1997: Wizards of the Coast buys TSR
1999: Hasbro buys Wizards of the Coast
2010: Hasbro nerfs Dark Sun.
Apparently, 20 year old Athasian ale sobers you right up.
... alright, for those not sober yet ... CRUNCH TIME!
Mantids are now Prawns
Half-Giants are now Goliaths
Dray (rare NPC) are now Dragonborn (PC)
Non-metal Weapons are now, functionally, Metal Weapons ... (eau de nerf)
Another thing also, instead of needing practice and determination (i.e. skill) to NOT defile ... Defiling will be an optional pick-me-up for all those down-on-their-luck preservers. Fluff be darned ( ha! get it ... ).
That puts the nerf-dart hit count up to:
5 ... January 16, 2010
5 ... February 18, 2010 (+1 wild talents placed on endangered species list, -1 gladiators go vocational)
5 ... March 20, 2010
6 ... April 20, 2010 (+1 rescaled map ... means more city to explore?)
6 ... May 21, 2010
Let me know if I've missed any or if any are no longer nerfd. I'll try to update this every-month through publication in August /ohten/ ... So check back to find out how many nerf-darts have hit their target. Oh, and look behind you.
Mantids are now Prawns
Not sure what the complaint is here. Is it visual or the fact that the secondary arms have been delegated to an actual secondary status?
If it is visual, they went from this:
to this:
Not a big deal for me for the simple reason that they are just pictures. No reason you can not use one or the other. Just because the images have changed over the years does not affect how they are used. For me, I prefer the newer ones because they remind me of the John Carter of Mars guys, but that is just me.
If it is the secondary arms thing -shrug- again, not that much of a deal-breaker for me. I want a playable race that is not going to over-shadow others so if it means some nerfing in order to get that so be it. Some people want to be able two wield to great swords or some such nonsense. The race can still retain its alien-ness without allowing for this. Weaker secondary arms allow for this.
Half-Giants are now Goliaths
This has not actually been confirmed although is the most likely route at this point. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this if they do choose to do so, but I was never really a fan of the older half-giant race.
Dray (rare NPC) are now Dragonborn (PC)
Yup. Good use of adapting to the new edition.
Non-metal Weapons are now, functionally, Metal Weapons ... (eau de nerf)
I really like this idea as it makes it very worth-while to continue using bone and obsidian weapons. Those are the kind of things that really fit the flavour of Athas for me.
Another thing also, instead of needing practice and determination (i.e. skill) to NOT defile ... Defiling will be an optional pick-me-up for all those down-on-their-luck preservers. Fluff be darned ( ha! get it ... ).
Most of the downside to defiling in 2E came down to role-playing. This is fine for some groups but many ended up ignoring it for the most part. I like that now you can do it but with a cost of damaging your allies. This has much more potential in my eyes.
Again, though, there has been nothing concrete so this is all just speculation at this point.
The fluff from the novels allowed the preservers to defile the landscape around them. I remember a Dragon article in the early 90s providing rules for it as well.
If you want powerful races, with multiple attacks, extra reach, etc... start you games in Paragon tier (level 11). You'll find that all those nerf-less races suddenly have all the powers they use to have. You still have 20 levels to advance.
The fluff from the novels allowed the preservers to defile the landscape around them. I remember a Dragon article in the early 90s providing rules for it as well.
Then you're arguing that the nerf is actually "Defilers are now Preservers with questionable morality" ? ... but let me quote the old rules to confirm this fluffy-nerf as concisely as possible:
"The preserver learns to tap magical energies in such a way as to minimize or even cancel his destruction through balance and in-depth study, but his progress as a wizard is very slow."~DarkSun Boxed Set: Rules Book; Wizard, pg. 26
"The preserver learns to tap - rather than destroy - magical energies so as to minimize or even cancel the destruction of life. He uses magic in concert with the environment, doing so by balancing his quest for power with in-depth study, which requires that his level advancement proceed slowly." ~DarkSun Campaign Setting - Expanded and Revised: The Age of Heroes: Rules for Conquering the Savage Land; Wizard Class, pg. 26
"The preserver learns to tap - rather than destroy - magical energies so as to minimize or even cancel the destruction of life. He uses magic in concert with the environment, doing so by balancing his quest for power with in-depth study, which requires that his level advancement proceed slowly." ~DarkSun Campaign Setting - Expanded and Revised: The Age of Heroes: Rules for Conquering the Savage Land; Wizard Class, pg. 26
I really don't care if you think its a nerf or not. But I wanted to point out that what you are taking to task has been in Dark Sun since the early days. If you can get access to it, Dragon 202 is the article that contains said rules (written by Baker) about switching between the two different types of wizards.
*takes a look in the mirror* TROLL!
Anyway, it's a change to one of the fundamentals of DS ... which is that the wizard class is split in two factions ... and this blurs the line. The letter-and-spirit of the rules of Dark Sun are up in the air right now.
Eagerly awaiting more information ... next month, then.
Eagerly awaiting more information ... next month, then.
Well, we can agree on this one thing.
I still wonder if they are going to include the expanded area with the 2nd core box set or just keep the area of the original.
Eagerly awaiting more information ... next month, then.
Well, we can agree on this one thing.
I still wonder if they are going to include the expanded area with the 2nd core box set or just keep the area of the original.
As far as I understand it, it's going to be the region presented in the original 1991 DS Boxed Set and not the expanded.
Now those of you that are complaining about nerfs...
...are you kidding me? It's an entirely new edition of D&D. In case you haven't noticed, the rules of 2e and 4e are vastly different from each other. In fact, 4th Edition has no similarity to 2e save for rolling dice to find your results. So because of this fact it is my opinion that nothing has been "nerfed" at all for Dark Sun up to this point. Now if they release the Campaign Guide, then change something to reduce it's affect in the Errata...well then that's a "nerf" by ever definition of the word. So don't get your panties in a twist just yet. Wait till you see all the rules and how they're applied together when they come out in August. Then go ahead a bitch about it at that time while continuing to play DS4e.
