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.

 

[pukunui]

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.

Fine, but I'm not the first one to say these things in this thread. This isn't even the first time I've said them in this thread. So why me and why now? Why not others and why not earlier?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Fine, but I'm not the first one to say these things in this thread. This isn't even the first time I've said them in this thread. So why me and why now? Why not others and why not earlier?

The right people online at the right time, to engage in an online debate with passion and verve. I mean, your words caught my eye more than anyone else's. Now you have some attention on a forum. It's a double-edged sword.

 

[pukunui]

The right people online at the right time, to engage in an online debate with passion and verve. I mean, your words caught my eye more than anyone else's. Now you have some attention on a forum. It's a double-edged sword.

I guess. Well, it's lunch time here, so I'm going to take a break and go eat something and then do some exercise and review the adventure for tonight's D&D game, so I won't be responding for a while. Hopefully the conversation will move on in my absence. (I dislike being the center of attention.)

 

[overgeeked]

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 Dragon Delves can be resolved without violence.

Yes, I have. I've commented on it several times. But you have to realize those are the very recent exceptions that prove the rule. One AP and what 2-3 adventures in Dragon Delves compared to the entire rest of the D&D corpus.

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.

Some of them have, yes. And that thinking has lead to 3-4 total adventures having no-violent options. Out of how many in 5E alone? Now tally up the adventures for OD&D, AD&D, B/X, BECMI, 2E, 3X, and 4E.

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

Yes. You can't fight evil if you remove the evil from the setting. The whole point of Dark Sun, to me at least, it fighting the sorcerer-kings. Fighting the slavers. Ending the sorcerer-kings. Ending slavery. Sure, it's like five campaigns worth of struggling and fighting to do that. But that's what epic campaigns are for.

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

It's not a gotcha. Magically compelling people to obey is either always evil or it's not. If you can justify it not being evil in Star Wars, you can justify it being not evil in Dark Sun. It all depends on who's using it and why. An ex-templar using it on current templars or slavers to help the rebellion or free slaves would be good, right? An ex-templar spreading fear among current templars or slavers to help the rebellion or free slaves would be good, right?

 

[SableWyvern]

The point is: in our current dystopian era, I don't think encouraging players to explore the fiction of being a mini-tyrant allied with an immortal tyrant is a good idea. Maybe it was fine back in 1991. But in 2025? It just feels ... gross.

I don't really care what WotC does or does not put into their books, it's not going to make any difference to me. I'm happy for you to want a book that meets your needs and preferences.

However, I am opposed to anyone who thinks they can make moral decisions about how other people play their games at their own tables. It is perfectly fine, right now in our current era, if someone wants to play a character based on a mini-tyrant in a game of make believe. It is perfectly OK if a company wants to produce a game that allows or encourages the existence of characters who are mini-tyrants.

Again, if you don't want that stuff in a WotC Dark Sun book, that's fine. If you don't want it in a game you're participating in, that's fine too. You're entitled to your preferences, and you're entitled to hope that any given company releases products that are of interest to you. However, it is not appropriate to decide that just because you're not comfortable with a particular type of play that everyone else should be discouraged from that type play as well, or to suggest that the very existence of such options is somehow wrong.

At the end of the day: I think if someone has an idea for a game that they're passionate about, and that game concept includes "encouraging players to explore the fiction of being a mini-tyrant allied with an immortal tyrant," then producing that game and making it available to the people who want that thing it is a great idea, even if that game probably has no interest to me.

 

[Scribe]

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

Having Wizards, a corp, moralize to me got old oh...a decade ago.

The game already provides guidance on "Lawful Evil" among other things, in the latest 'evergreen' edition no less, so...how about they just provide the content, and we decide for ourselves what to do with it?

 

[Scribe]

Fine, but I'm not the first one to say these things in this thread. This isn't even the first time I've said them in this thread. So why me and why now? Why not others and why not earlier?

I have a lot of people on ignore.

 

[pukunui]

Yes, I have. I've commented on it several times. But you have to realize those are the very recent exceptions that prove the rule. One AP and what 2-3 adventures in Dragon Delves compared to the entire rest of the D&D corpus.

Some of them have, yes. And that thinking has lead to 3-4 total adventures having no-violent options. Out of how many in 5E alone? Now tally up the adventures for OD&D, AD&D, B/X, BECMI, 2E, 3X, and 4E.

