It would take a bit of effort but yeah DS would work in 4th ed.
I would still like to see a proper 3.5 conversion of Dark Sun. The athas.org people, for all their hard work on our behalf, have not yet completed that task and their attention will be divided by a new, and as yet much unknown systems (no psionics!).
That paizo is continuing with 3E with their pathfinder rules gives me some hope. They might even come up with a more workable epic spellcasting system. I don't think I could be bothered learning yet another set of rules.
Wow, advocating the return of level limits based on race. Never thought I'd see that ugly bit of mechanic again. Disliked it then, still can't stand it. I want options. If I want a half-giant wizard, there should be no reason I can not do it. I'd rank this up there with negative modifiers for never seeing them again.
I think that the new 4E mechanics can do very well for Dark Sun. I just hope they leave out the metaplot. Give us the world and let us decide its direction.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche
As to mouthymerc's comments, and those who have similar leanings.
There are reasons why there were level limits and class restrictions for something like a half-giant. Whether PC or NPC, the half giant was originally designed as having double hit dice. This is a major advantage. They are also monsters in combat. In 2nd edition terms, their minimum strength scores were 21, and could cause 1d6 real damage with their fists.
The wizard class starts out weak, but can become very powerful. If you let someone play a half giant wizard, he is likely to have hit points similar to that of the middling fighters in the group, or at least he may compete with them. This is not fair. One of the great trade offs you make for being a wizard is the very low hit points. You are physically weak and vulnerable in comparison to other classes. This must be so, for game balance, for otherwise, players will realize there is a distinct advantage to playing a half giant wizard, for his chances of surviving battles and the like is high. A good DM will also feel the temptation to make more half giant NPCs, as they will be a greater challenge to his PC part. The number of hit points and attack capabilities they have will make them quite formidable, regardless of class. Half giants are already offered the opportunity to become psionicists. Giving them wizard is, I do believe, too much.
I appreciate your desire for freedom and such mouthymerc. Being able to choose any combination of race and class with no level restrictions is certainly very freeing to many players. Allowing such in DS however would quickly demonstrate the abuses if such a free system were allowed in a campaign. Simply put, half giant and thri'kreen wizards would be far better combat wise than human and elf and other more, shall we say, normally associated wizardly races.
Yes I am aware that half giants and kreen have their roleplaying and other drawbacks. This is not enough to create balance though. Yes thri'kreen live shorter, more difficult to become archmages... but this and other such drawbacks don't go far enough in balancing a kreen or half giant wizard.
Kreen have natural armor, and in 2nd edition terms, depending on how you figure it, a kreen natural AC combined with minimum dex requirements would give the kreen an automatic bare minimum AC of 3, which is quite low for DS. Warriors would find it difficult to achieve such ACs in DS, so you want to award such an AC to a wizard. I could go on.
Like I've said, 3rd edition has done a good job in rolling over something like class and level restrictions... indeed it was a popular move (Gygax and the like were eternally grumbling to grumbling players that the class and level restrictions were absolutely necessary... we have finally broken free of him and his wisdom). Although popular and politically correct, I have concerns with allowing such things though.
Even dwarves in standard D&D settings get considerable bonuses to saves against magic, and this is because the race is inherently unmagical, whether physiologically or otherwise. They get very considerable bonuses that give them distinct advantages to resist magic and the like, but they also have trouble using a whole assortment of magical items, even potions, since they are so unmagical, and indeed using such things back then had a considerable chance for absolute failure...
You can't give dwarves such advantages and subtract one of the magic advantages... they can't be wizards.
Sure, feel free to do what you like. I understand the desire for freedom and originality.
I just fear it would not work in an organic campaign world. If you played things out enough, the DM would bring in more kreen and half giant wizards to fight a PC party with such a wizard, because they would measure up where an equal level human or elf one would not. Then you would have the little bastards running around everywhere... and I for one wouldn't want DS infested with a great number of half giant and kreen wizards... it takes away from my vision of DS. Maybe that's just me.
