D&D 5E 5e has everything it needs for Dark Sun

[Steampunkette]

This is the fork in the road. Either Dark Sun learns to play nicely with the PHB OR it becomes some D&D adjacent game on its own with it's own collection of core rulebooks.

We've seen WotC has no interest in settings that are widely divergent from the core assumptions, and the latest Ravenloft blog reinforces the idea ("D&D is D&D, and we shouldn’t try to make it a game it isn’t."). 4e Dark Sun took this tack and I imagine 5e will go further. There is a zero percent chance you won't see all classes and many (but not necessarily all) races find a home in 5e DS.

The question is: Is D&D Clerics worshipping gods or does D&D care if Clerics getting their powers from the elements and being narratively very rare?

It's really just as simple as WotC saying in a sidebar "These classes traditionally do not feature in Dark Sun. If you want a classical feeling to the setting, do not use X, Y, and Z. However, if you wish to give your players more options, you can certainly use said classes by treating their fluff like so..." and then they describe what a DS cleric or DS paladin or whatever might look like.

Traditionalist DS players won't want to use certain classes. New DS players might not care. There's no reason the book has to go all-in on one side or the other. Make a point to describe both options and let individual DMs choose how they want to run their game.

The only risk they have if they go the "here's both ways you can go" route... is dealing with the complaints from traditionalists who will whine that because WotC did not outright ban certain classes altogether, they now are "forced" to let their players play these things because heaven forbid they ever tell their players 'No'.

You have the right of it, here, for sure!

There's also the third path: Keep stuff from core D&D with narrative adaptation. Oh, you wanna play a Cleric? Well there are no gods, no temples, and you're going to be hunted for your heretical beliefs in offering worship to rocks and fire rather than the Sorcerer-Kings. What domains? Uh. Whichever one you want? The domain isn't important, it's the fact that you're getting your power from elements that is.

Dragonborn as Dray, various elf-subraces as Desert-Elf-Mutants, Gnomes as incredibly short humans...

Though honestly after Theros I think they'll just say "No gnomes in this setting unless your DM really wants that headache".

We know 2010 WotC thought it was important to have psionics released for Dark Sun. We don't know if 2021 WotC feels the same way.

I honestly have no idea what direction WotC will take Dark Sun if/when they release it, which is kind of refreshing.

Probably not "Points of Light" since they got out of that specific "We have to adapt every campaign setting to this incredibly specific premise!" angle.

With how they've handled Ravenloft, I think they're going to try and do what the Marvel Movies have: Give each setting a core structure that evokes a specific genre-feel. Like how Captain America was a WW2 Propaganda Period Piece and Winter Soldier was a Political Action Thriller. And then Ant-Man was a full on Heist flick.

They're all Indisputably "Marvel Superhero Movies" but with their own trappings to create a different genre appeal layered on top of the selling formula.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It obviously does not. You'd need vastly expanded Psionic subclasses even without Psion, and ditching Psions in a book full of Psionics would feel pretty idiotic (which is as a good an argument as "humbug", I offer). Also, putting a Psion class in the book, like Artificer in Eberron, would be a very good way to move copies.

Honestly psionics are easy - Theros and Ravenloft have shown the ways. Instead of Supernatural Gifts or Dark Gifts you'd get Psychic Gifts. And with that you'd have the widespread psionics that make Dark Sun.

Then we already have a number of psionic subclasses:

• College of Whispers Bard
• Psychic Warrior Fighter
• Soulknife Rogue
• Aberrant Mind Sorcerer
• Great Old One Warlock (possibly)
• Circle of Dreams Druid (possibly)
• Fey Wanderer Ranger (debatably) - and there's a case for the Swarmkeeper Ranger to keep their swarm psionically

I don't see what a Psion class would add - what does it do? Especially when we already have psychic takes on a number of classes. In 2e and 3.X it was the more classes the merrier - and in 4e the psion broke AEDU slightly. But I don't see either in 5e and we already have a collection of explicitly psychic subclasses (although a couple more might be nice).

A more interesting question is preserving vs defiling. I consider the 4e implementation where defiling is a temptation mechanic and not a different lower XP subclass vastly superior to the 2e implementation, even in terms of matching the fluff in the books. All wizards should be able to defile or preserve. But how would a temptation mechanic work for wizards (plus others like Eldritch Knights) in 5e? We also, of course want the Sorcerer King Pact Warlock and probably to ban the cleric.

 

[see]

As to the second part: Your anecdotal evidence is not compelling.

I'm not offering any anecdotal evidence. I'm making a nice, plain, straightforward assertion that, no, a majority of 2e Dark Sun PCs were not members of the psionicist class, but instead of one of the many, many other classes. If you actually think otherwise, you're free to say so.

That's up there with saying Druids aren't important in Forgotten Realms because "Most" players didn't play Druids.