Really, seems like you'd prefer to play 2nd Edition...so go do that.
And quit snarking pointlessly on the internets about a reboot for 4th Edition because OH NOES! THEY CHANGED STUFF AND IT ISN'T EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE!
Because that's the point.
Seriously. No one's stopping you from playing 2nd Edition if you'd prefer. WotC isn't going to send armed men in SWAT gear to your house and force you to play 4th Edition at the point of a semi-automatic. The zombie-ghost of TSR isn't going to rise from its grave and devour your flesh and soul for betraying its memory. Really!
It's ok. You'll be alright. You can play 2nd Edition. Go ahead. Crack open the 2nd Edition PHB. Shh..shhh...don't cry. Go on now. You have your fun, and we'll have ours.
Half-giants as Goliaths: so? And? Problem is? Nothing.
My bugs have smaller arms: riiiiight...un-munchkining them is complete nerfage *cough*
Bone/Obsidian break rules: bad rules. Never used them. No group I played with ever did.
Defiling/preserving split: a blurred line was always supported in the fiction and rules. Yes, multiple fiction sources. The split existed in 2nd Edition because of the rules of D&D at that point in time, not because of the world.
I have to add that the thrikreen and half giant provided alot of problems in actual play.The half giant with his size(most dungeouns he couldnt even fit in)and the fact that thrikreen would attack his teammates if he thought he was stronger(I know this is mostly role playing but if your playing a thrikreen like a thrikreen its a strong possibility).
Uhh, from all examples I've seen, and the rules I've read, Thri-kreen have little issue making other races "clutch-mates". Can you give an example?
I have to add that the thrikreen and half giant provided alot of problems in actual play.The half giant with his size(most dungeouns he couldnt even fit in)and the fact that thrikreen would attack his teammates if he thought he was stronger(I know this is mostly role playing but if your playing a thrikreen like a thrikreen its a strong possibility).
Uhh, from all examples I've seen, and the rules I've read, Thri-kreen have little issue making other races "clutch-mates". Can you give an example?
Any time they see weakness in the pact leader they will challenge them for control. Now this doesnt mean they will kill them but this will cause alot of problem in the party(thrikreen were one of the strongest DS races in the first place).This very thing happened on the first and last adventure I ran for DS 2nd ed.My players were a halfgiant fighter,a mul gladiator,and a thrikreen ranger.It was the starter adventure in the box set.The halfgiant died as the dungeoun collapsed and the mul and the thrikreen went at it.If you read their race writeup,they dont have problems with other races in their clutch but if they sense a chance for leadership they will challenge the leader by combat.
This is as goofy as the "Athas can have dwarven wizards now? OMG! BLARGH!" panties-twisting that accompanied the 3rd edition rule changes. But nice attempt to sneak an edition war in through the back-door!
Really, seems like you'd prefer to play 2nd Edition...so go do that.
And quit snarking pointlessly on the internets about a reboot for 4th Edition because OH NOES! THEY CHANGED STUFF AND IT ISN'T EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE!
Because that's the point.
Seriously. No one's stopping you from playing 2nd Edition if you'd prefer. WotC isn't going to send armed men in SWAT gear to your house and force you to play 4th Edition at the point of a semi-automatic. The zombie-ghost of TSR isn't going to rise from its grave and devour your flesh and soul for betraying its memory. Really!
It's ok. You'll be alright. You can play 2nd Edition. Go ahead. Crack open the 2nd Edition PHB. Shh..shhh...don't cry. Go on now. You have your fun, and we'll have ours.
That's my opinion as well. I've adapted Dark Sun into some FUDGE games I've done as well. The rules system changed, so there were necessary changes to the Dark Sun mechanics. So far, what I've seen has made a lot of sense for 4E.
- Gladiator, wilder, elemental priest and templar are now all themes (wilder was a feature of the DS setting, the rest were full-fledged classes). While primarily a mechanical change, wilder is the big one here.
- Instead of all adventure level characters on Athas being wild talents, only those not already set to a theme. It could be argued that having the mutant X gene doesn't necessitate a career as a vigilante warrior in the revolution (see Bob), as this was a close parallel to how wild talents were described. However, not all NPCs weren't talents. The cure for the Tableland 2010, now on tour ... (X3 ... less mutants). Wild Talent is now a consolation prize for those not already with theme ... (+1)
- Gladiator is actually pure fix (unlike halfgiant and dray). While gladiators specialize and have a particular style different to those who spend their time and training in the free-world, it's not that different. These specialization are easily incorporated into a theme and now allows any enslaved character (who can survive) to become a gladiator when they become a gladiator ... spend a few levels in the arena and blamo! your artificer is a hardened gladiatorial veteran. this one is like politely handing your darts to the opposition ... (-1)
- Elemental Priest is a skin to cleric, which is pretty much how it's always been ... (±0)
- Templars are still pulling magic out of a hat ... (±0)
Veiled Alliance is a theme now? OK. But were does that leave defiling?
Net change = 0 ... still NERFED!
Nerfing is when an overpowered feature is toned down or removed to balance game play. It does not apply to fluff.
*Re Thri-Kreen: How dare WotC not allow Thri-Kreen to quad-wield in a system where your character has to be built and pushed to get more than two attacks in a turn. I mean, why should they replace a ridiculously overpowered with the exact same race that still gets to hold stuff in the other two arms but get the same amount of attacks as everyone else? OK, I'm gonna avoid sarcasm for the rest of this so it's a bit clearer.