Food for thought.
It's amusing to think of thri'kreen avangions, but I would be curious to learn how many of you really would support allowing such a thing amongst your players or NPCs.
In your fellows' defense, I do not think (never had the opportunity to integrate though) that barring dwarves and elves and such necessarily from advanced being status, like Dragon Kings says, is totally cool. The Sage in the Sorak series is an elf who is an avangion. This doesn't destroy my taste buds to imagine, despite the fact that Dragon Kings says no. Dwarves, if they can manage the level, making it to the character elemental stages (if only the early ones), also doesn't make me cringe as far as roleplaying goes... and neither would a kreen spirit of the land, for that matter. I'm willing to consider modifying the rules, but a half-giant avangion? Is that really what you guys want? Maybe...
As to mouthymerc's comments, and those who have similar leanings.
Thoughts?
I did not like the restrictions in the past. 4E does a good job of addressing this. One race is generally not more or less powerful than any other, therefore absolving the perceived need for level restrictions. I understand why the mechanic was used in the past even if I did not like or agree with it. In 4E you can have dwarf wizards or half-giant wizards without there being concern that they are better than other races. This is an aspect that I enjoy.
Generally, in the past I mostly ignored level restrictions. There was never a concern about power disparities as I was lucky enough to play in games where we did not optimize. It was more about the coolness factor. Not everyone is this lucky, though. I'm quite happy to see the back end of it. Besides, half-giants made for poor wizards in comparison to other races due to their negative modifiers and the fact that they were built more for combat.
Now, you can use the fluff to determine which races work for which classes. If you don't want dwarves and half-giants as wizards, then you decide that they don't have the option in your game. This works much better than hamstringing them with negative modifiers and level limits.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche
I'd be curious to see how 4th might deal with this in game. Have you gotten a chance yet?
If the races are more balanced in 4th, then I might lean more your way merc.
HubrisBalatharus is discussing the age factor however. It is understood that, especially as far as PCs in the game, that age probably won't factor in too much, and that the party elf will probably have roughly the same level as everyone else.
If 4th edition has made PCs distinctly different than NPCs, which is to say, they are true exceptions rules wise, I worry for the new edition. In either case, I believe Balathar's point is that, given the very lengthy timeline of an elf or say dwarf's life, both dwarves and elves, as races, are likely to accumulate a distinct and perhaps considerable advantage in levels as compared to, let us say, humans. In an organic campaign world that leans more towards realism, this difference in levels between the races might very well lead to a considerable socio-economic and political advantage over the humans for the dwarves and elves. The humans, unable to live long enough to accumulate more levels, would likely routinely feel this effect in their dealings and competitions with the dwarves and elves, and their culture and civilization would suffer. Indeed, it might become difficult to convincingly tell your players that the world is human centered (as all D&D campaign worlds are, to my knowledge). I mean, perhaps that it what you want, but I think that was part of the thinking as to why level caps were included by Gygax, even for dwarven fighters, and other archetypes.
4th edition might attempt to level the powers of the races, but I am rather certain they kept the life durations, didn't they? If they did, the argument I just presented would likely be at play, I would think.
The life durations have been modified a bit. Dragonborn, half-elves, halflings, humans and tieflings all have about the same lifespans. Dwarves and elves live to be about 200 years old. Eladrin can reach 300. But that is neither here no there. Just because a race is long lived does not mean that they can become superhuman. Sure you could do it mechanically if you wanted to; describe your long-lived elf as having gone through multiple classes in earlier editions. Even though they were long-lived, they still followed the same rules, for the most part.
If the elves of earlier editions are so long-lived, why aren't all their warriors 50th level? A game mechanic like level restriction is just that, a game mechanic. It has nothing to do with the fluff unless you make it so. With fluff you can attach a reason to anything. An early description of the average elf's life could be that they look at the world differently. Because they are so long lived, they take their time with everything. So while a human may reach 20th level as a warrior at the age of 40, the elf may not reach it until he is 400 (this is harkening back to elves of previous editions). The only advantages they gain are the ones we give them.