Um, yeah, exactly.

If there was no druid class in 5E, and someone claimed that WotC had to publish a druid class for PCs before it could publish the Forgotten Realms, I would come right out and say, "No, actually, you can publish the Forgotten Realms without publishing a druid class, and it'll work just fine. The ability to play a member of the druid class is not an essential part of the Forgotten Realms setting."

I don't know why so many people are acting like WotC somehow thinks Psionicists aren't a core part of Dark Sun when they released the PHB3 for 4e on March 16th 2010 and then dropped Dark Sun on August 17th the same year. Roughly as far apart as the Complete Psionics Handbook and Dark Sun box set for 2e.

Hmm? I actually do think WotC is under the impression that a PC psion(icist) class is an essential part of Dark Sun. That is an impression I hope to do some part in dispelling.

See, I don't think people who argue that a psion(icist) class is essential for a 5E Dark Sun are going to convince WotC to publish a psion(icist) class. Rather, I think they're just going to firmly convince WotC that they can't publish a 5E Dark Sun.

 

[Remathilis]

Honestly psionics are easy - Theros and Ravenloft have shown the ways. Instead of Supernatural Gifts or Dark Gifts you'd get Psychic Gifts. And with that you'd have the widespread psionics that make Dark Sun.

Then we already have a number of psionic subclasses:

• College of Whispers Bard
• Psychic Warrior Fighter
• Soulknife Rogue
• Aberrant Mind Sorcerer
• Great Old One Warlock (possibly)
• Circle of Dreams Druid (possibly)
• Fey Wanderer Ranger (debatably) - and there's a case for the Swarmkeeper Ranger to keep their swarm psionically

I don't see what a Psion class would add - what does it do? Especially when we already have psychic takes on a number of classes. In 2e and 3.X it was the more classes the merrier - and in 4e the psion broke AEDU slightly. But I don't see either in 5e and we already have a collection of explicitly psychic subclasses (although a couple more might be nice).

A more interesting question is preserving vs defiling. I consider the 4e implementation where defiling is a temptation mechanic and not a different lower XP subclass vastly superior to the 2e implementation, even in terms of matching the fluff in the books. All wizards should be able to defile or preserve. But how would a temptation mechanic work for wizards (plus others like Eldritch Knights) in 5e? We also, of course want the Sorcerer King Pact Warlock and probably to ban the cleric.

In all honesty, I'd like a psionic class that does two things: puts all the good mentalism spells on one spell list and that is tentacles free. My biggest disappointment was that they flipped the psionic soul sorcerer back to aberrant mind and stuck the Lovecraft elements back in. I'd have loved a pure psionic caster to represent other types of psionics.

 

[Steampunkette]

Honestly psionics are easy - Theros and Ravenloft have shown the ways. Instead of Supernatural Gifts or Dark Gifts you'd get Psychic Gifts. And with that you'd have the widespread psionics that make Dark Sun.

Then we already have a number of psionic subclasses:

• College of Whispers Bard
• Psychic Warrior Fighter
• Soulknife Rogue
• Aberrant Mind Sorcerer
• Great Old One Warlock (possibly)
• Circle of Dreams Druid (possibly)
• Fey Wanderer Ranger (debatably) - and there's a case for the Swarmkeeper Ranger to keep their swarm psionically

I don't see what a Psion class would add - what does it do? Especially when we already have psychic takes on a number of classes. In 2e and 3.X it was the more classes the merrier - and in 4e the psion broke AEDU slightly. But I don't see either in 5e and we already have a collection of explicitly psychic subclasses (although a couple more might be nice).

A more interesting question is preserving vs defiling. I consider the 4e implementation where defiling is a temptation mechanic and not a different lower XP subclass vastly superior to the 2e implementation, even in terms of matching the fluff in the books. All wizards should be able to defile or preserve. But how would a temptation mechanic work for wizards (plus others like Eldritch Knights) in 5e? We also, of course want the Sorcerer King Pact Warlock and probably to ban the cleric.

What does a Psion -do-?

I mean... there' 3 different editions of D&D which carry over various concepts and core precepts, specifically power points, theming, and the idea of improving your powers through a fungible resource that is not "Spell Slots" because the resource is meant to be more granular.

And then there's 5e's Mystic Class which was how Mearls was -hoping- to make 5e's Psionics, but wound up giving up to go for the subclass route for the moment and tackle a different d6 based approach to psionics...

What would it look like? He probably couldn't tell you because of NDAs... but if anyone knows it'd be him and his crew.

If I had to -guess-? We'll see a class similar to a Mystic, possibly using a Warlock style Chassis of Talents and Disciplines in place of spells, then Psionic Quanta to flesh things out. Narrowed in power points meant to cover a fairly small number of strong powers (Or a moderate number of weaker ones) between short rests, then a handful of "Big" powers that are used on a daily basis.

