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.

 

[mamba]

Once again, the curse of the "purple dragon knight" strikes where people rate the incomplete lore rather than the actual class features.

nothing wrong with that, saying a class does not match its fiction is valid feedback too. At no time did WotC say the feedback has to be limited to the class features. If anything, they said it is not about getting feedback for their balance.

If WotC does not care for that feedback, they can ignore it, it’s not like they are required to make changes based on it

 

[pukunui]

Once again, the curse of the "purple dragon knight" strikes where people rate the incomplete lore rather than the actual class features.

The mechanics are fine on their own. They're not unbalanced like, say, the druid's temp HP. I just don't think that a mini-tyrant should be a playable option - and the class features are all geared toward being a mini-tyrant.

On the other hand, I really don't think that stigmatizing dark fiction will do any good in countering the current dystopian trends. In fact, if anything sanitizing fiction and making it impossible for people to write and do what they want is pretty on brand for the dystopian era, so maybe if you don't like that stuff don't play into it?

The whole discussion about the themes of Dark Sun is so weird.

I'm not saying it should be sanitized. I'm saying WotC should lean into being the good guy and opposing the forces of Evil TM. I'm NOT the only one who's espoused this belief in this very thread, so I'm not sure why I am being singled out about it.

nothing wrong with that, saying a class does not match its fiction is valid feedback too. At no time did WotC say the feedback has to be limited to the class features. If anything, they said it is not about getting feedback for their balance.

Exactly. I also rated the defiler sorcerer red, both thematically and mechanically, because I feel quite strongly that it is NOT defiling magic. It's blood magic. Neither the theme nor the mechanics fit what defiling has traditionally been in Dark Sun.

Also, if this subclass goes ahead as written, I will also be banning it - not just because I don't think its mechanics match the theme but also because I don't want anyone playing a diehard uber-defiler in my games. This again should be an NPC only option.

However, I DO want some sort of defiling as temptation mechanic in the game. I like to give my players temptations toward evil in my games, even if I prefer that PCs in my games resist those temptations (or only give in to them temporarily and then seek to redeem themselves afterwards). Moments of weakness -- and heroes being misguided or tricked into doing bad things -- followed by redemption arcs are great tropes. Willingly embracing evil is not.

 

[overgeeked]

I am arguing that it is not something anyone, in this day and age, should really want at their table, not just me. It's not a behavior anyone should be encouraging, even in make believe land.

Right. I agree with you. What I'm saying is that it's not up to you or me what other people do at their tables. Regardless of our views, we have no right to dictate to other people what they get to do in make believe land. Besides, regardless of whether it's in the game or not, people will use the game to do things others don't like. There's literally no way around it. Whitewashing the setting won't stop that. And yes, removing PC options that tie into the darker side of the setting is whitewashing the setting. It'll only make the setting less itself and more bland corporate trash.

Yes, that is something I've been mulling over for a few years now. Hollywood still glorifies violence as well, so it's not just D&D. I know there are non-violent games out there. Sometimes pretend violence can be therapeutic. I don't have a definite answer to this one yet.

We pick and choose which evils we justify and accept. And yes, using the oppressor's weapons against them can be one hell of a therapeutic gaming experience. Ever play Star Wars? Ever off some Stormtroopers and use their gear? Ever had an ex-Empire PC? It's no different.

 

[pukunui]

Right. I agree with you. What I'm saying is that it's not up to you or me what other people do at their tables. Regardless of our views, we have no right to dictate to other people what they get to do in make believe land. Besides, regardless of whether it's in the game or not, people will use the game to do things others don't like. There's literally no way around it. Whitewashing the setting won't stop that. And yes, removing PC options that tie into the darker side of the setting is whitewashing the setting. It'll only make the setting less itself and more bland corporate trash.

I agree with the first part. But I think we can make the case to WotC that they shouldn't be encouraging Bad Guy TM playstyles, and I don't agree that excluding these specific subclasses will make the setting less itself or more bland corporate trash. There are other (and arguably better) ways to represent things like defiling magic or an ex-templar than via these specific mechanics. There have already been numerous pages in this very thread devoted to this very topic.

We pick and choose which evils we justify and accept. And yes, using the oppressor's weapons against them can be one hell of a therapeutic gaming experience. Ever play Star Wars? Ever off some Stormtroopers and use their gear? Ever had an ex-Empire PC? It's no different.

If you knew me better, you would know that I am BIG into Star Wars. I can't say I've ever done either of those specific things you've mentioned, though, and I don't agree that using the bad guys' gear is on the same level as continuing to be a mini-tyrant, spreading fear and magically compelling people to obey you, etc. I'd equate it more with an ex-Inquisitor continuing to use their red-bladed lightsaber and their Sith Force powers while aiding the Rebellion.

 

[Chaltab]

While it was not a player character, one of my favorite stories elements in my Dark Sun campaign was a Templar of Tyr who still had her pact blade and magic from Kalak even after his death, and how one of the PCs was constantly butting heads with her but also slowly working with her to unpack all the self-justifying lies this Templar used to justify partaking in the power of a Sorcerer King.

I think that can make a fascinating arc, so do hope the Sorcerer King pact goes through.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

First, Dark Sun is a mature setting. It's sword and sorcery and it breeds anti-heroes who have to kill to survive.

