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.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am just confused at times. We hear over and over and over the old days are past, the preferences of the younger players are all that matters…

Then Greyhawk in DMG and now this. Interesting

I hear ya. Nirvana is my favorite clothing brand.

What? Is something still a signifier when there is no signified?

Oh well. Whatever. Never mind.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure. Oral traditions were necessary to pass on ideas from one generation to another. Inevitably, improvisation and mutations occurs. Thanks to the printing press, that is no longer necessary. I can read A Princess of Mars without the need for bards, orators, and rapsodes to butcher or reinterpret Edgar Rice Burroughs's original.

If someone is inspired by Edgar Rice Burroughs or believe he/she can do better, a new book/setting/film/comic book with a new world and set of characters can be invented. No need to disrespect the original art.

Similarly, Timothy B. Brown and Troy Denning created Dark Sun. That setting can be reprinted as is. No need to butcher or reinterpret.

What I don't understand is why the WotC posse is so deprived of artistic vision and creativity that they can't create their own setting that incorporates everything like about another setting and excludes everything they don't. They can make a post-apocalyptic wasteland setting without butchering or reinterpreting the world of Timothy B. Brown and Troy Denning.

If the WotC posse can do better than Timothy B. Brown and Troy Denning, I see let them try. Let them have at it. But I don't see why they need to lean on Timothy B. Brown and Troy Denning's work as a crutch. Are they so artistically inferior that they cannot measure up? Perhaps--perhaps not.

And no, I do not care about corporatists arguments. Let's keep politics out of art/gaming/everything meaningful to the human condition.

You realize some of the best art is also made not by the original artist, but by those who came later and reinterpreted it? What would the X-Men look like if only Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were allowed to write them? No Clairemont to introduce Wolverine, Storm, Kitty Pride, Nightcrawler, etc? No Phoenix Saga, no Inferno, no Days of Futures Past? What does the modern comic book industry look like without Frank Miller taking the goofy blue-amd-gray bat hero with the gadgets and boy sidekick and reinterpret him as The Dark Knight Returns? His goofy circus-themed bank robber nemesis redefined by Alan Moore's The Killing Joke? You'd still have Superdickery level stories without that ability to modify and adapt.

Do you like Jimi Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower or should that song only be performed by Bob Dylan? Ike and Tina's Proud Mary or only CCRs original? What about James Bond movies not based on Ian Fleming (or even those that were, go read the original Casino Royale and tell me Bond is a hero)? Spinoff media like the Thrawn Trilogy? Hell, should Star Trek Deep Space Nine ever been made since Roddenberry wasn't involved with it?

Art is made to be remixed and remade. Purity is only a concern for chemistry. Great art stands on the shoulders of giants and failures alike. Originality is always appreciated, but humans also crave the familiar. Old friends in New clothes. If you don't like it, don't read it.

 

[humble minion]

Ya, having read through the extant 20ish pages of this thread I'm pretty surprised by what's not being discussed/argued. What always pops up in dark sun discussions on enworld is the "WotC can't do dark sun because it's too edgy" argument, and then the "yes it can, you're just supposed to play good guys tho fight against the edgelords" counterargument.

Well, not in this UA you're not; edgelord is half the content.

Something that just occurs to me - Paizo copped merry hell a couple of years ago over the Agents of Edgewatch AP. Having a campaign centred around 'good guy' law enforcement PCs was seen as distinctly smelly give the political events around BLM etc that were happening at the time. Paizo eventually had to put our a quasi-apology I think.

Now WotC is releasing a sorcerer-king pact warlock. An explicitly PC-focused mechanic (this is 5e, NPC bad guys have stat blocks, not subclasses) that entirely revolves around the idea of you playing the brutal oppressive enforcer for the capricious whims or draconian 'laws' of a undying genocidal and dictatorial tyrant. And we're 25 pages into the thread and while it's perfectly possible the subect has ben raised in a post I missed or skipped over, it certainly hasn't been a major theme of discussion.

Times change quickly it seems. And yeah, if they remove slavery from the setting in the final product the outraged cries of 'woke!' will no doubt shake the birds out of the skies. But this is looking quite the opposite to me right now. Playable templars explicitly themed around a 'you terrify, dominate, and control people on behalf of your evil master' theme is NOT what I had on my bingo card in 2025.

