D&D 5E How would you wish WOTC to do Dark Sun

[Micah Sweet]

I'm sure they can come up with so.ething that allows for most of the PH options in 5e, it just requires a little imagination. As long as the themes of DS are clearly stated it should be fine.

The only big change that is necessary is s dedicated MM. No version of Dark Sun has existed without one.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer all don't fit per DS fans. Warlock maybe? as templars, but that's NPC only.

Unless you're willing to say some of you are wrong, of course...

Here's the thing; for all of these classes (save the cleric and paladin) they all have at least one subclass that works fine in Dark Sun lore-wise. For example, I'm a big fan of Dark Sun and believe a Path of Berserker barbarian fits the setting just great. Better than great actually, it reminds me a lot (in flavor) of a gladiator.

So I'll reiterate; for classes, DS needs a page saying "Here are all the subclass options we recommend for use in a Dark Sun campaign that do not conflict with that worlds theme and lore."

I'm sure that the game will also add a number of entirely new subclasses specifically made for Dark Sun, partially intended so that people can play a number of classes that otherwise wouldn't fit well.

I can break down an argument for each class if you'd like (I won't defend cleric/paladin, there's no argument there), but it would take up a lot of text/time so I don't really want to...

 

[Haldrik]

Regarding 5e Dark Sun.

You know what 3e Ravenloft also had? A dedicated PHB, DMG and Monster Manual, like I suggested for Dark Sun, that could change those things that don't work and supply the game with new things that do.

Huh, I wonder where I got that idea from...

In your eyes, is it ok if the Dark Sun setting guide also includes the variant PH, DMG, and MM, so everything is in one rulebook?

It means the players get to see what the DM knows about the cosmology and regional settings. That seems ok to me for Dark Sun. But maybe I am missing something that the DM would need to avoid spoilers?

[Edit]
@Micah Sweet mentioned the MM being separate, and that seems reasonable. But the setting guide can include PH and DMG info.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Here's the thing: in third edition there were updates of Dragonlance (WotC/Weiss) and Ravenloft (Arthaus). There was even a Dark Sun update in Dragon (Paizo). You know what they all had in common? THEY MANAGED TO FIT ALL THE PHB CLASSES AT THE TIME IN THE SETTING! Sure, they made some exceptions for race, (removing a few, adding or replacing some) but both of those settings (which like DS banned classes in 2e for "flavor" reasons) managed to find them all homes in 3e. And guess what? Nobody says how RL or DL was destroyed by allowing monks, paladins, or sorcerers in them.

I agree? I'm only arguing for truly cutting a paladin/cleric.

No, no we don't. D&D is not the same game it was in 2e. Settings, tastes, and attitudes change. Dark Sun's edgelord "I'm not your father's D&D" isn't going to work under a climate where books are greenlit on the basis of % of players willing to buy-in. You are NOT going to get sufficient buy-in for a setting that renders most of the PHB obsolete. And the Theros line is disingenuous when it comes to Dark Sun; its isolated from the multiverse so those "other worlds" are cut off. You might as well re-write it:

Firstly, I'm not arguing every game of DS should be the edgelord version; the book should provide options to do that, but it shouldn't be the only option.

The Theros line is not disingenuous; if you know anything about DS lore, it is hard to travel to but not impossible (the Githyanki literally invade DS in a module). Travel to Theros is also only possible for Planeswalkers; in terms of how hard they are to travel to, they're about the same.

Lather rinse repeat with spells (5e has been slow to add new spells, so every banned spell is a further reduction of PC choice), backgrounds, equipment etc. If your 1-2 pages is a pure "this doesn't exist" you're going to make new players go "then what does?"

Saying "5E is slow to add now spells" isn't an argument for this book not adding new spells that are specifically good fits for Dark Sun. Just as having a list of spells that are specifically allowed for DS. I'll be first to say you shouldn't be able to cast goodberry in a DS campaign. But what's wrong with a fireball? I damn expect a Sorceror King to throw multiple of them at PCs.

And there absolutely should be a slew of new spells in this book, if there is no psionics system; spells that at least mimic many of the ideas of psionics.

Reading your comments, I'm getting the idea that you don't actually expect DS to be ever be published. Considering how many times WotC has been trying to get psionics to work in past UAs, I'll say it's something they're actively pursuing, especially as setting books (both new and old) are proving extremely successful for them.

 

[Haldrik]

Why would anyone ban Eldritch Knight ( ≈ Wizard/Fighter) or Trickster Rogue ( ≈ Wizard/Rogue)? These are straightforward Wizard spellcasters, thus are either Defilers or Preservers. If multiclassing (or dual classing) exists in 2e Dark Sun, then so do 5e Eldritch Knight and 5e Trickster Rogue. These two class archetypes are as central to Dark Sun as the 5e Wizard class is.

 

[Haldrik]

I'm only arguing for truly cutting a paladin/cleric.

Why cut Cleric? So much of 2e Dark Sun uses the Cleric class. It seems wrong for 5e to cut Cleric.

5e Paladin is versatile. If the Templar must be divine, and be an enforcer, then a Templar could easily be a Paladin oath. That said, I am fine with Templar being Warlock.

You seem to feel strongly about cutting Cleric and Paladin. But I see no rationale to do so.

 

[Mecheon]

I agree? I'm only arguing for truly cutting a paladin/cleric.

Clerics should just have their elemental options, but paladins fit fine, especially with 5E's whole Oath thing.

Can't see an Oath of Tyranny paladin basically being a Templar under the Sorcerer King's employ?

 

[Zardnaar]

Since Paladins no longer have to be good a templar bureau of paladins could make sense.

Each sorcerer king could grant suitable domains to their Templars who are clerics.

Hamanu-Boros granting war, Lalali Puy Nature, Nibenay trickery etc.

Sorcerer would need a DS subclass or use the wild sorcerer.

Warlocks don't really fit thematically. Pet defilers for the Sorcerer Kings maybe.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’d think “Templar” could be a background or just an occupation, and it would consist of clerics, paladins, rogues, fighters, and warlocks.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Why cut Cleric? So much of 2e Dark Sun uses the Cleric class. It seems wrong for 5e to cut Cleric.

5e Paladin is versatile. If the Templar must be divine, and be an enforcer, then a Templar could easily be a Paladin oath. That said, I am fine with Templar being Warlock.

You seem to feel strongly about cutting Cleric and Paladin. But I see no rationale to do so.

Clerics should just have their elemental options, but paladins fit fine, especially with 5E's whole Oath thing.

Can't see an Oath of Tyranny paladin basically being a Templar under the Sorcerer King's employ?

Clerics should just have their elemental options, but paladins fit fine, especially with 5E's whole Oath thing.

Can't see an Oath of Tyranny paladin basically being a Templar under the Sorcerer King's employ?

Yeah I suppose this is true, I usually consider cleric/paladin as strongly linked to a god (and Dark Sun doesn't have gods), but you're right in that mechanically they really aren't... and you're right, clerics in 2E exist so I should drop it.

I think with spellcasting in Dark Sun, since the source of the cleric/paladin's power can't be a god, it needs to be shifted to something else (and shouldn't be them self like Eberron, doesn't really fit Dark Sun). So I suppose these classes, when doing spellcasting would also have to fall under the same preserver/defiling penalties of other spellcasting.