Yes. My point was that it shows that the violent nature of D&D is something WotC's designers are thinking about. I wasn't arguing that they've resolved to turn D&D into a completely non-violent game - just like I haven't decided yet if the violence of D&D is something that matters to me. I appreciate that they are beginning to offer more options in that respect, however.

Yes. You can't fight evil if you remove the evil from the setting. The whole point of Dark Sun, to me at least, it fighting the sorcerer-kings. Fighting the slavers. Ending the sorcerer-kings. Ending slavery. Sure, it's like five campaigns worth of struggling and fighting to do that. But that's what epic campaigns are for.

Yes, that is the point of Dark Sun to me as well. That and the environmental stuff. The latter is the main reason I rated the defiler sorcerer red. While it mentions plants in the opening description, the mechanics are 100% geared toward blood magic. Nothing to do with the environment whatsoever. Great for the genocidal aspect of the sorcerer-kings but not so much their environmental impact.

It's not a gotcha. Magically compelling people to obey is either always evil or it's not. If you can justify it not being evil in Star Wars, you can justify it being not evil in Dark Sun. It all depends on who's using it and why. An ex-templar using it on current templars or slavers to help the rebellion or free slaves would be good, right? An ex-templar spreading fear among current templars or slavers to help the rebellion or free slaves would be good, right?

You are trying to trap me into admitting I am wrong. I don't agree with your black-and-white approach here, but I don't have the time or the energy to debate you any further.

I don't really care what WotC does or does not put into their books, it's not going to make any difference to me. I'm happy for you to want a book that meets your needs and preferences.

However, I am opposed to anyone who thinks they can make moral decisions about how other people play their games at their own tables. It is perfectly fine, right now in our current era, if someone wants to play a character based on a mini-tyrant in a game of make believe. It is perfectly OK if a company wants to produce a game that allows or encourages the existence of characters who are mini-tyrants.

Again, if you don't want that stuff in a WotC Dark Sun book, that's fine. If you don't want it in a game you're participating in, that's fine too. You're entitled to your preferences, and you're entitled to hope that any given company releases products that are of interest to you. However, it is not appropriate to decide that just because you're not comfortable with a particular type of play that everyone else should be discouraged from that type play as well, or to suggest that the very existence of such options is somehow wrong.

At the end of the day: I think if someone has an idea for a game that they're passionate about, and that game concept includes "encouraging players to explore the fiction of being a mini-tyrant allied with an immortal tyrant," then producing that game and making it available to the people who want that thing it is a great idea, even if that game probably has no interest to me.

I don't think I can respond to this without getting political, which is not allowed here, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Phantom_Miria]

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.

Well, you're not saying stuff should be sanitized, but when a large number of people comes together and keep making a problem out of things that are ultimately up to how people like to play games themselves and how creatives like to make the settings they want, and they frame it in such a way that the problem isn't just a disagreement on tastes or personal preferences but, well, a social issue (be it that we shouldn't encourage villainous playstyles because we live in, er, bad times, as opposed to the good old days, or how this and that trope can potentially be interpreted as discriminatory or offensive because X and Y), what do you think ends up happening?

Creatives get very careful with what they make out of fear of creating a controversy even out of a honest mistake, aka, a chilling effect on creatives; publishers get stricter with what they allow to be published, because they like money and safe products; consumers get less of the stuff they want because some stuff is now risque to make and there's a moral panic in act again. Stuff ends up getting sanitized, and in TTRPG environments this seems particularly severe.

This is a lot more general than people playing bad guys and your specific case here obviously, this is not about you specifically. What I'm getting at here is that it's really bizarre for me to see how in TTRPG circles it became somehow controversial to portray seemingly slavery in any way, even the regular version with the slavers as cartoon villains to be slaughtered on sight as the crowd cheers (imagine what kind of reactions it would spark to make an actual nuanced take on the phenomenon, like how it would be to explore a society like those of the ancient world where slavery was widespread and considered not evil at all but rather an ineliminable part of human society!), while in other mediums Dark Fantasy full of racism, slavery and sexual abuse remains largely mainstream.

 

[Scribe]

I mean what a tragic world we would be in, if Oath of Conquest was never made.

Perish the thought.