*Re Half-Giants: What is the problem exactly? That they're medium sized? 4e bumped the tops on size categories a bit, and made them fuzzy. Show me where, under 4e's size standards, 10 feet is somehow not in the high end of Medium. Making Half-Giants large would actually nerf them because they would have to squeeze in lots of places, so they would be granting combat advantage a great deal of the time. A -6 penalty to attack rolls (-5 from squeezing, -1 from attacking smaller critters) for most of the time is just a bad idea. As for their fluid personalities: that's role, not roll, there's nothing stopping a player from doing that (especially with 4e's alignment).
*Re Dray: PC races are not necessarily common, they are just available. Just because Deva are a player race in standard doesn't mean there isn't more than a few hundred or so. Allowing players to play Dray is no more nerfing than allowing a player to play a half-orc with the race renamed "mutant."
*Re non-metal weapons: This is anti-nerfing - non-metal weapons are baseline, metal weapons are +1 or better! Anti-Nerf!
*Re defiling: This isn't against fluff. The Veiled Alliance sourcebook does mention that the VA tries to get younger defilers to quit, and it is anti-nerf that the repentant defilers don't have to completely remake their characters. This also provides a reason for why the preserver's study takes longer: he's not getting as much XP since he's not killing as much stuff since his attacks aren't as powerful.
From Defilers and Preservers - The Wizards of Athas: "Energy for spells and magical effects is drawn from living things... Preservers have learned to channel the energy from the plants they use in such a way as to do no lasting harm. The preservers are the sworn enemies of defilers, yet they face a personal battle as well. They must never give in to the temptation to become defilers themselves" (p.5) In other words, Preservers just are careful when they use defiling magic, defilers are not careful when they use preserving magic. "All Athasian wizards, defilers and preservers alike (with a few exceptions), power their spells with life energy." (p.6).
Furthermore, Rajaat invented and taught both preserving and defiling magic. It's the same magic, with only the difference of how power for it is gathered. They were only mechanically separate to begin with, turning it into an at-will available for all arcane characters is just more efficient. I mean, if you have two classes that are completely identical except that 1 happens to have an additional feature, it's just a better idea to go with 1 class with that feature being an option.
*Re wild talents: This is nerfing, but it makes sense more sense from a scientific standpoint - if everyone has evolved psychic attacks, anyone that doesn't evolve resistance to those attacks is going to be killed and won't be contributing to the gene pool. It's also possible in 4e to just take a multiclass feat for one of the psionic classes and say "oh, that's my wild talent," or to introduce stuff like themes and use that. Couldn't do that in 2nd, which is why they had to go with the whole "wild talents" thing. There's no reason to complain about improving on 2e's bad mechanics.
From the Original Boxed set, page 38: "In most cases, unimportant NPCs are assumed to have only a psionic defense mode." - By and large, most people just get by with "hey, Joe Schmoe's half level psionic ability won't affect me at all."
*Re Half-Giants: What is the problem exactly? That they're medium sized? 4e bumped the tops on size categories a bit, and made them fuzzy. Show me where, under 4e's size standards, 10 feet is somehow not in the high end of Medium. Making Half-Giants large would actually nerf them because they would have to squeeze in lots of places, so they would be granting combat advantage a great deal of the time. A -6 penalty to attack rolls (-5 from squeezing, -1 from attacking smaller critters) for most of the time is just a bad idea. As for their fluid personalities: that's role, not roll, there's nothing stopping a player from doing that (especially with 4e's alignment).
I don't like the Goliath as Half-Giant because many of the Goliath powers and fluff do not correspond to how the Half-Giants act in DS. Goliaths are creatures of the mountains, stone and rock. They are excellent climbers. They have excellent resistences. These things don't really fit the Half-Giant.
The medium size thingy: the biggest loss is in the mini. Players loved moving that 2x2 mini around and clobbering monsters. I mean really clobbering things - like Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride, The Thing from Fantastic Four, Conan the Barbarian or any Brute monster. If they can isolate that into a medium-sized race and class combination, I would LOVE it. So far, the Goliath is only okay in that role.
*Re defiling: This isn't against fluff. The Veiled Alliance sourcebook does mention that the VA tries to get younger defilers to quit, and it is anti-nerf that the repentant defilers don't have to completely remake their characters. This also provides a reason for why the preserver's study takes longer: he's not getting as much XP since he's not killing as much stuff since his attacks aren't as powerful.
The more I think about it, the more I love the defiling rules. This, and the new Templar rules (themes and goodbye Divine Power), are really what's going to make the greatest contribution to the setting and make people switch from 3rd to 4th edition.
These rules fit the fluff much better: they raise fewer questions which allows DMs to use them easier. With a couple of Paragon Paths, feats and Epic destinies, people will quit complaining and finally say "Yay!".
I don't like the Goliath as Half-Giant because many of the Goliath powers and fluff do not correspond to how the Half-Giants act in DS. Goliaths are creatures of the mountains, stone and rock. They are excellent climbers. They have excellent resistences. These things don't really fit the Half-Giant.
The medium size thingy: the biggest loss is in the mini. Players loved moving that 2x2 mini around and clobbering monsters. I mean really clobbering things - like Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride, The Thing from Fantastic Four, Conan the Barbarian or any Brute monster. If they can isolate that into a medium-sized race and class combination, I would LOVE it. So far, the Goliath is only okay in that role.
Using damage reduction based abilities to represent their toughness instead of granting additional HP works, especially since HP isn't random anymore. There's nothing to say that half-giants aren't good at climbing. Goliath Fluff is mutable, it can be completely ignored. Bringing it in is like bringing in the regular elf fluff when talking about the Dark Sun elf.
Also, the gladiator theme is going to grant a lot of martial controller stuff that works for clobbering. Since Goliaths get damage reduction and bonuses to strength and constitution, they make good martial characters.
nah, it's all good. what's next is always better than before because yesterday will never come. got it? no? "sarcasm + sarcasm = no" how bout now? anyway.
