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.

 

[humble minion]

I'm talking about Dark Sun generally and how I think Templars should work (ie, I believe they should be able to act against their Sorcerer King and, if evil, should be able to be redeemed). I know next to nothing about 5e Warlocks or how suitable they are to represent my preferred Templar without modification.

Yeah, I'd definitely want to allow that type of storyline to play out. It's too dramatic and iconic, and I'd hate to close that storytelling door.

The question is how it works. If the templar turns against their patron and the patron finds out ... then what? Is it possible for the sorcerer-king to withdraw their favour from the templar, and strip him of his templar abilities? Given the nature of templarhood as written in all the lore, it should seem to be so, and rnouncing the service of one's evil arch-defiler monarch while still happily tapping into their power to Eldritch Blast people seems to undermine the redemption message more than a bit. But if a patron CAN cut off their warlock, how does the game continue with one PC so comprehensively hamstrung? And if they can't, what meaning does the pact have in the first place? Pacts bind BOTH parties.

Sorceror-kings are very powerful but much less so than gods in most D&D settings. They're not even slightly omnicient, so it's quite possible a careful turncoat templar could avoid discovery for a long time. But eventually it's going to come to a head, through a dramatic plot nexus, or through a botched Deception roll.

If it were me DMing, I'd probably allow the PC to re-spec into some other class or find another patron, after a dramatically appropriate (but not too frustratingly long) period of time spent powerless and given they can make plot developments happen. I have several players who'd be able to handle that gracefully and well, but not all would. Dealing with a depowered PC is very awkward in-game, and is exactly the reason that clerics etc don't by RAW lose their powers by sinning against their god any more.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, I'd definitely want to allow that type of storyline to play out. It's too dramatic and iconic, and I'd hate to close that storytelling door.

The question is how it works. If the templar turns against their patron and the patron finds out ... then what? Is it possible for the sorcerer-king to withdraw their favour from the templar, and strip him of his templar abilities? Given the nature of templarhood as written in all the lore, it should seem to be so, and rnouncing the service of one's evil arch-defiler monarch while still happily tapping into their power to Eldritch Blast people seems to undermine the redemption message more than a bit. But if a patron CAN cut off their warlock, how does the game continue with one PC so comprehensively hamstrung? And if they can't, what meaning does the pact have in the first place? Pacts bind BOTH parties.

Sorceror-kings are very powerful but much less so than gods in most D&D settings. They're not even slightly omnicient, so it's quite possible a careful turncoat templar could avoid discovery for a long time. But eventually it's going to come to a head, through a dramatic plot nexus, or through a botched Deception roll.

If it were me DMing, I'd probably allow the PC to re-spec into some other class or find another patron, after a dramatically appropriate (but not too frustratingly long) period of time spent powerless and given they can make plot developments happen. I have several players who'd be able to handle that gracefully and well, but not all would. Dealing with a depowered PC is very awkward in-game, and is exactly the reason that clerics etc don't by RAW lose their powers by sinning against their god any more.

Exact conversions are hard but the SKs were roughly on par with an archfiend or lesser gods avatar. Maybe demipower for weaker SKs. Bit squishy perhaps.

Not exact science and depends on stats used.

Weaker than say a Great Wyrm more powerful psionics and magic.

The Dragon or similar is above a Great Wyrm and is a 20/20 psion/defiled in OBS and 30/30 Dragon Kings iirc.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah, I'd definitely want to allow that type of storyline to play out. It's too dramatic and iconic, and I'd hate to close that storytelling door.

The question is how it works. If the templar turns against their patron and the patron finds out ... then what? Is it possible for the sorcerer-king to withdraw their favour from the templar, and strip him of his templar abilities? Given the nature of templarhood as written in all the lore, it should seem to be so, and rnouncing the service of one's evil arch-defiler monarch while still happily tapping into their power to Eldritch Blast people seems to undermine the redemption message more than a bit. But if a patron CAN cut off their warlock, how does the game continue with one PC so comprehensively hamstrung? And if they can't, what meaning does the pact have in the first place? Pacts bind BOTH parties.

Sorceror-kings are very powerful but much less so than gods in most D&D settings. They're not even slightly omnicient, so it's quite possible a careful turncoat templar could avoid discovery for a long time. But eventually it's going to come to a head, through a dramatic plot nexus, or through a botched Deception roll.

If it were me DMing, I'd probably allow the PC to re-spec into some other class or find another patron, after a dramatically appropriate (but not too frustratingly long) period of time spent powerless and given they can make plot developments happen. I have several players who'd be able to handle that gracefully and well, but not all would. Dealing with a depowered PC is very awkward in-game, and is exactly the reason that clerics etc don't by RAW lose their powers by sinning against their god any more.

This is one way to view the matter, the templar or warlock in the more general sense is a petitioner. In that they never have any power of their own and each time they cast they are petitioning their patron for the spell and the patron is doing the actual work.
Another way to frame it, is that the power or the ability to cast spell is something gifted to the warlock and a gift once given cannot be revoked.

 

[Sulicius]

What made the druid not all right?

The area feature does too much for such little cost. Powerful buffs and damage. It bloats its turns as well.

 

[humble minion]

Another way to frame it, is that the power or the ability to cast spell is something gifted to the warlock and a gift once given cannot be revoked.

I know, That's the game-convenient way of dealing with the problem that WotC as a whole promotes, which I loathe because I find it against the spirit of what warlocks (and clerics and paladins) ARE.

A warlock makes a pact with their patron. Pacts bind both parties, by definition, and pacts can be broken. The patron grants the warlock/templar power, and in turn, are promised ... what? 5e basically leaves that question entirely up to the DM, which i find very weaksauce.

 

[Parmandur]

although there is then the question within the game about what happens if you lose access to your source of power.

The new PHB and DMG address this quite specificly: the D&S cosmos has a strict "no takesie-backdies" rules for power. So a Fiend ir Cthulu cannot take away a Warlocks power, nor can a god take away a Clerics.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I know, That's the game-convenient way of dealing with the problem that WotC as a whole promotes, which I loathe because I find it against the spirit of what warlocks (and clerics and paladins) ARE.

A warlock makes a pact with their patron. Pacts bind both parties, by definition, and pacts can be broken. The patron grants the warlock/templar power, and in turn, are promised ... what? 5e basically leaves that question entirely up to the DM, which i find very weaksauce.

I think it has no choice, taking power from the player and removing the class powers is a lot like taking the players agency and really needs the consent of the player to make it work. Even if the rules were on the side of removing class powers here, it would cause strife at the table unless the players have agreed that this was the case.