I'm not offering any anecdotal evidence. I'm making a nice, plain, straightforward assertion that, no, a majority of 2e Dark Sun PCs were not members of the psionicist class, but instead of one of the many, many other classes. If you actually think otherwise, you're free to say so.

Ahhh... you're making a useless statement relative to the topic at hand. That makes more sense. "Most players didn't play Fighter, so we shouldn't have Fighters in D&D!"

Um, yeah, exactly.

If there was no druid class in 5E, and someone claimed that WotC had to publish a druid class for PCs before it could publish the Forgotten Realms, I would come right out and say, "No, actually, you can publish the Forgotten Realms without publishing a druid class, and it'll work just fine. The ability to play a member of the druid class is not an essential part of the Forgotten Realms setting."

Druids are a pretty essential part of the FR Setting through the Emerald Enclave and it's massive works across Faerun. Cutting them out of the setting because "Most players don't play druids" is just... weirdly contrarian?

Hmm? I actually do think WotC is under the impression that a PC psion(icist) class is an essential part of Dark Sun. That is an impression I hope to do some part in dispelling.

See, I don't think people who argue that a psion(icist) class is essential for a 5E Dark Sun are going to convince WotC to publish a psion(icist) class. Rather, I think they're just going to firmly convince WotC that they can't publish a 5E Dark Sun.

Uh. Huh.

Yeah... that's... kinda "Cart before the Chickens" logic, there, friendo. WotC knows they can publish any form of psionicist for 5e and even if people hate it it'll still be 5e's psionicist. And like Eberron and the artificer before it, they can slap it into the Dark Sun Campaign setting to move units. 'Cause even if people hate it (And people will -always- hate whatever they create) others are gonna want it and even those who hate it are probably gonna want the rest of the book.

No one could convince WotC to leave Dark Sun in the vault without it being some kind of mass Petition that hits a significant majority, not just a plurality, of the 50 million+ players worldwide.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't see what a Psion class would add - what does it do? Especially when we already have psychic takes on a number of classes.

This is a ridiculous question. You can ask the same about any class, and you just get a description of the class - obviously a Psion uses psionic powers. By your logic here, we don't need Wizards or Sorcerers, because we have EKs and ATs. We certainly didn't need Artificers, by that logic.

The Mystic class was about two balance passes away from being "what a Psion should do". Only the idiotic 70% standard they were applying at the time (which would also have caught ANY full caster class newly introduced, and would have definitely massacred the Warlock) prevented it from happening, because they were stuck in the "Apology Edition" mode of thinking at the time.

And just putting "possibly" after archetypes that aren't psionic and claiming they are is really proving my point, frankly. College of Whispers is also not psionic, you don't get to be psionic just because you have one ability with the word "psychic" in. It doesn't even have access to the appropriate psionic-style spells, because it only has default Bard access, so is missing stuff like Mind Sliver, which is a must for any class even pretending to be psionic.

So you have two genuine Psionic subclasses, one sorta (Aberrant Sorc - his theme is actually Far Realm, not psionic), one not psionic but covering some of the same ground (Whispers), and three more definitely not psionic. I guess you're trying to say you could re-fluff them as psionic, but that's not remotely the same thing. Further, the Fey Wanderer is totally inappropriate for Dark Sun.

A more interesting question is preserving vs defiling. I consider the 4e implementation where defiling is a temptation mechanic and not a different lower XP subclass vastly superior to the 2e implementation, even in terms of matching the fluff in the books.

I don't think it is better. 4E's implementation is lazy and all the proposed implementations for 5E that I've seen are terrible. They make defiling a really weak gain at most that doesn't even really make sense to use most of the time, and doesn't have the dreadful effects it could have in 2E, nor the significant real-terms power-gain you got because of faster leveling.

You need an implementation that's an actual temptation. A significant power gain, especially in a way that can't otherwise be accessed - like an increased saving throw DC or something, extra dice on damage, extra radius, etc. not just simple upcasting for killing some plants with zero game impact. And if you keep using it, you should get more out of it, but it should become more dangerous. It shouldn't be trivial to not defile.

 

[Maxperson]

Psionicists were a distinct minority of PCs. Some tables might have actually had parties where a majority of players were playing psionicist class characters, but I seriously doubt those tables were common.

This is meaningless as it applies to literally every class. Some tables might have had parties where a majority of players were playing wizards, but I doubt those tables were common. Some tables might have had parties where a majority of players were playing rangers, but I doubt those tables were common. A party usually has 1 of a given class, making them all a minority in a party. And yes, I saw a good chunk of Psionicists in Dark Sun back during 2e.

So, on the setting level, psion(icist)s are not actually necessary for Dark Sun. Wild talents, psi warriors, soulknives, and psionic-type feats are enough psionics to check the "psionics are everywhere" setting-feel issue.