The new 4E takes away mechanics of age or alignment or other arbitrary mechanics. This way you can start the game as a 40 yr old farmer who becomes a warrior or an 18 year old apprentice going out into the world as a wizard. Your 100 year old 1st level eladrin warrior is no different than the 18 year old 1st level human warrior beyond their race abilities and power choices. This is a good feature for me.
There is a difference between player characters and NPCs in 4E. They are designed differently. Again, this is one of the highlights for me. They are two different species. Player characters are much more comprehensive and should be designed so. NPCs only need minimal information so they can be run. They really do not need to be built as player characters to be effective. Again, though, age is meaningless as far as NPCs are concerned. Just because a race is long-lived doesn't mean you have to make them uber to show it.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche
"If the elves of earlier editions are so long-lived, why aren't all their warriors 50th level?"
The reason why is because of the level caps placed over non-human characters. I am pleased to see that at least the age limits and elves and dwarves is reduced... at least for as far as your gaming predilections go. This makes what I said earlier have less of an edge. In 2nd edition, elves stay "on the world" so to speak for upward of 600 years or more, and can live twice that long in certain circumstances. And I may agree with you merc on the fluff issue, that elves or dwarves for instance might, as a race, have a slower temper, and not even want to level up as fast as humans... they could spend much more time smelling the flowers so to speak. But, should they want to level up as do humans, they would hit those level caps, and face their limits. Again, this would help ensure the logical consistency of a gaming world.
In reality, for players, the level caps rarely come into play. If you are running anything resembling a proper game, your players should very very rarely run into them. And even then, if you play race stereotypes, like dwarven fighters or halfling thieves, the level cap is 15, and with the "exceeding level limits" rules, you can add a +4 to this in the right circumstance, meaning the cap is effectively 19. That's really high level, and shouldn't end up as a factor most of the time, if not all of the time. Even then, the DMG of 2nd edition offers the optional rule that you can still allow level progression even after such caps, but only after earning x3 experience points required to progress. This is fair and good, and hardly limits anyone. Non humans, in 2nd edition, get special bonuses and abilities which are fairly considerable in conservative 2nd edition terms... such abilities will be muted in effectiveness as the PC part accrues levels, power and magic, but their use in early levels is often quite considerable, and gives unique advantages to those players who play elves, dwarves, etc. There needs to be a price for such advantages. The designers chose a level cap.
In 4th edition, of which I am obviously not familiar, I would be concerned with this distinct mechanic difference between PC and NPC you keep bringing up. For reasons we need not get into here, this is fairly alarming to me... and, well. Honestly it seems video gamish; but alas I have not seen the particulars. I am concerned for it though. I would worry it takes away from a sense of realism, which, although granted this is a fantasy game, helps for building believable, and I would argue, entertaining world. I could see why WotC would do it though... they are indulging another player desire, to see the PCs now, officially, truly mechanically different than the NPCs, who are now, it seems, inherently lesser characters, unless they are beknighted with the DMs whim to make them something else.
In 4th edition, of which I am obviously not familiar, I would be concerned with this distinct mechanic difference between PC and NPC you keep bringing up. For reasons we need not get into here, this is fairly alarming to me... and, well. Honestly it seems video gamish; but alas I have not seen the particulars.
Please, pickup the three books and read them for yourselves. Even 5 hours will give you 75% of what you need to know. Then make up an informed opinion.
Yes, NPCs are mechanically different from PCs. Why? NPCs are monsters. Everything not a PC is a monster. PCs have the exclusivity on the use of classes, paragon paths, more magic items then the baddies, etc. This means shorter times to create an NPC because its creation process doesn't follow much rules compared to a PC. Same for actual monsters who now are easy to create. You just need to balance them with others of their level...and for that you have the Monster Manual to look through.