Half-Giants should be -2 INT ... though there is no true correlation between height and intelligence, despite what wikipedia says.
Also, I'm offended to the point of collusion (response with others) at Xlorps formating ability (see post #20) so I'll repost my previous (#21) to clobber your precious eyes with NERF darts:
Update: To clarify, NERF is fluffy. 2E to 4E is apples and pears mechanically ... similar, but the numbers have changed to protect the innocent, and their gold.
- Gladiator, wilder, elemental priest and templar are now all themes (wilder was a feature of the DS setting, the rest were full-fledged classes). While primarily a mechanical change, wilder is the big one here.
- Instead of all adventure level characters on Athas being wild talents, only those not already set to a theme. It could be argued that having the mutant X gene doesn't necessitate a career as a vigilante warrior in the revolution (see Bob), as this was a close parallel to how wild talents were described. However, not all NPCs weren't talents. The cure for the Tableland 2010, now on tour ... (X3 ... less mutants). Wild Talent is now a consolation prize for those not already with theme ... (+1)
- Gladiator is actually pure fix (unlike halfgiant and dray). While gladiators specialize and have a particular style different to those who spend their time and training in the free-world, it's not that different. These specialization are easily incorporated into a theme and now allows any enslaved character (who can survive) to become a gladiator when they become a gladiator ... spend a few levels in the arena and blamo! your artificer is a hardened gladiatorial veteran. this one is like politely handing your darts to the opposition ... (-1)
- Elemental Priest is a skin to cleric, which is pretty much how it's always been ... (±0)
- Templars are still pulling magic out of a hat ... (±0)
Veiled Alliance is a theme now? OK. But were does that leave defiling?
Net change = 0 ... still NERFED!
"ow"
"Nerfing"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nerfing is lessing the power of a game feature. Not making allowing a setting to come into full blossom in a new edition.
Giving Half-Giants a -2 penalty to Int is Nerfing, especially in 4e, where we don't do racial penalties. If you didn't already know that, I'm wondering how much you know about 4e, which you need to know about if you're gonna critique DS 4e.
What is new is not always better, but that does not invalidate all changes, especially changes to things that were only in place because 2nd edition is a limited and broken system.
Gladiator, Templar, Wilder, and Elemental Priest as an option available to multiple classes, especially the way 4e handles classes, is a good idea. Second edition couldn't handle that sort of thing, 4e can. There's no reason to complain that 4e is doing a better job at handling a setting than 2e.
I address individual points that are anything resembling valid in this post:
Nerfing is when an overpowered feature is toned down or removed to balance game play. It does not apply to fluff.*Re Thri-Kreen: How dare WotC not allow Thri-Kreen to quad-wield in a system where your character has to be built and pushed to get more than two attacks in a turn. I mean, why should they replace a ridiculously overpowered with the exact same race that still gets to hold stuff in the other two arms but get the same amount of attacks as everyone else? OK, I'm gonna avoid sarcasm for the rest of this so it's a bit clearer.
*Re Half-Giants: What is the problem exactly? That they're medium sized? 4e bumped the tops on size categories a bit, and made them fuzzy. Show me where, under 4e's size standards, 10 feet is somehow not in the high end of Medium. Making Half-Giants large would actually nerf them because they would have to squeeze in lots of places, so they would be granting combat advantage a great deal of the time. A -6 penalty to attack rolls (-5 from squeezing, -1 from attacking smaller critters) for most of the time is just a bad idea. As for their fluid personalities: that's role, not roll, there's nothing stopping a player from doing that (especially with 4e's alignment).
*Re Dray: PC races are not necessarily common, they are just available. Just because Deva are a player race in standard doesn't mean there isn't more than a few hundred or so. Allowing players to play Dray is no more nerfing than allowing a player to play a half-orc with the race renamed "mutant."
*Re non-metal weapons: This is anti-nerfing - non-metal weapons are baseline, metal weapons are +1 or better! Anti-Nerf!
*Re defiling: This isn't against fluff. The Veiled Alliance sourcebook does mention that the VA tries to get younger defilers to quit, and it is anti-nerf that the repentant defilers don't have to completely remake their characters. This also provides a reason for why the preserver's study takes longer: he's not getting as much XP since he's not killing as much stuff since his attacks aren't as powerful.
From Defilers and Preservers - The Wizards of Athas: "Energy for spells and magical effects is drawn from living things... Preservers have learned to channel the energy from the plants they use in such a way as to do no lasting harm. The preservers are the sworn enemies of defilers, yet they face a personal battle as well. They must never give in to the temptation to become defilers themselves" (p.5) In other words, Preservers just are careful when they use defiling magic, defilers are not careful when they use preserving magic. "All Athasian wizards, defilers and preservers alike (with a few exceptions), power their spells with life energy." (p.6).
Furthermore, Rajaat invented and taught both preserving and defiling magic. It's the same magic, with only the difference of how power for it is gathered. They were only mechanically separate to begin with, turning it into an at-will available for all arcane characters is just more efficient. I mean, if you have two classes that are completely identical except that 1 happens to have an additional feature, it's just a better idea to go with 1 class with that feature being an option.*Re wild talents: This is nerfing, but it makes sense more sense from a scientific standpoint - if everyone has evolved psychic attacks, anyone that doesn't evolve resistance to those attacks is going to be killed and won't be contributing to the gene pool. It's also possible in 4e to just take a multiclass feat for one of the psionic classes and say "oh, that's my wild talent," or to introduce stuff like themes and use that. Couldn't do that in 2nd, which is why they had to go with the whole "wild talents" thing. There's no reason to complain about improving on 2e's bad mechanics.
From the Original Boxed set, page 38: "In most cases, unimportant NPCs are assumed to have only a psionic defense mode." - By and large, most people just get by with "hey, Joe Schmoe's half level psionic ability won't affect me at all."