 

[GarrettKP]

You realize some of the best art is also made not by the original artist, but by those who came later and reinterpreted it? What would the X-Men look like if only Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were allowed to write them? No Clairemont to introduce Wolverine, Storm, Kitty Pride, Nightcrawler, etc? No Phoenix Saga, no Inferno, no Days of Futures Past? What does the modern comic book industry look like without Frank Miller taking the goofy blue-amd-gray bat hero with the gadgets and boy sidekick and reinterpret him as The Dark Knight Returns? His goofy circus-themed bank robber nemesis redefined by Alan Moore's The Killing Joke? You'd still have Superdickery level stories without that ability to modify and adapt.

Do you like Jimi Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower or should that song only be performed by Bob Dylan? Ike and Tina's Proud Mary or only CCRs original? What about James Bond movies not based on Ian Fleming (or even those that were, go read the original Casino Royale and tell me Bond is a hero)? Spinoff media like the Thrawn Trilogy? Hell, should Star Trek Deep Space Nine ever been made since Roddenberry wasn't involved with it?

Art is made to be remixed and remade. Purity is only a concern for chemistry. Great art stands on the shoulders of giants and failures alike. Originality is always appreciated, but humans also crave the familiar. Old friends in be clothes. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I’ve never seen a post I’ve agreed with more. Very well said.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

1. I am surprised that WotC is doing Dark Sun.

2. I am happy that WotC is doing Dark Sun.

3. I am also a little sad, in a way, because that means that we are stuck with ... the stuff ... that they've pushed out as "psionics," but I'll get over it.

4. I'm curious to see what the final release looks like.

5. I hope that it is awesome! I just want it to be good- it doesn't matter to me if it's grimdark, or hopepunk, or gammaworld reimagined, or a meta-commentary on EDM. Just be good. Do you know why? Because the original Dark Sun stuff is still available. You can always use that lore if you prefer.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Something that just occurs to me - Paizo copped merry hell a couple of years ago over the Agents of Edgewatch AP. Having a campaign centred around 'good guy' law enforcement PCs was seen as distinctly smelly give the political events around BLM etc that were happening at the time. Paizo eventually had to put our a quasi-apology I think.

Now WotC is releasing a sorcerer-king pact warlock. An explicitly PC-focused mechanic (this is 5e, NPC bad guys have stat blocks, not subclasses) that entirely revolves around the idea of you playing the brutal oppressive enforcer for the capricious whims or draconian 'laws' of a undying genocidal and dictatorial tyrant. And we're 25 pages into the thread and while it's perfectly possible the subect has ben raised in a post I missed or skipped over, it certainly hasn't been a major theme of discussion.

Times change quickly it seems. And yeah, if they remove slavery from the setting in the final product the outraged cries of 'woke!' will no doubt shake the birds out of the skies. But this is looking quite the opposite to me right now. Playable templars explicitly themed around a 'you terrify, dominate, and control people on behalf of your evil master' theme is NOT what I had on my bingo card in 2025.

Not to mention a subclass dedicated to the reckless destruction of the environment. I can’t see that going down well with my group.

Well I guess by red lighting this, I can get some measure of revenge for the murder of my dragonriding PDK.

 

[Steampunkette]

I agree with the second comment, mostly.

The trouble with dark sun, in its original incarnation as well as now, is how much of the standard D&D player options it keeps. Everything with spells that can't defile ultimately undercuts the core environmentalist themes of the setting. So choosing a Druid in 2e already opted you out of the arcane magic defiles paradigm.

Kinda-Sorta. It establishes that Divine Magic and Nature Magic are fundamentally different forces to Arcane Magic within the world. By creating this separation, it casts Arcane magic, as a whole, as a specifically unnatural and "Dark" form of magic.

Which reinforces the idea of Defiling as default and the Sorcerer Kings being deeply, unrepentantly, evil. Also the whole "Sorcerer Hate" that floats around the setting where arcane casters are specifically hunted down and killed by common people because of their defiling ways. And, of course, the WORD "Defile" has tons of negative implications.

Helps to establish that, yes, Arcane magic is -bad-. And you can use it in a way that is less bad, but you always have the choice to use it in an evil way. Personally I always felt that was -cool-.

And, in 5e, wizards aren't enough more powerful than druids that having penalties for preserving doesn't just discentivize playing a wizard--where in 2e (I think, correct me if I'm off here) game balance was somewhat less of a thing, and a standard wizard with accelerated level progression would be clearly stronger than a druid.

You're not entirely off. Balance was far less of a concern for 2e than 5e. However: I don't -really- care?

