. The Chatchka would be usable as both a melee or thrown weapon, which the longbow is not. Also, the weapon is offhand, and can be thrown with one hand... with the use of a feat that can up damage with the chatkacha by +1 (at least in melee), and some ranger weapon powers will actually allow a chatkacha character to both make a melee and ranged attack in one round (which they could not with a bow). Also, with the kreen-hunter feat, damage becomes more than comparable. 1d6+2 comes out to very similar damage to 1d8. Of course, weapon powers of more than 2[w] will still add more damage, but between the melee/ranged capability of the weapon, and its status as both a light blade and heavy thrown weapon, the Chatchka will be far more comparable.
If it's both a melee and a thrown weapon, it's essentially a Handaxe.
Yes, but some things are balanced across editions. Look at daggers... pretty much 1d4 (or something close) in all editions. And, the 1d6 heavy thrown version of the weapon I posted doesn't cause "many issues," its pretty much balanced ala all other superior weapons in comparison to the weapon they are a superior of.
Daggers stayed the same because their combination of damage, weapon traits, classes, and feats made them useful in 4E, not 3E or 2E. It just happened to be 1d4.
Your newest version is balanced, but unfortunately, is also virtually mechanically to the Handaxe. Going with the Shuriken would still leave it balanced plus, have the added benefit of being mechanically distinct. Indeed, part of the reason why I just went with the Shuriken is because it was extremely difficult to come up with a mechanically distinct design without making it overpowered without introducing an entirely new set of mechanics just for it.
Also, after looking back through my Dark sun books, I've learned that the Chatchka is indeed a fairly small weapon, coming in at just 1/2 lbs, which makes it pretty much the same size as a 4e Shuriken.
If it's both a melee and a thrown weapon, it's essentially a Handaxe.
Daggers stayed the same because their combination of damage, weapon traits, classes, and feats made them useful in 4E, not 3E or 2E. It just happened to be 1d4.
Your newest version is balanced, but unfortunately, is also virtually mechanically to the Handaxe. Going with the Shuriken would still leave it balanced plus, have the added benefit of being mechanically distinct. Indeed, part of the reason why I just went with the Shuriken is because it was extremely difficult to come up with a mechanically distinct design without making it overpowered without introducing an entirely new set of mechanics just for it.
Also, after looking back through my Dark sun books, I've learned that the Chatchka is indeed a fairly small weapon, coming in at just 1/2 lbs, which makes it pretty much the same size as a 4e Shuriken.
Daggers were useful in 2nd ed if you wanted to interrupt a spellcaster if you were using casting times or if you wanted to chew through a stoneskin spel. Best weapon in 2nd ed was the dart- for fighters anyway.
I would create a inferior material rule and ust give weapons minus 1 to it and damage or enven just th damage.-2 or greater is really severe in 4th ed as a penalty as it didn't matter as much in previous editions. I would probably make wood/bone/bronze or whatever just have -1 damage. If you penalise weapons to much why woudn't you just play a wisdom based Cleric or Warlock (psion?) instead as you won't have to suck up a penalty to hit with your attacks.
Spelcaster types in 4th ed are (surprise) still more powerful than melee characters due to the stun effects they have and rituals.
If it's both a melee and a thrown weapon, it's essentially a Handaxe.
Daggers stayed the same because their combination of damage, weapon traits, classes, and feats made them useful in 4E, not 3E or 2E. It just happened to be 1d4.
Your newest version is balanced, but unfortunately, is also virtually mechanically to the Handaxe. Going with the Shuriken would still leave it balanced plus, have the added benefit of being mechanically distinct. Indeed, part of the reason why I just went with the Shuriken is because it was extremely difficult to come up with a mechanically distinct design without making it overpowered without introducing an entirely new set of mechanics just for it.
Also, after looking back through my Dark sun books, I've learned that the Chatchka is indeed a fairly small weapon, coming in at just 1/2 lbs, which makes it pretty much the same size as a 4e Shuriken.