Giving Half-Giants a -2 penalty to Int is Nerfing, especially in 4e, where we don't do racial penalties. If you didn't already know that, I'm wondering how much you know about 4e, which you need to know about if you're gonna critique DS 4e.
Right. "should". I don't mention that, as a portion to the Goliath transmogrification which by all indications is going to take place, because I am familiar with $E ... 4e (shift-lock nonsense) ... and while it may be a function of the mechanic, it is hardly beyond reproach in understanding the realm as it has existed officially up until six months from now. To discount the nature and essence of a world and all its details simply because it proves mentally expediant in referencing the context in which we, as players, interact with that world, is as I will now posit: prefunctioning the numerical balance over the fictional imaginings for the lessening of the overall interactions derived.
In other words, you're all dumb. -2 INT goes to the big guy for immitating my repost.
To discount the nature and essence of a world and all its details simply because it proves mentally expediant in referencing the context in which we, as players, interact with that world, is as I will now posit: prefunctioning the numerical balance over the fictional imaginings for the lessening of the overall interactions derived.
Are you going to use any arguments that people didn't use when DS switched from 1st to 2nd edition and bemoaned it? The fact is, in an RPG, the fiction/setting/narrative ends up subservient to the mechanics*, not vice versa (which is why there were no halfling wizards in 1st Edition Dark Sun).
* when you are designing a world for a set of mechanics (instead of designing a set of mechanics for a world) as must happen when using established game systems like D&D or generic systems.
Giving Half-Giants a -2 penalty to Int is Nerfing, especially in 4e, where we don't do racial penalties. If you didn't already know that, I'm wondering how much you know about 4e, which you need to know about if you're gonna critique DS 4e.
Right. "should". I don't mention that, as a portion to the Goliath transmogrification which by all indications is going to take place, because I am familiar with $E ... 4e (shift-lock nonsense) ... and while it may be a function of the mechanic, it is hardly beyond reproach in understanding the realm as it has existed officially up until six months from now. To discount the nature and essence of a world and all its details simply because it proves mentally expediant in referencing the context in which we, as players, interact with that world, is as I will now posit: prefunctioning the numerical balance over the fictional imaginings for the lessening of the overall interactions derived.
In other words, you're all dumb. -2 INT goes to the big guy for immitating my repost.
If I'm so dumb, how come you haven't been able to respond to a single one of my points? I've responded to your's. Could it be that you're wrong, and have to result to name calling because you don't want to admit that you're just holding on to broken parts of the past so you have something to complain about?
The idea of half-giants not being the sharpest hammers in the crayon box is not contradicted, they don't get a bonus to Int, and their stats lend themselves to classes that don't require the player to put anything in Int. Only two melee-focused classes that use Int along with either Str and Con, and I'm going to ask you to guess them just to see how familiar you are with 4e.
As for the "$e" bit - Dark $un was originally released because they thought it would make money. Sure, they wanted to give something the players fun, just like the 4e team wanted to. That WotC makes money off 4e is a red herring, it does not pertain to the issue at hand.
Also, I'm an English major, I know how to spot someone trying to sound smart without really having jack squat to say. Be glad I have to leave the house later on today or I'd get out my liquor and make Hemingway look like a teetotaler pamplet writer while making Derrida seem straight forward.
To discount the nature and essence of a world and all its details simply because it proves mentally expediant in referencing the context in which we, as players, interact with that world, is as I will now posit: prefunctioning the numerical balance over the fictional imaginings for the lessening of the overall interactions derived.
I agree, Thomson, that does sound pedantic.
In other words, you're all dumb.
...and mean.
Also, I'm an English major, I know how to spot someone trying to sound smart without really having jack squat to say. Be glad I have to leave the house later on today or I'd get out my liquor and make Hemingway look like a teetotaler pamplet writer while making Derrida seem straight forward.
Keep in mind that he may be ESL, with the odd syntax and punctuation. I can't say I can agree with any of the points I've been able to extract from his text, but it may not be completely fair to pick apart his writing.
We're all dumb.
See you next month.
To do so again I think they have to...especialy since the 4th ed game is alot more player friendly than previous worlds.
So are they going to ruin Dark Sun like they did to the FR and to a certain extent Eberron by changing the setting to fit the rules...or are they going to change the rules to fit the setting?
I don't have any faith in WotC but I am littlwe bit interesting in what they do to Dark Sun...
The original first edition boxed set?
The second edition boxed set?
The Dragon magazine treatement?
All of which had siginifcant differences from one another.
My thing with 4th edition Dark Sun...is that previously back in 2nd edition to convey the feel of the world they changed the mechanics of game to cretain extent. It was suppose to be very leathal...thus the recommendation of the character tree.
To do so again I think they have to...especialy since the 4th ed game is alot more player friendly than previous worlds.
So are they going to ruin Dark Sun like they did to the FR and to a certain extent Eberron by changing the setting to fit the rules...or are they going to change the rules to fit the setting?
I don't have any faith in WotC but I am littlwe bit interesting in what they do to Dark Sun...
They've said they're gonna make the official adventures tougher than the normal ones. The world is gonna be deadly. Also, in terms of modifiers to rolls, stats are already comparable. Now by player friendliness, do you mean:
a) the game doesn't require hours of pointless paperwork
b) the players have an easier time killing stuff
If a), then yes, it is more player friendly, and that is a good thing.
If b), monsters got boosted too. A pack of kobolds is a right challenge for level 1 characters, a pack of goblins is a threat for the same party, and a pack of orcs is just raep. And the Dark Sun adventures that are going to be released are going to have tougher than average encounters by default (so yeah, where a normal level 2 adventure would put in 5 passing goblins, 4e Dark Sun would put 10 giths who have had time to set traps, stuff like that). If the players are having an easier time killing stuff, it's not the system, either the players are munchkins and the DM isn't (kinda how it is in my group), or the DM doesn't know what he is doing.
