Dungeons & Dragons Releases New Unearthed Arcana Subclasses, Strongly Hinting at Dark Sun

Wizards of the Coast has released four new D&D subclasses for playtesting, all of which have heavy thematic ties to the post-apocalyptic Dark Sun setting. The four subclasses, released as "Apocalyptic Subclasses," include the Circle of Preservation Druid, the Gladiator Fighter, the Defiled Sorcerer, and the Sorcerer-King Patron Warlock. Although not stated outright, the Gladiator and Sorcerer-King Patron are explicit nods to the Dark Sun setting, set in a ruined world ruled by Sorcerer-Kings where gladiatorial fights were common.

The Circle of Preservation Druid creates areas of preserved land that grants buffs to those who stand upon it. The Gladiator adds secondary Weapon Mastery properties to their attacks, with bonus abilities. Notably, the Gladiator uses Charisma as its secondary stat. The Defiled Sorcerer can expend its hit dice to amp up damage to its attacks and can also steal the life of its targets to deal additional damage. The Sorcerer-King Patron gains a number of abilities tying into tyranny and oppression, with the ability to cast Command as a Bonus Action without expending a spell slot, causing targets to gain the Frightened Condition, and forcing those who attack them to re-roll successful attacks.

The survey for the subclasses goes live on August 28th.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

All art is shaped by the circumstances it's made, thus it can never escape having at least some implicit political connotations somewhere, even when the authors actively tries to avoid that. Nevertheless, it's just foolish to try to extract the politics out of every piece of art in existence, because when you try to apply that logic to everything things get stupid quick.

Super Mario is just about a cartoon Italian plumber jumping on turtles to save a princess in cutesy cartoony fantasy land, you can extract some politics if you try really hard but I don't think it's a good or worthwhile idea. Many fantasy settings are just excuses to make cool setpieces and dragons without much, if any at all, thought given to the political implications.

Talking to my wife today she had the same reaction I do to the idea of Sorcer-King Patron being an inherently “your character is evil” subclass.

It’s a dark subclass, absolutely. You are a Herald of an evil power. You’re kinda fantasy Judge Dredd.

But the whole point of such a character for many people is to play the person who was coerced into service, or who was groomed from childhood for service, or offered power and stability and a sense of purpose in a time of utmost despair, or the like, and who has turned or is starting to turn against the power structure they are the iron fist of (Equilibrium), or who has seen the Truth and found it unacceptable (Spawn), etc.

It is, even more than any other Warlock subclass, a subclass that exists in a state of invitation to play a character using their patron’s power against them.

It makes me wish 5e had more specific patrons, or just skipped the patron as the subclass and somehow made it into a less assumed part of the class from the start. The place where warlocks exist is so caught between “magical hacker who has gained power through taboo means” and “herald of a dark power”, and it makes me wish it was two classes.

I do have a question how is this going to interact with Warlock being effectively a non-entity in 2024 rules. It kinda kills the whole vibe dead on the spot.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Do avangions still count as "technically sorcerer-kings"? Can Oronis serve as inherently good SK patron? Full disclosure, I know very little of canon

Even if the patron were good, the subclass powers are geared around control, coercion and fear. So not really a nice person.

 

[SableWyvern]

Isn't this literally Shadowheart, to quote a rather recent example? I'm surprised "templars are evil" are still a point of contention after BG3

No idea. Haven't played and know almost nothing about BG3. Although I'm not sure why a BG3 character would prove anything about templars in Dark Sun. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I stopped caring about Dark Sun canon after the Ivory Triangle boxed set. Even if it happens to support my position, I'm not going to cite a CRPG released 30 years later and set in a different world as a evidence I'm right.

Personally, I have no issue with @Ruin Explorer not being comfortable with anything less than truly evil templars; I only disagree with the fact they seem to feel this is just the way it objectively must be, as opposed to presenting it as a personal preference.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Isn't this literally Shadowheart, to quote a rather recent example? I'm surprised "templars are evil" are still a point of contention after BG3

Shadowheart is evil, unless the PC convinces her not to be, which whilst most players do manage it, isn't a given. Whether it's her fault she's evil is a more complicated question (given she was mindwiped), but she literally embraces evil unless the PC convinces her not to in BG3. But maybe that's what you're saying?

