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

[Danzauker]

Yeah. Just like 5e has both the Cleric class and the Priest background, 5e Dark Sun could have both the Templar subclass and the Templarate background.

However, if the Templar is a normal 5e subclass, like War domain Cleric, then mechanically there would be only a Background.

A Cleric might be War or Arcana. A Paladin might Tyranny.

...

A Warlock might be ... a normal Infernal pact. Altho there are no devils in Dark Sun, the sorcerer-king is a DEFILER, potentially with the same Lawful Evil, elemental fire, deathly necrotic and poison tropes, and so on. The Infernal Warlock makes a pact with a specific sorcerer-king, rather than with a specific devil.

Of course, 5e Dark Sun can make one or more subclasses that finetune the Templar flavor.

Alternatively, it can be a single Templarate Background, only. Each sorcerer-king will decide for oneself who can be a Templar. Meanwhile, each DM can decide if player characters need apply.

There are lot's of options here, and as others pointed out much depends on the assumtions of the person.

Me, personally, see the Warlock as the perfect envisioning of the Templar class, to the point that I wished it existed back in 2E. I'd just reskin it's "source" as divine* and go for it.

* In 5E power sources are just labels after all, not much of a game effect. Here i just want to mean that it's use will not cause defiling, like all divine or primal magic, while all kinds of arcane magic will. And now that i think about, why is this? Why should magic flowing through the ultimate defilers? Maybe it's part of their condition. Their "curse", so to speak. They are capable of granting powers to others that are in a way better than theirs and they're unable to wield. and that's maybe why they search and select people that can work magic for them without destroying their cities and possessions. Maybe SKs need Templars as much as Templars need SKs...

Thoughts to be explored.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

You read me slightly wrong. I expect there will be a Dark Sun eventually. What I expect though is it will be an extension of the work done in 4e rather than be a faithful 2e reproduction. Following what we've seen in four setting books so far (ignoring SCAG) WotC hasn't been too quick to re-invent the wheel. When I went back to look at 4e Dark Sun, I was even more shocked to see how different it was then I remembered. There was no "this is how x fits" section for classes, they just provided some new options and had a sidebar that said "no divine sources unless the DM says otherwise". There was no reworking of powers, and I don't even think I saw much discussion on rituals (I might have missed it). It kinda felt like D&D. In a Post-Apocalyptic Desert. Sure, the races had nonstandard roles and my weapons and armor were made of non-metal, but it otherwise it felt like a D&D setting. That's a feeling I never got in 2e; 2e Dark Sun felt too tryhard to be different for differing's sake.

And part of that is what has led to my multi-quote above; everyone has a different opinion of what does/doesn't fit. You might be cool with everything but clerics and paladins, but other people above are not. Coroc thinks clerics are fine, but barbarians and monks break the setting by being able to operate without gear. Zardnaar can't see sorcerers in the setting, but Haldrik does. I'm going to assume you all like the setting equally, but all of you pulled very different ideas of what "Dark Sun" is.

How about this compromise: let them all in.

Someone like me who liked 4e's DS will be happy, we have places for all the classes and all the noncanonically dead races. For those who want to emulate a more 2e feel, you can create your own custom banlist for your table (just like they can do for any setting). You can ban clerics, Coroc can ban monks, etc. New players who joined in 5e won't know the difference. Sure, ban or rarify some subclasses, and feel free to add additional rules for defiling, psionics, etc. Once the setting is open to the DMs Guild, I suspect there will be plenty of supplements to add in more thematic mechanical elements as well.

Its really the best of both worlds, unless you (all) are willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I've been convinced that there is a place for all the classes, when filtered by subclass. For example, the Archfey Warlock patron makes no sense in the context of Dark Sun, but Undying Patron does. I'm not going to go through each subclass individually as some are more debatable, but I would say most people would agree that not every player option makes sense in the context of Dark Sun.

In addition, some spells literally break how the setting works, chiefly goodberry and create food and water.

My solution is simple; there should be a list of recommended subclasses, and banned spells for Dark Sun, at the DMs discretion. The PHB uses up a whole 4.5 pages of content just listing out all of the classes recommended spell lists; this is roughly the same thing, and would take up much less space than 4.5 pages.

In addition, I've already mentioned how 4E's treatment of races is just silly; adding tieflings, turning half-giants into goliath and dray into dragonborn made 4E Dark Sun feel just like "desert D&D" rather than it's own entirely unique world. Tieflings shouldn't be in the setting and half-giants/dray should be added as at least their own unique subraces.