Also, while they tried to change 2e's rules to work with the world of Dark Sun, and 3e for Eberron, both of those settings were limited by some of the baggage both systems carried.
It will feel way tough. Your players, no wait, I was saying your dead players will have to come up with actual tactics this time.
Ah, but that's the problem with your complaint: which version of the Dark Sun setting are you talking about them "changing"?
The original first edition boxed set?
The second edition boxed set?
The Dragon magazine treatement?
All of which had siginifcant differences from one another.
Dark Sun was never a world in 1st edition D&D...never.
www.darksunwiki.com/darksun/index.php/Ma...
Just saying I am curious....I mean lets face it the 4th edition is very G rated in certain aspects at best PG. Dark sun is a very R rated world. I mean is slavery exist? I know most campaign setting stays away from this subject except for the most vile of places...but Dark Sun is a different veiw on it and is alot more common.
Also I very much disagree with you on how each version of Dark Sun different then the concepts 4th edition will force on to Dark Sun.
The second box set....mostly expanded on the world and tried to better deal with the silly percentile strength problem as the only actual rule adjustment that I recall.
The Dragon Magazine Article...was a couple of pages....I don't count that really...and nothing in it stood out as different from the orginal.
EFL and I was going for contrived. A half-giant with no INT modifier amongst other half-giants. The result of his surroundings.
We're all dumb.
See you next month.
Please do not feed the TROLL
thank you
Ah, but that's the problem with your complaint: which version of the Dark Sun setting are you talking about them "changing"?
The original first edition boxed set?
The second edition boxed set?
The Dragon magazine treatement?
All of which had siginifcant differences from one another.
Dark Sun was never a world in 1st edition D&D...never.
[...]
I'm pretty sure greyorm is talking here about the original first edition of the DS setting, not Dungeons & Dragons as an edition, as opposed to the ''revised'' DS setting, which is the second box.
The Dragon Magazine Article...was a couple of pages....I don't count that really...and nothing in it stood out as different from the orginal.
About the Magazine treatment, I personnaly think that it makes quite a difference because someone without any previous knowledge of the DS setting, which is only exposed to the pages found in the Dragon and Dungeon magazines, could not really get the feel of what the setting really is, because all the info is really diluted to fit into the page count.
The info is not wrong (most of it ;) ), but the impact is not the same on somebody without prior knowlegde of it: for exemple, the Dragon Magazine presentation of China Mieville's world, which I didn't knew at the moment, was at least as interesting to read than the DS article
In the two case, a setting was presented. The Dragon version could be all one has ever been exposed to about DS so it count in my opinion as something as different as the previous 2 boxed sets: in this case not by expanding or modifyning it but by diluting it somewhat.
PCs begging for an extended rest and water? Dragon take 'em.
Dark Sun was never a world in 1st edition D&D...never.
Hi, John is it?
I picked up the first boxed set for Dark Sun when it came out. I don't need a wiki entry to tell me anything about what was when or what was what, because I've been playing Dark Sun and been active in the community as long as both have existed. I've also been playing D&D since the time of the little red box, and the second printing of the 1st Edition AD&D books and have a literal wall of OD&D and 1st Edition AD&D products, and so am well aware of what was produced for what editions.
And, indeed, I am not talking about editions of AD&D, but the boxed set editions of the Dark Sun campaign setting, which are properly referred to as the "first" and "second" edition, a distinction you may also have noticed used on the Wikipedia entry for the setting ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Sun#Source_ma... ) as well as often around these boards.
Regardless, there were, in fact, rule changes between the first and second edition boxed sets significant enough that many of them were groused about on the mailing list, as well as here on these boards later, because they altered until-then fundamental aspects of the setting. Not the least of which were the changes to the spell memorization/casting rules. As well as a number of extreme setting alterations (Rajaat, the Cerulean Storm, dead SKs, loss of the Dragon, and etc).
There were similarly significant rule changes for the Dragon magazine treatment, as well as the porting of DS over to 3rd Edition; many of which, again, were groused about at length here on these boards. Specifically I recall complaints about halfling and dwarf wizards, and paladins in DS, etc. and how it all ruined the setting and inalterably changed it.
Hence my bemused question above: which edition of the setting are you saying it will be so incredibly different from? And the reason I ask that is out of an amusement at complaints about differences, for what I hope is an obvious reason.
Really, your concerns are nothing we haven't seen before in the last twenty years of this setting's existence, and are overwrought given that history and the numerous changes between sets and editions, which you seem to believe are more extreme now than any changes in the past, and yet having lived through those changes, not really.
Because I can tell you that the differences between the first and second edition sets were so vast I spent numerous pages and digital ink here complaining about it. Ask any of the old timers on these boards about the rows that were had about those changes, and again when the Dragon articles came out.
I've also been playing D&D since the time of the little red box
Did you know they're remaking the Little Red Box? Check out Dragon 384, page 85, for a description of it and the philosophy behind the new 'Dungeons and Dragons Essentials' line of products.
Really, your concerns are nothing we haven't seen before in the last twenty years of this setting's existence, and are overwrought given that history and the numerous changes between sets and editions, which you seem to believe are more extreme now than any changes in the past, and yet having lived through those changes, not really.
Because I can tell you that the differences between the first and second edition sets were so vast I spent numerous pages and digital ink here complaining about it. Ask any of the old timers on these boards about the rows that were had about those changes, and again when the Dragon articles came out.
Um....where is the 'overwought concerns' anywhere in my posts? I called it mildly interesting in how they will adjust Dark Sun to fit into with everything is core' philosphy of what 4th edition is.
Personaly having bone and obsidian weapons be exactly like stell weapons is a major changer in the political climate of Dark Sun...if you remember the strength of Tyr lied in the fact it has a extensive steel syply. If there is no supporting game mechanic....is it there?