There is a point, and it's a weird point I'll grant you that, where a setting's entire identity is based on intentionally employed imbalance. Whether that's rolling 4d4+4 for character stats or having Preserving be strictly mathematically worse than defiling. Is it fair? No.

But the unfairness is rather the point. Arcane magic on Athas -is evil-. It is a tool of the Enemy. You -can- use it, at a price. Or you can play a Psion and bypass that problem entirely.

I don't think you're wrong that the fiction underlying what WotC is cooking will be... unambitious. But I also don't think implicating druids in the preserving/defiling dichotomy is neccessarily bad (though this particular implementation sure is).

We're both free to have our opinions on things, thankfully. I personally prefer the differentiation of magic rather than making it all exactly the same, which is the direction WotC went with.

I didn't know that about 4e dark sun. Could you elaborate, how is it different from the 1991 presentation of the setting?

Oh, for sure! I literally posted EVERYTHING there is for 4e's Campaign Setting on the events of the Defiling War.

2e went into a little bit more detail. By which I mean dozens of pages of more information.

 

[MGibster]

I am by no means opposed to trying new things, exploring new worlds, telling new stories, etc., but we are a species of storytellers and we've been creating new/updated takes on old stories and gradually figuring out how/if to work them into the collective consciousness for millennia.

Yeah. Sometimes changing things works out really well. Some people might still complain about that French upstart being added to the Arthurian stories, but who doesn't love him some Lancelot? But then other people tried to make Arthur some sort of modern gangster raised in a London brothel....that didn't work out so well. I guess you really never know what's going to stick until you try.

What? Is something still a signifier when there is no signified?

There's something in the way. Hmmm...mmmmm.

 

[Alzrius]

Yeah. Sometimes changing things works out really well. Some people might still complain about that French upstart being added to the Arthurian stories, but who doesn't love him some Lancelot? But then other people tried to make Arthur some sort of modern gangster raised in a London brothel....that didn't work out so well. I guess you really never know what's going to stick until you try.

I think part of the issue (and, I want to stress, only part of it) is that there's a difference between changing things by adding to what's come before, and changing things by removing part of their definitional characteristics.

This is something I saw during the debate around 5E 2024 giving monsters that classically had only one sex an opposite-sex counterpart, with the medusa being the example that got the most discussion. One poster eschewed negative reactions to the change by saying "this gives us more options!" Which is true, but those options came by removing a characteristic of what made a medusa be a medusa in the first place. Which for most people I suspect would be the following (in no particular order):

• Snakes for hair
• Petrifying gaze
• Female

Eliminating that last one does allow for more different types of creatures, but there's now one-third less understanding of what makes a medusa be what it is. Consider that if you remove the "snakes for hair" part as well, you'd have even more options...but now you just have men and women who happen to have a petrifying gaze; you can call that a medusa, but would it feel like one? What about if you changed the petrifying gaze into an immolation gaze? Even more options, but it feels even less like a medusa.

Now, to be fair, sometimes these changes stick. Medusa used to be a specific individual and not a particular kind of creature, for instance. But a lot of the time, deleting or altering a definitional characteristic results in blowback, and the more of them you change for a given thing (be it a creature, a character, a setting, etc.) the more blowback you're likely to generate.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I think part of the issue (and, I want to stress, only part of it) is that there's a difference between changing things by adding to what's come before, and changing things by removing part of their definitional characteristics.

This is something I saw during the debate around 5E 2024 giving monsters that classically had only one sex an opposite-sex counterpart, with the medusa being the example that got the most discussion. One poster eschewed negative reactions to the change by saying "this gives us more options!" Which is true, but those options came by removing a characteristic of what made a medusa be a medusa in the first place. Which for most people I suspect would be the following (in no particular order):

• Snakes for hair
• Petrifying gaze
• Female

Eliminating that last one does allow for more different types of creatures, but there's now one-third less understanding of what makes a medusa be what it is. Consider that if you remove the "snakes for hair" part as well, you'd have even more options...but now you just have men and women who happen to have a petrifying gaze; you can call that a medusa, but would it feel like one? What about if you changed the petrifying gaze into an immolation gaze? Even more options, but it feels even less like a medusa.

Now, to be fair, sometimes these changes stick. Medusa used to be a specific individual and not a particular kind of creature, for instance. But a lot of the time, deleting or altering a definitional characteristic results in blowback, and the more of them you change for a given thing (be it a creature, a character, a setting, etc.) the more blowback you're likely to generate.

Using the medusa as an example might not be the best choice, as there have been male medusae in D&D before 2024, most notably in Princes of the Apocolypse.