There's my compromise.

 

[Remathilis]

I've been convinced that there is a place for all the classes, when filtered by subclass. For example, the Archfey Warlock patron makes no sense in the context of Dark Sun, but Undying Patron does. I'm not going to go through each subclass individually as some are more debatable, but I would say most people would agree that not every player option makes sense in the context of Dark Sun.

In addition, some spells literally break how the setting works, chiefly goodberry and create food and water.

My solution is simple; there should be a list of recommended subclasses, and banned spells for Dark Sun, at the DMs discretion. The PHB uses up a whole 4.5 pages of content just listing out all of the classes recommended spell lists; this is roughly the same thing, and would take up much less space than 4.5 pages.

In addition, I've already mentioned how 4E's treatment of races is just silly; adding tieflings, turning half-giants into goliath and dray into dragonborn made 4E Dark Sun feel just like "desert D&D" rather than it's own entirely unique world. Tieflings shouldn't be in the setting and half-giants/dray should be added as at least their own unique subraces.

There's my compromise.

Half-giants can be thier own race, loosely modeled off goliaths (and the other "large-but-not-quite" races). Strength/Con, Powerful build, etc. They don't need acclimations, survival or mountains endurance and different traits can be subbed in.

For dray, I could see something how Wildemount did draconblood/ravenite and provide some alternate racial features for them (replace the breath weapon with natural attacks, etc).

Tieflings? We'll agree to disagree. I don't care if they don't make it, but I don't mind them per 4e.

Muls and thri-kreen for sure. Aarakroca seem prime for a reprint as well, and they already gave major hints in the EEPG at genasi being there, so they can replace tieflings for all I care.

And I think a "recommended" list of subclasses by class is the best way to go. It leaves the final call up the DM, but the DM can use it as a soft "not banned" list if they want. Maybe keep it to PHB/Xanathar/Whateverthenewbookis and let DMs decide on world-specific stuff on their own.

Now you just add some new stuff and you have a perfectly fine starting point for DMs to customize from.

You could also add a few blanket rules for magic/class features like "no spell can create more than 1 gallon of water" or "abilities that allow you to find food and water are only provide 1/4 the amount they would provide normally" to cover your bases on that. (Curse of Strahd remove 99% of the magic alterations to normal RL, but even it kept a blanket "no leaving via spell" rule to cover all the spells and magic items that might allow planar travel.)

You can do that in maybe a chapter (including all the new options) and leave the rest for a reasonable gazeteer/DMs advice/some monsters and such.

 

[EscherEnigma]

I think y'all are over-thinking this Templar thing.

What's important to Templar, the narrative, which is that they're the chosen minion of a Sorcerer-King imbued with power, or the mechanics, giving them a class that they, and they-only, get to bogart?

Same with most of the other questions... "divine" in the sense of "deity" is out, but elemental priests and druids have been part of the setting from the get-go. Arcane is in, but it needs preserving/defiling, psionics is probably going to have a dedicated class and a smattering of sub-classes, and so-on.

So since in D&D 5e "power source" isn't normally that important (and the class fantasies tromp all over it), I'd suggest that instead of trying to tie a given class/sub-class to any given power source, to just add a new mechanics (in the vein of Ravnica and Theros) to represent that there can be multiple paths to power that have the same mechanical results.

So some clerics are nature/elemental clerics, some clerics are Templars, and so-on. Similarly, some sorcerers are Templars, some are (assuming a sub-class) based in psionics, some are arcane and have to worry about defiling/preserving. Paladins? Same deal. Some are martial elemental priests (Oath of the Ancients particular fits that), some are Templars (oath of Conquest is a good fit).

Point being, if you separate the "power source" from classes, you can largely say "work with your GM to find a concept that fits" rather then trying to white-list/black-list classes.

And to the original question, this sure seems like a path WotC is comfortable with: adding a new setting-specific mechanic that makes characters of that setting more powerful in a specific way while also tying them more rightly to the setting themes.

 

[Haldrik]

With regard to magic sources.

The Dark Sun cosmological setting MUST clarify what the "sources" mean. But this simplifies nothing! Sources are their own complex and conflictive D&D traditions.

In some sense, sources didnt exist in 2e. There was only a Wizard class with a Wizard spell list, and a Cleric "Priest" class with a Cleric spell list. The difference between Wizard and Cleric was mechanical and self-evident. Later, variant class options multiplied, and even accelerated, such as 3e prestige classes.

