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.

 

[Weiley31]

I'd accept a lot of stupidity, but if the Emperor gets up and is a 'good guy' its over.

The Grey Knights as soon as Big E even TRIES to get up and stretch:

 

[FitzTheRuke]

For the sake of argument, let's move it off "Male and Female" 'cause, y'know, transness is a thing. Let's go for snake hair.

Agreed. It's one of the reasons that I think the gender argument is so inherently flawed.

So the identifying characteristics of a Medusa are:

1) Snake Hair
2) Petrifying Gaze
3) Female

We're gonna change that to:

1) Reptile Hair
2) Petrifying Gaze
3) Female

So now you can have a Medusa whose hair is Monitor Lizards. Not their heads, just the ENTIRE MONITOR LIZARD dangling off her head, attached by the tail to her scalp.

When you look at her, having a cultural expectation that she'll have snakes for hair, will you see her and go "Oh, that's a medusa"?

I mean, I would, yes! I spent a whole bunch of time combining different birds and cats into a whole slew of species of Griffons, for example. (My hummingbird cheetah griffon being a fast example!)

How about if it's just Alligator Heads attached to her scalp facing in all directions? How about Geckos so she can have a nice 'pixie cut' in comparison?

If I could come up with a way to make it - look - cool, maybe!

No. Having Snake Hair is an identifying characteristic. Taking that identifier and broadening it doesn't mean you can't have the "Classical Medusa", for sure, but the others don't look like what we think Medusa looks like as a cultural expectation.

I understand this. The example used wasn't that it "messed with cultural expectations". I wouldn't have objected to that argument. The argument was that it actively removed an aspect from a list of aspects - a thing that it didn't do. That flawed argument is used whenever this subject comes up. This was my point in objecting.

Dark Sun is the same way. You could "Expand" an element to allow for more variety, but Dark Sun loses some of it's tightness and definition in the process. And the more elements you "Expand" for variety, the less like Athas the world is going to look.

You don't have to convince me that reducing a number of elements helps to give a thing its identity. I wholly agree with that. I'm really hoping that any Dark Sun book actively recommends reducing player options. (I'm fine with a side-bar that says "If you're really really insistent on X, ask your DM, who is free to tell you "no".)

 

[DarkCrisis]

I agree with this, and if I may, I want to expand on an analogy not just directed at you, but several posts I've seen re: "remakes ruin it for me." or "remakes take my nostalgia from me."

Let's look at John Carpenter's The Thing (1981). It's one of the best horror movies ever made. I have a ton of nostalgia about that movie. Whenever people talk about a potential remake, it's usually met with derision about how they can't do better and would just ruin it. But that wasn't the original movie. The original was from 1951. Did John Carpenter ruin that IP? Not by any objective measure. Maybe some older fans of the original might not have liked it, but it brought in a whole new generation of fans, like me.

It's the same here with D&D, and the same with just about everything. A company doing a remake of an existing thing isn't new, it can create something iconic and well-loved, it doesn't ruin the IP just by doing it. It can be good, or it can flop. And I'd bet people would be surprised to realize just how much of what they love wasn't an original creation, but an adaptation of something earlier. It's like all those people saying Terry Brooks ripped off Tolkien when there are more similarities between Tolkien and his source material but no one ever says how Tolkien ripped off the Volsunga Saga or Wagner.

So yeah, future adaptations can make something better. And for each new generation, it's a fresh exposure for them, which help bring in more fans. I'm all for that.

To be fair, the old 51 movie took a lot of liberties with the plot and monster. Then again, i bet more people have seem the the 51 film then read the short story.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I'm more disappointed in the remake of Harry Potter, considering that there isn't enough time between the movies and the series to do anything more than rehash the same plot but with more filler.

To be fair the movies cut a lot from the books, where as the tv show apparently won't (or as much).

Also, Rowling can lick my butt.

 

[Weiley31]

I do love we have two bad guy subclasses. Especially one that has Command as part of it's special features.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

it removes female as an identifying characteristic for a Medusa. A male medusa is not a female creature

It removes the exclusivity of that aspect, sure. I don't think I ever suggested otherwise. Are we meant to think of three bullet points as an exhaustive list of what something is and isn't?

 

[Steampunkette]

I mean, I would, yes! I spent a whole bunch of time combining different birds and cats into a whole slew of species of Griffons, for example. (My hummingbird cheetah griffon being a fast example!)

I do love your griffons...

I understand this. The example used wasn't that it "messed with cultural expectations". I wouldn't have objected to that argument. The argument was that it actively removed an aspect from a list of aspects - a thing that it didn't do. That flawed argument is used whenever this subject comes up. This was my point in objecting.

Oh. Well. Yes, you did remove a specific aspect by changing it to be any gender. I know that sounds stupid since medusa women can still be a thing, but medusa -being- a woman is an identifying characteristic of the character.

If the three defining traits are Snake Hair, Petrifying Gaze, and Girl. And you say "But also Guy" then you no longer have "Girl" as a specifically defining trait. The defining traits become Snake Hair and Petrifying Gaze.

You don't have to convince me that reducing a number of elements helps to give a thing its identity. I wholly agree with that. I'm really hoping that any Dark Sun book actively recommends reducing player options. (I'm fine with a side-bar that says "If you're really really insistent on X, ask your DM, who is free to tell you "no".)

I mean, even 2e's original Dark Sun books had an answer to that: Mutants. You could play a Gnome in Athas back in 2e if you wanted to. They were just a wasteland mutant with gnomish traits instead of a 'True' Gnome.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Oh. Well. Yes, you did remove a specific aspect by changing it to be any gender. I know that sounds stupid since medusa women can still be a thing, but medusa -being- a woman is an identifying characteristic of the character.

I think if we start going into the weeds on "the character" this will get out of hand, because she's also a very specific individual and not a species at all.

 

[Superchunk77]

So again we get "defilers" that don't destroy the plants and land around them when they defile during spellcasting. But this time it's implemented even worse than the 4e version, as it's locked into a single subclass, rather than being a metamagic variation (which is what it should be).

If WotC does an about face, and does go ahead with a Dark Sun setting book, I don't expect it to be even close to the original setting in tone or lore. My expectation is something more akin to the 4e DS setting book, but watered/toned down to a PG rating. So instead of desert survival and slavery, we'll have beach parties and treasure hunts for magic ice cream fountains.

 

[Steampunkette]

I think if we start going into the weeds on "the character" this will get out of hand, because she's also a very specific individual and not a species at all.

Yup! S'why I mentioned her being a character.

But yeah. Ultimately, Dark Sun's not gonna be Dark Sun if they change too many of the identifying characteristics. Which is sad and frustrating 'cause you can be damned sure WotC's gonna take the path of least resistance and change a lot of those setting identity markers to be as Kitchen Sinky as they can.