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.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have ideas what sort of Paladins could exist in Dark Sun despite 2e Dark Sun having a ban on Paladins.

In many ways I feel it comes down to "No Oath of Devotion Paladins" as 2e Paladins were pretty well just Oath of Devotion types.

I feel that out of the PHB you can justify an Oath of Glory (which sort of got art in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything depicting one as a Gladiator) and an Oath of the Ancients (they'd be all about restoring the Athas) Paladins. And outside the core 4 you could probably justify Oath of Conquest as another type of Templar, and use FR's Oath of the Genie for a more elemental type.

Yeah. I agree. While I have very strong feelings on how excluding options helps to give a setting its identity (I'm all for it) - the specific options that are excluded don't need to be the same as they once were. And DS's alterations to the usual cultures for various species does as much to change its identity as does its exclusions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah. I agree. While I have very strong feelings on how excluding options helps to give a setting its identity (I'm all for it) - the specific options that are excluded don't need to be the same as they once were. And DS's alterations to the usual cultures for various species does as much to change its identity as does its exclusions.

Yeah exactly. We don't need the exact same classes/subclasses/species/etc. as 2E or 4E Dark Sun, but having default restrictions to set the tone of the setting (something I believe 5E has precedent for now, though I forget where), which obviously, like everything, are subject to Rule 0, is going to be important to setting the tone.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I doubt seriously to see a DS sourcebook for DMs.

Why is that?

About the lore we will see a mini-gazeteer like Greyhawk in DMG 2024. Maybe a monster compedium with some PC species like the tari (Athasian ratfolk).

But all that, plus an adventure (or several short ones) with a chapter at the beginning on advice for DMing DS - all of that IS a Dark Sun sourcebook for DMs.

Again, I think the format they are using for the upcoming FR Books is basically ideal.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I doubt seriously the metaplot to be touched to avoid the rage of the fandom or continuity incoherences linked to future projects. I imagine something like Dungeon #110 with some pages explaining the different state-cities.

Now I imagine something like the blighter prestige class from the complete divine. When a druid uses her special power, the local flora is affected, but not damaged in the classic way... The plants survive but they are "tainted", really poisoned, and you don't want to touch it. Even the animal feel a weird smell and they don't want to eat the fruits or the nectar from the flowers. If a defiler tried to drain that life energy she would be "poisoned" like who drank radiactive waters from a river in Chernobyl, but with inmediate effects.

* What if any continent from Athas was "settled" by creatures like the zergs from Starcraft? These could survive without water or ordinary food.

* Can the biopunk tech/lifeshaping art to be affected by the defiler magic?

 

[mamba]

I posted two examples of WotC doing exactly that in 5e books up-thread.

Is there some reason that you believe that WotC won't take the same approach for a Dark Sun book, despite this precedent?

yes, for one that was 4e, 15 or so years ago, for another it already says ‘but if a player wants to play a different race, here is how to accommodate this’. I am not expecting them to ban races and leave their inclusion entirely up to the DM now. They at most will already spell out how to allow anything under the Sun in the setting, if they include a hand wavy limitation at all

Compare that to 2e's "Each of the eight player character races (dwarf, elf, half-elf, half-giant, halfling, human, mul, and thri-kreen) are described in detail here, with specific rules for using them in the campaign. The notes given on roleplaying each race are also very important, since a character earns additional individual experience point awards when played according to these racial descriptions. Within these guidelines, players are encouraged to develop their own aims, attitudes, and personalities for their characters."

Now you can prefer either approach, but don't pretend that 5e will do anything like this

They have put soft bans on species before in Ravnica, Theros and Dragonlance, they can do so here.

emphasis on ‘soft’

 

[Remathilis]

yes, for one that was 4e, 15 or so years ago, for another it already says ‘but if a player wants to play a different race, here is how to accommodate this’. I am not expecting them to do ban races and leave their inclusion entirely up to the DM now. They at most will already spell out how to allow anything under the Sun in the setting, if they include a hand wavy limitation at all

Compare that to 2e's "Each of the eight player character races (dwarf, elf, half-elf, half-giant, halfling, human, mul, and thri-kreen) are described in detail here, with specific rules for using them in the campaign. The notes given on roleplaying each race are also very important, since a character earns additional individual experience point awards when played according to these racial descriptions. Within these guidelines, players are encouraged to develop their own aims, attitudes, and personalities for their characters."

Now you can prefer either approach, but don't pretend that 5e will do anything like this

Yeah. TSR essentially designed a stealth new RPG that was both incompatible with AD&D's PHB and yet still required it for the things they didn't want to reprint.

emphasis on ‘soft’

Yup. Hard bans are out of style and have been for about two+ decades. The closest WotC got to a hard ban was "no divine power source" in 4e DS and that was mitigated by the multitude of non-divine classes that filled the exact same roles. The era of settings telling you "no" is pretty much over. DMs make that call exclusively now.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

yes, for one that was 4e, 15 or so years ago, for another it already says ‘but if a player wants to play a different race, here is how to accommodate this’. I am not expecting them to do ban races and leave their inclusion entirely up to the DM now. They at most will already spell out how to allow anything under the Sun in the setting, if they include a hand wavy limitation at all

Compare that to 2e's "Each of the eight player character races (dwarf, elf, half-elf, half-giant, halfling, human, mul, and thri-kreen) are described in detail here, with specific rules for using them in the campaign. The notes given on roleplaying each race are also very important, since a character earns additional individual experience point awards when played according to these racial descriptions. Within these guidelines, players are encouraged to develop their own aims, attitudes, and personalities for their characters."

Now you can prefer either approach, but don't pretend that 5e will do anything like this


emphasis on ‘soft’

This is an incredibly weak and petty complaint, frankly.

The "difference" (if you can even call it that!) is purely:

2E - Establishes the default races and that the DM can change that is implicit.

5E - Establishes the default races and that the DM can change that is explicit.

Are you actually upset about changing an implicit to an explicit? That's 100% of the actual complaint you have. All your "I don't think they will actually give a default race list!!!" is just proven flatly wrong by his link.

 

[mamba]

This is an incredibly weak and petty complaint, frankly.

The "difference" (if you can even call it that!) is purely:

2E - Establishes the default races and that the DM can change that is implicit.

5E - Establishes the default races and that the DM can change that is explicit.

it goes further than that, you get XP rewards for playing the DS races according to their description ("The notes given on roleplaying each race are also very important, since a character earns additional individual experience point awards when played according to these racial descriptions"), they leave very little room for other races here

In any case, in comparison the 4e/5e version of this is a mild suggestion to not use other races unless it mildly inconveniences you. That is why in 5e every setting is FR with a minor coat of paint, not its own thing. I wish they would differentiate them more, give the other races a twist too, just like you did back in 2e DS instead of saying 'but hey, maybe you do run into ... regardless, you never know"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If a player wants to play a different species to those normally found in the setting, it’s either because:

a) they have a brilliant concept that will work in the setting;

b) they hate the setting (choose a different setting);

c) they just want to be difficult (choose a different player).