The sherukin is as close/"mechanically identical" to a dagger as my chatkacha is to a handaxe. Basically, its a superior version of the dagger. My chatkacha is a superior version of the throwing axe, but flavored as more of a "throwing short sword" style weapon.
Anyways, we can agree to disagree. I guess we will have to see what the developers think it is best stated as once Dark Sun 4e is released.
The sherukin is as close/"mechanically identical" to a dagger as my chatkacha is to a handaxe. Basically, its a superior version of the dagger. My chatkacha is a superior version of the throwing axe, but flavored as more of a "throwing short sword" style weapon.
Let's compare the stats side by side...
Name: Handaxe
Prof: +2
Dmg: 1d6
Range: 5/10
Price: 5 gp
Weight: 3 lb
Group: Light blade (melee)
Prop: Off-hand, heavy thrown
Name: Chatkacha
Prof: +2
Dmg: 1d6
Range: 6/12
Price: 1 gp
Weight: 3 lb
Group: Light blade (melee)
Prop: Off-hand, heavy thrown, returning*
Differences
- 1 square increase in base range
- Light Blade category
- Returning property - Although any thrown weapon with an enhancement bonus automatically returns on a miss or a hit, so the mechanical uniqueness of this property is debatable.
Now look at how the Dagger compares to the Shuriken/Chatkcha.
Name: Dagger
Prof: +2
Dmg: 1d4
Range: 5/10
Price: 1 gp
Weight: 1 lb
Group: Light blade (melee)
Prop: Off-hand, light thrown
Name: Shuriken/Chatkcha
Prof: +3
Dmg: 1d4
Range: 6/12
Price: 1 gp
Weight: 1/2 lb
Group: Light blade (ranged)
Prop: Light Thrown
- 1 square increase in range
- +1 greater proficiency bonus
- Cannot be used in melee
- Cannot be wielded in the offhand
Not only are there greater number of differences, but the differences are more significant in how they affect play style and tactics, mostly by being more accurate, not being able to be used in melee, and not being able to be wielded in multiple hands by anyone other than a Thri-Kreen.
Anyways, we can agree to disagree. I guess we will have to see what the developers think it is best stated as once Dark Sun 4e is released.
I suppose so. Until the developers make their choice, though, I will have make one for the sake of this particular conversion.
I would create a inferior material rule and ust give weapons minus 1 to it and damage or enven just th damage.-2 or greater is really severe in 4th ed as a penalty as it didn't matter as much in previous editions. I would probably make wood/bone/bronze or whatever just have -1 damage. If you penalise weapons to much why woudn't you just play a wisdom based Cleric or Warlock (psion?) instead as you won't have to suck up a penalty to hit with your attacks.
I won't be going with the inferior weapons penalty rules. As stated before, I'm doing the opposite. The base weapons stats assume the most inferior materials. Enhancement bonuses, which are normally the result of magical bonuses, are instead representative of superior materials.
This way it remains established that a steel sword is better than a stone one, keeps the game balanced with minimal fuss, and stays with the "bonuses, not penalties" philosophy of 4E design.
I won't be going with the inferior weapons penalty rules. As stated before, I'm doing the opposite. The base weapons stats assume the most inferior materials. Enhancement bonuses, which are normally the result of magical bonuses, are instead representative of superior materials.
This way it remains established that a steel sword is better than a stone one, keeps the game balanced with minimal fuss, and stays with the "bonuses, not penalties" philosophy of 4E design.
Not a bad idea.
There doesn't seem to be superior materials anymore in 4e, but we could make some. They would work just like magic items, except they don't require a ritual to create.
Bronze, iron, and steel weapons would all have bonuses. Dasl too?
Dragon just recently released theCharacters of War article, which features lots of backgrounds. For example, if your character wants to be a member of the Merchant Houses, I would suggest Merchant Prince, which grants an additional language, Insight as a class skill, and a bonus to insight checks. Also included are former Gladiator, Political Rebel, Barbarian, and others. The magical ones can be easily converted to use Psionics.
Most importantly, a few backgrounds allow you to craft items, obviating any need for me to create a new crafting system.
Enjoy!