Yes, they are necessary. Dark Sun and psions were very tightly interlinked. Both Dragons and Evangions were impossible without the class. Hell, they were so common in Dark Sun that the Dark Sun rules removed level restriction for the Psionicist class from non-humans, and every non-human had the option to multi-class Psionicist with all of the classes available to them.

Psionics in Dark Sun were far more than just wild talents and can't be represented by only wild talents and minor psionic subclasses.

 

[Istbor]

Disappointing but most likely right. I am sick of kitchen sink settings.

You are in luck! As a human you were likely equipped with an amazing setting creating system, the imagination! With this tool, I have been able to consistently play D&D without actively playing a published campaign for 20 years.

Some may have been kitchen sink, but a great deal of them were not! Even better, my Dark Sun (goodbye psionics) doesn't have to look like anyone else's Dark Sun!

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a ridiculous question. You can ask the same about any class, and you just get a description of the class - obviously a Psion uses psionic powers.

And if all I get are buzzwords and abstract concepts then I rapidly come to the conclusion that it does nothing.

By your logic here, we don't need Wizards or Sorcerers, because we have EKs and ATs.

No. By my logic you need to get into the details to show why what a wizard can do that an EK or AT can't. Which is pretty easy.

We certainly didn't need Artificers, by that logic.

No - by that logic the case for artificers needed to be affirmatively made. How does what an artificer does differ from what a wizard does? Other than y'know, infusions and the like. Or for example having a central subclass feature being an Iron Man suit. Oh, wait.

I'm pretty sure that most people realise I'm a fan of 4e - but one of the parts of 4e I was disappointed in was the 4e artificer because it didn't show why it was different from any other class and needed to exist other than to carry the name. If you can differentiate your psion from the existing classes to the extent the 5e artificer is while keeping them relatively balanced I'll agree they are a good addition.

As for what's needed why do we need to go beyond the four basic classes? On the other hand there are advantages in doing so - it opens up more concepts to be played. But each time we add something like a class there's a penalty; it makes the game larger, more complex, more confusing and, most importantly less accessible.

We didn't need artificers. Far from it. But adding artificers added to the game so it was worth the cost adding an extra class

And just putting "possibly" after archetypes that aren't psionic and claiming they are is really proving my point, frankly. College of Whispers is also not psionic, you don't get to be psionic just because you have one ability with the word "psychic" in.

No. You get to be psionic because you're a trickster who uses supernatural powers to control and warp minds and perception and explicitly does so through psionic means.

It doesn't even have access to the appropriate psionic-style spells, because it only has default Bard access, so is missing stuff like Mind Sliver, which is a must for any class even pretending to be psionic.

So if I go back through the editions and look to see if the psions in other editions have been able to cast Mind Sliver and they can't they aren't psionic? Riiiight. While I agree that Mind Sliver should be on the bard list alongside their favourite Vicious Mockery, I find this litmus test ridiculous.

But this paragraph undermines just about any use for a psionic class; if your litmus test for a psionic class is that they fundamentally must be able to cast spells then we already have more than half a dozen classes that can cast spells. The reason an artificer is a separate class is that their fundamental thing isn't spellcasting. It's making and modifying stuff. A psion (and this includes Mearls' mystic) appears to be all about spending spell points (rather than slots) to do spell-stuff.

There is a niche I've been mentioning frequently in threads, and the Psion can grab it. It's the same role as the 4e Elementalist Sorcerer, Can Just Do Stuff with as little juggling as possible (although the Warlock is already pretty close to that(. In the Psion example it would be going Carrie rather than throwing water balls at people.

You need an implementation [of Defiling] that's an actual temptation. A significant power gain, especially in a way that can't otherwise be accessed - like an increased saving throw DC or something, extra dice on damage, extra radius, etc. not just simple upcasting for killing some plants with zero game impact. And if you keep using it, you should get more out of it, but it should become more dangerous. It shouldn't be trivial to not defile.

Here I think we're on about the same page. You might want more out of defiling than 4e gave, but defiling and preserving should be a choice on a spell by spell basis rather than separate classes.

 

[TwoSix]

You need an implementation that's an actual temptation. A significant power gain, especially in a way that can't otherwise be accessed - like an increased saving throw DC or something, extra dice on damage, extra radius, etc. not just simple upcasting for killing some plants with zero game impact. And if you keep using it, you should get more out of it, but it should become more dangerous. It shouldn't be trivial to not defile.

I think @Neonchameleon's broader point is that the defiling temptation should be at the time of casting (as 4e's mechanic was), rather than during character generation (as 2e's was). The specific implementation and power level can be tweaked, but the idea that even a devoted preserver can fall into defiling in a desperate moment is a strong one I feel that's worthy of mechanical inclusion.

Personally, I'd prefer that defiling be the default, and preserving be the choice with an at-cast time cost, but there are certainly multiple methods of implementation.