Having preservers and defilers work the same is not a major problem for me. But the benefits of Defiling magic should be noticeable or you betray the feel of setting which in 4th edition where evrything must be balanced.
Templars...are different from 4th ed clerics in that their gods(The sorcerer Kings) are on the planet. In 4th ed Clerics pretty much have at best a distant relationship with their deitys...personaly I would just keep them in the NPC section and not allow them for PCs use.
The rules for 4th edition that deals with PCs being anything other 'Heroic Adventures' are non-existant...yet a very important PC class was the merchants class(one of best supplements put out for DS by the way.)....how are they going deal with that is of interest.
I have been playing D&D since the basic Blue book...though I'll admit I never to actualy got to play in the Dark Sun World at all(have all the books though)... I was the only one interested in my then playing group
. It is funny though it will take 4th edition to give me that shot...which is why I do have a mild interest in what they do with it. They seem to be have the very strong habit of fitting the setting to the system...instead of what I would like to see them do which is fit the system to the setting.Anyway I atleast hope that it is everything we hope for. But really it is a very much a mild interest...I am not loosing sleep over it or anything. You really have to relax you know. ;)
Personaly having bone and obsidian weapons be exactly like stell weapons is a major changer in the political climate of Dark Sun...if you remember the strength of Tyr lied in the fact it has a extensive steel syply. If there is no supporting game mechanic....is it there?
Your comment only makes sense if you want your poor material weapons to grant penalties. Otherwise, poor material weapons are now base weapons (what in other settings are weapons made of steel, iron, etc), and superior material weapons like steel, drake ivory, or dwarven steel are now weapons that will grant bonuses as if they were magic weapons...without being magical.
Instead of having -1/-1 upgradable to +0/+0, we now have +0/+0 upgradable to +1/+1 or +2/+2 ...
Personaly having bone and obsidian weapons be exactly like stell weapons is a major changer in the political climate of Dark Sun...if you remember the strength of Tyr lied in the fact it has a extensive steel syply. If there is no supporting game mechanic....is it there?
Your comment only makes sense if you want your poor material weapons to grant penalties. Otherwise, poor material weapons are now base weapons (what in other settings are weapons made of steel, iron, etc), and superior material weapons like steel, drake ivory, or dwarven steel are now weapons that will grant bonuses as if they were magic weapons...without being magical.
Instead of having -1/-1 upgradable to +0/+0, we now have +0/+0 upgradable to +1/+1 or +2/+2 ...
Not a actual comment really all I am wondering is what they are going to do. But if they do that(and yes I don't consider anything they say to be fact till I see it in print) It would mean that the basis is changed from standard core. Which I don't think is a bad thing. The above is a perfectly acceptable alteration for Dark Sun.
But that does mean that it is not compatable with the rest of the core game. Which seems to me atleast a change of philosphy. Also rules for sub-material weapons and armor would not be a bad thing for the game...As I said I found it interesting in what they do.
The rules for 4th edition that deals with PCs being anything other 'Heroic Adventures' are non-existant...yet a very important PC class was the merchants class(one of best supplements put out for DS by the way.)....how are they going deal with that is of interest.
Your post sounded very pessimistic about the upcoming 4e DS setting, somthing along the lines of not having any faith in WotC. But I think there is a lot of value added to the Dark Sun setting by using the 4e rule set and you're missing it.
For example, the merchant class. No, there is no 'merchant' class per se, but I don't doubt it wouldn't be difficult to make a merchant theme. Themes are a new 4e concept, designed explicitly for Dark Sun (so... is the Dark Sun setting catering to 4e rules, or vice verse here?). Take a fighter-merchant who specializes in running slave harvesting raids and then uses his/her trading skills to find potential markets or smuggle them out of the Tyr region.
Or take the skill challenges rules, another concept introduced in 4e that would suit merchant campaigns very well: take hard look at the design principles of skill challenges and you'll realize that bartering, negotiation, travel through the desert, crafting, etc... all of these can be put into skill challenges that cater well to fun roll-playing AND role-playing. I'm actually looking forward to designing session-long skill challenges where players need to negotiate the deadly dessert wastelands. A failed skill role results in an encounter/challenge (combat, terrain, mini-skill challenge, intelligent being encounter, etc...).
The rules for 4th edition that deals with PCs being anything other 'Heroic Adventures' are non-existant...yet a very important PC class was the merchants class(one of best supplements put out for DS by the way.)....how are they going deal with that is of interest.
Your post sounded very pessimistic about the upcoming 4e DS setting, somthing along the lines of not having any faith in WotC. But I think there is a lot of value added to the Dark Sun setting by using the 4e rule set and you're missing it.
For example, the merchant class. No, there is no 'merchant' class per se, but I don't doubt it wouldn't be difficult to make a merchant theme. Themes are a new 4e concept, designed explicitly for Dark Sun (so... is the Dark Sun setting catering to 4e rules, or vice verse here?). Take a fighter-merchant who specializes in running slave harvesting raids and then uses his/her trading skills to find potential markets or smuggle them out of the Tyr region.
Or take the skill challenges rules, another concept introduced in 4e that would suit merchant campaigns very well: take hard look at the design principles of skill challenges and you'll realize that bartering, negotiation, travel through the desert, crafting, etc... all of these can be put into skill challenges that cater well to fun roll-playing AND role-playing. I'm actually looking forward to designing session-long skill challenges where players need to negotiate the deadly dessert wastelands. A failed skill role results in an encounter/challenge (combat, terrain, mini-skill challenge, intelligent being encounter, etc...).
I'll feely admit I am not a fanatic of 4th edition. But I like looking at RPG design philospheys even if I don't agree with them. It is system I find very limited to my style of play...not saying it is a bad system. For me I like the 3.5 rules.
2 points though...