By the time of 4e, magic "sources" are mechanically minor. But they are powerful tools for organizing tropes and flavor. The sources include:

• Arcane
• Divine
• Primal
• Martial
• Psionic
• Shadow
• Elemental

These sources imply information. For example planar correspondences: such as Elemental to the Elemental planes, Shadow to Shadowfell, Primal to Material, Divine to Astral Sea, and so on. Psionic-versus-Martial suggested mind-versus-body, but a class like Monk blurred clear lines. Arcane remained resolutely uncooperative, vague, and tripping over every other source. It would have been easy to equate Arcane with the Feywild plane, but the designers seemed to intentionally sabotage such simple identification. While the implications were self-evident, they remained undeveloped. In the end, the 4e sources were mostly broad brush strokes to paint a setting or a character concept. Details that contradicted a source happened all the time.

In 5e, the words "Divine" and "Arcane" and "Psionic" exist, but they are devoid of systematic meanings. A class like Bard blurs all of them. Arguably they arent even "sources". So far "Psionic" only means a kind of innate spell that eschews a required material component − something like a metamagic feat. Arcane classes like Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer lack shared features. So Arcane means nothing mechanically or even narratively. Arcane Cleric and Divine Sorcerer make such words strictly arbitrary.

In the end, the socalled sources are a random ad-hoc spattering of clouds. People can see in these clouds whatever they want to see, depending on exposure to previous editions and on personal preference.



But Dark Sun must sort this out. Because each source comes with its own mechanical and narrative implications.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Which is why I suggest separating "source" from "class". Throw out a list of common associations, but ultimately leave it up to GMs to decide if they think a given source/class combination makes sense on a case-by-case basis (particularly sense players are clever at justifying neat concepts).

 

[Urriak Uruk]

With regard to magic sources.

The Dark Sun cosmological setting MUST clarify what the "sources" mean. But this simplifies nothing! Sources are their own complex and conflictive D&D traditions.

In some sense, sources didnt exist in 2e. There was only a Wizard class with a Wizard spell list, and a Cleric "Priest" class with a Cleric spell list. The difference between Wizard and Cleric was mechanical and self-evident. Later, variant class options multiplied, and even accelerated, such as 3e prestige classes.

By the time of 4e, magic "sources" are mechanically minor. But they are powerful tools for organizing tropes and flavor. The sources include:

• Arcane
• Divine
• Primal
• Martial
• Psionic
• Shadow
• Elemental

These sources imply information. For example planar correspondences: such as Elemental to the Elemental planes, Shadow to Shadowfell, Primal to Material, Divine to Astral Sea, and so on. Psionic-versus-Martial suggested mind-versus-body, but a class like Monk blurred clear lines. Arcane remained resolutely uncooperative, vague, and tripping over every other source. It would have been easy to equate Arcane with the Feywild plane, but the designers seemed to intentionally sabotage such simple identification. While the implications were self-evident, they remained undeveloped. In the end, the 4e sources were mostly broad brush strokes to paint a setting or a character concept. Details that contradicted a source happened all the time.

In 5e, the words "Divine" and "Arcane" and "Psionic" exist, but they are devoid of systematic meanings. A class like Bard blurs all of them. Arguably they arent even "sources". So far "Psionic" only means a kind of innate spell that eschews a required material component − something like a metamagic feat. Arcane classes like Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer lack shared features. So Arcane means nothing mechanically or even narratively. Arcane Cleric and Divine Sorcerer make such words strictly arbitrary.

In the end, the socalled sources are a random ad-hoc spattering of clouds. People can see in these clouds whatever they want to see, depending on exposure to previous editions and on personal preference.



But Dark Sun must sort this out. Because each source comes with its own mechanical and narrative implications.

Agree with everything here, except that there aren't really any mechanical implications in 5E beyond "This is X class' approved spell list." Everything else is narrative.

However, narrative around magic really matters around Dark Sun, which is why the Divine source doesn't work. But you can still have clerics sourcing from Elemental, so mechanically it's not as relevant.

 

[Haldrik]

The Divine source doesn't work. But you can still have clerics sourcing from Elemental, so mechanically it's not as relevant.

A Divine source that includes 1e worldbuilding, 2e Dark Sun, 3e philosophical clerics, 5e cosmic-force clerics, Eberron, reallife religions, etcetera, works. There are different kinds of religions.

The recent announcement that WotC will make D&D more inclusive, including "beliefs", suggests updates to make the official Cleric class as well as related Divine concepts more inclusive of other reallife ethnicities.




