Dark Sun 5th edition - important questions.

[M Placeholder]

Hi, I'm restarting my Dark Sun group after a hiatus of several months, and I was wondering if this is a good conversion to 5th edition? (https://data.archive.moe/board/tg/image/1439/83/1439835657522.pdf).

Also, the group used to be three, but I have one player that left, and I might have others joining. How do I ease the new guys into the campaign? We are just outside Tyr heading to the Iron Mines.

[TopCheese]

Hi, I'm restarting my Dark Sun group after a hiatus of several months, and I was wondering if this is a good conversion to 5th edition? (https://data.archive.moe/board/tg/image/1439/83/1439835657522.pdf).

Also, the group used to be three, but I have one player that left, and I might have others joining. How do I ease the new guys into the campaign? We are just outside Tyr heading to the Iron Mines.

A friend of mine got me into 2e dark sun by saying: "You don't win in Athas, you just do a little bit better each time".

[Human Paragon 3]

The spell-less bard looks terrible to me.

[M Placeholder]

The spell-less bard looks terrible to me.

Remember on Athas, Sorcerers don't exist, and psionics rule. If you practice magic, then you will be hunted down and killed most likely in most places.

I found a Bard class somewhere that was a lot better, so Ill use that one instead that used psionics instead of magic.

[Human Paragon 3]

The book has warlock, wizard, druid, cleric... all are full casters, so why take the spells out of bard?

Even granted that there is a good reason for a spell-less bard, that version just seems terrible. All bards are smugglers and poisoners? Why?

[TopCheese]

The book has warlock, wizard, druid, cleric... all are full casters, so why take the spells out of bard?

Even granted that there is a good reason for a spell-less bard, that version just seems terrible. All bards are smugglers and poisoners? Why?

From what i recall they were used as assassins. Everyone knew it too but to deny a bard as a messenger or whatever was seen to be rude. Of course those were different times.

[DanyBallon]

The book has warlock, wizard, druid, cleric... all are full casters, so why take the spells out of bard?

Even granted that there is a good reason for a spell-less bard, that version just seems terrible. All bards are smugglers and poisoners? Why?

Because originaly athasian bard didn't have spells. :smallsmile:

I skimmed through the document and I'd say it's getting a good feel of Darksun as it was originaly not some weird conversions as WotC did for 3.5 and 4e where they tried to fit the setting to rules instead of adapting the rules to the setting.

Darksun is an alien setting and should not be retrofit to the existing races and classes. The linked document by the OP is a good example of how Darksun should be treated, by using the lore and adapting to rules so it best represent the setting. I wont say it's perfect, but it's a good start. Warlock with sorcerer king as patron to represent the templar is a clever idea, it explain how they get their power while being different from cleric.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Dark Sun is my favorite published campaign world. Definitely the most fun and hardest of 2e. But I never played the 3e version...

This conversion can work. I miss Gladiator as a class, not just as a background. Maybe replace "Champion" martial archetype with "Gladiator". The extra crit makes sense and it fits the original Gladiator concept of being weapon masters.

[Malthorn]

Ah. Darksun. I kinda miss being able to eat party members.

[Joe the Rat]

Agreed, Champion seems to be the best analog to Gladiator-as-class, though I can see a "Gladiator" Battlemaster putting on one hell of a show.

Using Sorcery as the template for Psion is a direction I would have chosen as well. I'll need to delve this further.

Air Cleric: Chill touch? I'd have gone with shocking grasp or ray of frost. Necrotic damage seems out of place for "air." Or perhaps Mage hand. Actually, revisiting Elemental Evil might be a good idea all around. There were "manipulate element" cantrips for everyone.

Why not give the Bard the Poisoner's kit proficiency as well? Learning the formulas/extracts automatically as they level is still a good feature, but it seems silly to not include that. Ditto College of Alchemy. Note that this still allows "mundane" alchemists and poisoners, but they are far more limited in their range of options, and in their rate of production.

It might be worth retooling the Aaracockra to be more in line with the Elemental Evil Player's Guide version.

Mul removing exhaustion levels as an action? Unless there's a second wind-like quality aimed for here, this could be made during short rest, once per long rest.

[GungHo]

The book has warlock, wizard, druid, cleric... all are full casters, so why take the spells out of bard?

Even granted that there is a good reason for a spell-less bard, that version just seems terrible. All bards are smugglers and poisoners? Why?

Why were demons tanar'ri? TSR 1991. Thank you, Lorraine.

[napoleon_in_rag]

The spell-less bard looks terrible to me.

You have to understand that the 2e bard sucked when compared to every other classes. Too few HP to fight, thieves abilities were too low to succeed in anything but an easy task, and casting didn't happen until, like, 5th level.

So Dark Sun aimed at removing as much Tolkien and Western European influence from D&D as possible. And they tried to make a Bard worth playing again by turning the class into a kick ass assassin.

Bards really did not become a playable class until 3e, or even 3.5.

[TopCheese]

You have to understand that the 2e bard sucked when compared to every other classes. Too few HP to fight, thieves abilities were too low to succeed in anything but an easy task, and casting didn't happen until, like, 5th level.

So Dark Sun aimed at removing as much Tolkien and Western European influence from D&D as possible. And they tried to make a Bard worth playing again by turning the class into a kick ass assassin.

Bards really did not become a playable class until 3e, or even 3.5.

I'm not great with 2e but I've played some and I believe it was the complete bard's handbook that helped the bard be playable.

3e (and .5) bard's were awesome if you played them like they should be but they were one of those classes that either sucked or was OP, never really saw anyone play a tier 3 bard even though that's what they were.

4e and Essential Bards were absolutely amazing and took everything good about 3e bard's and just made it better.

5e Bards are a mix of 4e and 3e Bards and I think it works well enough (I can't help but feel that 9th level castings hurts the idea of the bard in this type of system).

But what I really came to say is that whenevr I see your screen name I think it says Napoleon_In_Drag .... And I get the mental image of Napoleon in a dress riding on the back of his horse in the iconic painting.

It amuses me as much as the sloth version of that painting.

[napoleon_in_rag]

I'm not great with 2e but I've played some and I believe it was the complete bard's handbook that helped the bard be playable.

I never had the complete Bards Handbook. One thing about 2e was they wrote handbooks for everything. Some were good. Some were a waste of money. Since none of they people I played with back then wanted to play a Bard, none of us made there investment.



But what I really came to say is that whenevr I see your screen name I think it says Napoleon_In_Drag .... And I get the mental image of Napoleon in a dress riding on the back of his horse in the iconic painting.

It amuses me as much as the sloth version of that painting.

I am glad I amuse you. It's actually a Bob Dylan quote. It would be interesting to base a Bard build on Dylan.....