1) Themes actualy do interst me as they are probably a test bed for concepts for 5th edition. And like hybrid class might make me like 4th ed a little bit more. Still going to with hold judgement till I see them...I see a merchant class in 4 th a bit harder to pull of though since the system requires that wealth be more carefuly watched. Just my opinion mind you...and I am interesting in seeing what they do.
2) Skill Challenges is not something new in way shape or form to RPGs or even D&D. To say it was introduced to D&D is laughable. Shadow run...most White Wolf games...heck any game that has skills have skill challenges. As I said I have made it a hobby to study RPG designed maybe that is why I am not impressed by 4th edition. Personaly I had skill challenges in 3.5 that because of a more in depth skill system are alot more flexable for both me as a DM and my players. Skill challenges in 4th edition are a good idea...but not very new.
A merchant class would be dead easy to pull off: Wealth is relative. As a merchant gains more wealth (by trading?), they go up in equivalent level. A character at level 1 with a +5 Vorpal sword does not fight challenges at level 1... these are all concepts described in the DMG.
Skill Challenges didn't exist in publication before 4e. Skills existed... but 4th edition wrote more formal rules to describe a challenge appropriate for a party to work together to complete. Anyways, you're missing the point...
Test bed for 5th edition? Argh...
A merchant class would be dead easy to pull off: Wealth is relative. As a merchant gains more wealth (by trading?), they go up in equivalent level. A character at level 1 with a +5 Vorpal sword does not fight challenges at level 1... these are all concepts described in the DMG.
Skill Challenges didn't exist in publication before 4e. Skills existed... but 4th edition wrote more formal rules to describe a challenge appropriate for a party to work together to complete. Anyways, you're missing the point...
I personaly think 5th edition will be coming out in 3 years. That is a guess but their activities seems much like it was during the last three years of 3.5.
A merchant class wouldn't really be dead easy to pull off and maintain balance with in the group. A character at level 1 with better equipment would most likely be better of than a 1st level character of anyother class so it would disrupt the balance of a party. There are probably ways to balance this as the merchant class could be all about the equipment...you could build a class like that I guess. As I said it would be interesting in how they do this.
So um you sorta just skipped over the rules on aid another in the skill section? True 4th edition defined it better...but anytime in a module that says The Party needs a DC 15 climb check..or balance check..or etc. Is a skill challenge...The fact they don't go into the complexity doesn't mean as a DM you couldn't. Is it nice they spelled it out..sure...but saying it didn't exist because they didn't go into details I think is very untrue. The system was there...you just had to think a little bit.
any change in system or rule set is going to come with "crunch" changes but as long i can read the campaign books from 1991,1995, Athas.org and the 3.5 Dragon updates; can say that none of the flavor has been changed then that is Dark Sun
I think some of the above posters have never played 2nd ed dark sun as well as having never played other systems.
you can play on Athas with any rule set from 1st edition D&D to Vampire and that does nothing detract from the setting.
Now the setting some times does change such as the 4e changes to FR and those will makes some unhappy but that has nothing to do with the rules set
So all this talk about how some rules set is changing the setting just very misplaced or at the very least misunderstood.
I welcome any and all responses
A merchant class wouldn't really be dead easy to pull off and maintain balance with in the group. A character at level 1 with better equipment would most likely be better of than a 1st level character of anyother class so it would disrupt the balance of a party. There are probably ways to balance this as the merchant class could be all about the equipment...you could build a class like that I guess. As I said it would be interesting in how they do this.
I didn't say that a level 1 character with powerful items should be compared to other level 1 characters. I said that level 1 characters with powerful items should be level adjusted, in other words, compared with level 2, 3, 4... characters. The more powerful the items, the more powerful the character - the higher level she/he becomes.
So um you sorta just skipped over the rules on aid another in the skill section? True 4th edition defined it better...but anytime in a module that says The Party needs a DC 15 climb check..or balance check..or etc. Is a skill challenge...The fact they don't go into the complexity doesn't mean as a DM you couldn't. Is it nice they spelled it out..sure...but saying it didn't exist because they didn't go into details I think is very untrue. The system was there...you just had to think a little bit.
No. Aid another is not the same thing as Skill Challenges. I personally hate aid another, because it's a workaround to get around a system full of flaws because the system was designed as a game of individual player classes - and not a game of adventuring parties. The 3rd edition worked, but then again, so did 2nd edition THAC0 if you remember.
A skill challenge is a system of organizing what role each player has in a challenge. Just like combat is now organized based on roles. Yes, it dumbs down to a set of skill check DS rolls, but the method of organization is now party-centric: allowing all players to take part in a challenge (instead of making a series of aid another rolls). This promotes: creative thinking, player communication, and interesting character development.
In Dark Sun, that means that specific skills no longer become absolutely required. For example, take the Endurance skill. How often, in Dark Sun, would a 3rd edition character require the use of said skill? Secondly, how long do you think a wizard, without maximizing their endurance skill would survive? Once the DM decides to throw the character out into the desert, the wizard becomes cactus fodder. Eventually, all player characters, to survive, must put some skill points into the endurance skill just to survive. This type of maximization became commonplace.
If you don't see it now, 4e Skill Challenges avoids funnelling characters into cookie-cutter shapes and instead focuses party-centric development. At the end of the day, it becomes a challenge for the "party" to overcome not a challenge for the individual to overcome.
Take a look at some games board games that promote team-thinking: Shadows over Camelot, Pandemic or Battlestar Galactica. THAT's what 4e is trying to accomplish.
... they did republish (not amend) the prism pentad afterall.
.updated nerfage. rationalize, if you dare. no? see you next month. and there's a few things already in the docket for august.
EDIT: 18 August 2010 ... nerf'd. no point arguing, let the kids have fun with it. After reading through the campaign guide, enough of the Athasian atmosphere is retained that I'll just walk away with a non-bumping edit.