One of the official WotC design goals is for 5e to represent a diversity of religious beliefs.

"
One of the explicit design goals of 5th edition D&D is to depict humanity in all its beautiful diversity by depicting characters who represent an array of ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and beliefs.

"

I hope this means the Cleric class will become more explicitly inclusive and welcoming of the sacred ancestral traditions of other reallife ethnicities.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

A Divine source that includes 1e worldbuilding, 2e Dark Sun, 3e philosophical clerics, 5e cosmic-force clerics, Eberron, reallife religions, etcetera, works. There are different kinds of religions.

The recent announcement that WotC will make D&D more inclusive, including "beliefs", suggests updates to make the official Cleric class as well as related Divine concepts more inclusive of other reallife ethnicities.




One of the official WotC design goals is for 5e to represent a diversity of religious beliefs.

"
One of the explicit design goals of 5th edition D&D is to depict humanity in all its beautiful diversity by depicting characters who represent an array of ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and beliefs.

"

I hope this means the Cleric class will become more explicitly inclusive and welcoming of the sacred ancestral traditions of other reallife ethnicities.

I don't really disagree with anything you've written here, and as I've admitted earlier I think the cleric class works in Dark Sun if it is drawing from elemental powers.

However, when I mean a "divine source" I am referring largely to the "power of faith" either coming directly from a god like in FR, or possibly from themselves as Eberron hints at (the existence of gods is not explicitly confirmed one way or another).

In Dark Sun, magic from a divine source just doesn't happen. That doesn't invalidate the cleric class, or even religion, but it does make a very specific form of magic unusable.

 

[Zardnaar]

Insert the 'why not have both?' GIF here?

My personal image of templars is heavily influenced by the Lynn Abbey books. In those, Hamanu (there's not much spoken about other how sorcerer-kings work) has a Templarate to enforce the law, do his will in Urik, but there's a wide range of people and skills in that templarate. Some are conventional spellcasting templars who draw on Hamanu's power (generally a bit cleric-y in their powerset, but not entirely), but also there's talented people in other classes who Hamanu can give a medallion to (or who can grow into the templarate via the ophanages or Urik) who can be part of the organisation of the Templarate, but who don't necessarily take levels in the Templar class. There's psionicist, fighter, 'deadheart' (possibly necromancer, and/or defiler?) and even druid individuals who act as part of the templarate - generally by being given a medallion of office (a medallion being a minor magic item that allows in extremis communication with the sorcerer-king).

From a purely game-mechanical point of view, I'd be inclined to open a lot of options here. 'Templar' might be a background, and in addition, you might also have Templar clerics who gain spells from the sorcerer-kings and/or warlocks likewise. So someone who grew up in a Templar orphanage but became a headkicker rather than a spellcaster, then maybe you're a Templar background fighter, while if you're a self-taught psionicist who came to the attention of (for example) Hamanu and were 'offered' a position in his service, then maybe you're a psionicist of a non-templar background who was granted a templar's medallion in play, etc etc etc.

However, all this is (frankly) a bit moot unless the designers make the decision to allow/promote Templars as PCs. And that's a setting theme decision they're going to have to ponder over quite a bit. Not to beat around the bush, but as written in both 2e and 4e, the templarates are in most cases profoundly oppressive institutions enforcing brutal order (under the guise of law) in tyrannical slave states ruled by immortal genocidal monsters. This is not to say this portrayal is universal. Oronis of Kurn is an LG avangion wannabe and he has a templarate, and it's no doubt much different in character to (for instance) the templarate of Guistenal or Eldaarich. And the portrayal of Hamanu's templarate (and his rulership in general) in Lynn Abbey's books is very, very different to how it's portrayed in the majority of the 2e game line. The majority of templars are the quintessential bad cops working in a system that encourages them to be bad. While my personal mental Athas is heavily Abbey-influenced so i'd like a more ambiguous templarate and a less nakedly moustache-twirlingly eeevil set of sorcerer-kings for them to serve in the interests of setting complexity and drama, I have to acknowledge that this flies in the face of the heavy majority of 2e/4e source material. And in the current climate, and given their currently-expressed commitment to paying more attention to minority views, does WotC really want to be bringing out a setting where one of the standard PC options is oppressive enforcers of an evil slave state? Cos that is 100% what templars are. To be honest I reckon if we see an official 5e Dark Sun, the only place we see templars may well be in the monster manual.

Hammanu didn't have Druids serving him. An ex Templar fled and became a druid.