If a Templar becomes an ex-Templar, they did so for a reason. They broke ties with their tyrant, and got to keep the powers. If they are intimately familiar with the nature of the tyranny, and now use their familiarity and power to fight said tyranny, that makes sense, especially because they are likely public enemy #1. So Templars have access to tyrannical powers. Powers that are totally spells that many primary spellcasters can already take. Fear, Charm, Domination, etc. They can use those powers on the minions of the tyrants, and heck, any other murderous survivalists in the world who are willing to take their life and water for themselves.

There are many heroes and anti-heroes that use mind control and fear, including Professor X and Batman. There are many recovering villains in literature for inspiration as well. Heel-turns and Face-turns are both legit story elements!

I would LOVE to run a Dark Sun campaign where an ex-Templar and his Psion ally save an imprisoned Preserver from his ex-master's gladitorial prison (even out of spite to deny him), and by happenstance rescuing an imprisoned Gladiator and a "discerning" Defiler (who only ever taught that magic) during the jailbreak, who both assist in kicking ass to help them all break free. These unlikely companions then decide to join forces to stay alive as they seek a way to end the tyrant that wants them all dead. There could be great conversations and arguments amidst such a group about morality in an immoral world. The fact that they all figured out that helping each other is what kept them all alive is what keeps them from too far in their debates. Maybe there is a spark of attraction that confuses what might normally be conflicting origins.

The personalities are created by the players who play them. We don't get to tell the players that their characters have to be evil or untrustworthy. There are infinite variations why the players can justify any kind of class/subclass pairings, even if multiple players have dark origins but now want something better out of life. I love redemption arcs.

 

[pukunui]

While it was not a player character, one of my favorite stories elements in my Dark Sun campaign was a Templar of Tyr who still had her pact blade and magic from Kalak even after his death, and how one of the PCs was constantly butting heads with her but also slowly working with her to unpack all the self-justifying naughty word this Templar used to justify partaking in the power of a Sorcerer King.

I think that can make a fascinating arc, so do hope the Sorcerer King pact goes through.

Sure, and I expect that it will. I can only think of two instances where WotC has changed something in line with public or private playtesting feedback that I have submitted. One was the start to Tomb of Annihilation; the other was the inclusion of Dark Sun in the Spelljammer adventure. I can't claim any credit for those changes. They were just in line with my feedback. Most of the rest of the feedback I've submitted over the years has gone ignored.*

Long story short: I'm fully expecting WotC to ignore my feedback here and will, frankly, be surprised if they make any changes in line with my feedback.

*I had a lot of feedback about the species they included in Volo's, which I know they ignored, because those were published pretty much unchanged from the alpha playtest versions I saw.

 

[overgeeked]

I agree with the first part. But I think we can make the case to WotC that they shouldn't be encouraging Bad Guy TM playstyles

Okay. So they need to bin D&D. The core playloop of D&D is endless slaughter. That's a Bad Guy™ playstyle. The Good Guys™ don't endlessly murder anyone and everyone that gets in their way. And yet, that's the core of D&D...and has been since 1974.

and I don't agree that excluding these specific subclasses will make the setting less itself or more bland corporate trash.

Anything that changes the original will do that. You could play templars in the original. Removing that option whitewashes the setting.

There are other (and arguably better) ways to represent things like defiling magic or an ex-templar than via these specific mechanics. There have already been numerous pages in this very thread devoted to this very topic.

Yes, the actual mechanics in the UA are trash. I'm not defending them in the slightest. My hope is that WotC does this and opens the setting on the DM's Guild so that the fans of the setting can do it right since there's less than zero chance WotC will do it right...as evidenced by this UA.

If you knew me better, you would know that I am BIG into Star Wars. I can't say I've ever done either of those specific things you've mentioned, though, and I don't actually think using the bad guys' gear is anywhere near on the same level as continuing to be a mini-tyrant, spreading fear and magically compelling people to obey you, etc.

So there's no possible use of the Jedi Mind Trick that's not inherently evil?

 

[pukunui]

Okay. So they need to bin D&D. The core playloop of D&D is endless slaughter. That's a Bad Guy™ playstyle. The Good Guys™ don't endlessly murder anyone and everyone that gets in their way. And yet, that's the core of D&D...and has been since 1974.

I don't know if you've noticed, but WotC has been offering more and more non-violent approaches in recent D&D offerings. It's theoretically possible to play through all of The Wild Beyond the Witchlight without resorting to violence. A number of the adventures in the Radiant Citadel and Dragon Delves anthologies can be resolved without violence. I'm sure there are more.

Yes, the vast majority of the game's rules are still geared toward combat. However, it's clearly something the WotC designers are thinking about too.

Anything that changes the original will do that. You could play templars in the original. Removing that option whitewashes the setting.

So removing (or de-emphasizing) slavery would be whitewashing the setting?

So there's no possible use of the Jedi Mind Trick that's not inherently evil?

I'm not going to play gotcha. Thanks anyway.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I'm saying WotC should lean into being the good guy and opposing the forces of Evil TM. I'm NOT the only one who's espoused this belief in this very thread, so I'm not sure why I am being singled out about it.

I'm not calling you out, just taking a guess why you are getting the reactions you're getting.

You've made some extreme statements about what should be allowed in a game where the primary conflict resolution is unaliving things. Are your words being construed as accusing others as engaging in badwrongfun, in a way that specifically seeks to remove the existence of those class options? Perhaps others who like them are being a bit quick to defend them.