Edit: No you didn't. Look, if you have decided all templars must be extra-evil, all well and good. You can feel that way if you want. I think there is definitely room for a lot more nuance.

I think the problem is that you're seemingly treating evil as just "taint", which can be avoided by not having direct contact, whereas I'm seeing evil as intent. I'd see someone who was brainwashed and did hand over some families to be eaten by the Sorcerer-King or w/e, but then realized this was wrong, turned around and risked their life to directly fight the Sorcerer-King as actually less-evil than someone who kept turning their face away, ignoring the screams, cleaning up the blood and never asking questions, and so on, but never actually directly physically harmed anyone.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Personally, I have no issue with @Ruin Explorer not being comfortable with anything less than truly evil templars; I only disagree with the fact they seem to feel this is just the way it objectively must be, as opposed to presenting it as a personal preference.

I mean, you're misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting my position, ironically enough because you seem to be unable to see the nuance in it, which is probably on me. I just don't see soft avoidance of "direct harm" when you know it's going on and that you're supporting it as really any less evil than actually doing it, and it's certainly more cowardly. I think someone who does that is very unlikely to ever rebel against an SK. Run away? Sure. But fight back? Nah. I think the guy who was all-in until he had a road to damascus moment about what he was doing is more likely to be the Templar who bites the hand that feeds him.

 

[Alzrius]

Personally, I have no issue with @Ruin Explorer not being comfortable with anything less than truly evil templars; I only disagree with the fact they seem to feel this is just the way it objectively must be, as opposed to presenting it as a personal preference.

You'd think that Dark Sun's having been consistent across multiple editions about templars not having to be evil would count for something.

Here's what 2E says:

4E has similar language:

Incidentally, Dark Sun 4E has a similar proviso about owning slaves:

 

[Parmandur]

That is quintessentially what a Templar is, a n enforcer of his/her patron, a sorcerer/dragon king.

Funny you should mention Judge Dredd, @doctorbadwolf, yet that is my approach to the Templar - an enforcer of their patrons law. At first not sure why WoTC went with Warlock, yet that fits better than cleric.

I would have gone with paladin. But I guess you can use Oath of the Crown out of the box.

The 4E Dark Sun Templar was a Warlock Subclass.

 

[TheSword]

According to (rather thin) canon, the process that granted the sorcerer-monarchs the ability to grant their templars spells can't be repeated, so the Avangion from Arcane Shadows and Dragon's Crown can't do it (I'm blanking on his name at the moment). I believe that Oronis might be able to since he was one of the OG sorcerer-monarchs, but it would also make sense that he lost that ability during his redemption period where he became a preserver and re-advanced as an avangion.

Korgunard. Great NPC!

This is the thing about Dark Sun, it is absolutely brimming with great ideas for adventures. The execution was a bit wonky but the ideas are a gold mine. If given a modern twist there is so much potential in the setting for great adventures unique to Athas.

I tend to view the Sorcerer Kings like the Emperors of Rome crossed with the Princes of renaissance Italy. Selfish, Cruel, Authoritarian, Greedy. Acting always in their own interests to preserve and consolidate their anuthority and to acquire more. Gutted within a careful balance of powers with likeminded peers born of centuries of custom. Machiavelli’s the prince is a great book to read to get into their mindset. Is everything they do evil? Absolutely not. There is art, culture, security and a certain amount of civic pride. There should be space there for non-evil folks to be part of that system as well,

Nevertheless they are definitely not nice people and players should naturally bounce hard off the authoritarianism - giving lots of oppprtunities for adventure.

For similar comparison reasons I also like that there is a lot to packed into a small area. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the table lands occupy a similar scale area to mainland Italy. I’d like to think there is plenty of space there for adventure and plenty of gaps to fit things in.

 

[Remathilis]

I would have gone with paladin. But I guess you can use Oath of the Crown out of the box.

Oath of Conquest is right there...

 

[TheSword]

Oath of Conquest is right there...

Most of them aren’t warriors though, they’re politicians first and foremost. Warlock is perfect in that regard. Most Paladin powers seem very counter to the idea of a SK’s Templar, lay on hands, aura of protection, heavy armour, martial prof. Nah.