| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gyor |
Posted - 21 Sep 2020 : 04:18:11
This I learned from a Panel with Ray Winnger and Lisa Schuch.
It seems obvious that 2 of the classic setting books will be Forgotten Realms to tie into MtG card set and Ravenloft (we got 2 Ravenloft Subclasses in UA last time, although I expect cross-over with Innistrad).
Plus they said more MtG D&D Collabrations so I suspect Zendikar will get a Setting early next year too. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 25 Oct 2020 : 21:17:22
Master Rupert,
Indeed. I actually did, for the very brief time I played Dark Sun back in the late 1990's, enjoy the psionics of that setting. What really made me dislike Dark Sun more than anything was the realization that everything was in a very small, contrived area, for not particularly good reasons.
Meh, we'll see what comes of this if they revamp it.
What I am really looking for is if they decide to go hogwild on lore for Planescape, or Dark Sun. If they do, it would be a pretty obvious thing they've been skipping lore in the Realms for other reasons.
Best regards,
|
| keftiu |
Posted - 26 Sep 2020 : 05:32:44
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Again, psionics was a major thing in the Dark Sun novels I read.
One of the main characters of the Prism Pentad, Dark Sun's core metaplot novels, is a noble who mastered psionics at one of the psionic academies I keep talking about, and another of the main characters has some lesser skill with it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Sep 2020 : 03:43:48
Again, psionics was a major thing in the Dark Sun novels I read. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 26 Sep 2020 : 02:07:37
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
On Dark Sun and psionics, honestly the gist was that everyone had a "wild talent", and yet noone was portraying the mental discipline that a true psionic displays. Essentially, one might say that Dark Sun's people were simply spellscarred or had dragonmarks. Not to say that there weren't honest delves into psionics there as well, but just how much it was, etc... might not look like much more than a lot of other worlds if you peel the skin back beyond the marketing (admittedly, I'm not the strongest on Dark Sun lore as I never played the world and have only perused the books).
Every city-state has a psionic academy. One of the main novel characters was a psion. There were two psionic Themes in 4e. The thri-kreen have a whole unique approach to psionics. Best not to speak definitely about a setting you admit you haven’t read!
Just wondering, is your experience from 4th edition or were you around for the original 2e? I ask because when I said that my only reference was 2e (I actually forgot that they did anything in 4e, and I can see where in that edition they probably would have had a better focus on the difference). As we see in everything, perspective is everything. The big marketing push for dark sun was that everyone had a wild talent, but essentially that just meant everyone got a special power that used a point based system. Also, to add, I wasn't speaking definitely, which is why I spoke the way I did (i.e. might be different).
2e Dark Sun was before my time, but I’ve gone back to the books a fair bit; it had a beefy tome called The Will And The Way all about psionic practices of the setting, a huge number of the monsters were psionic, and there were a ton of racial psionic options.
The only major differences between the 2e and the 4e version were a rollback of some of the metaplot, a pretty slight retcon to a few obscure races, and the addition of eladrin, tiefling, and genasi as very rare PC options.
Yep, I remember the will and the way, it kind of broke psionics (not that magic wasn't broken as well in 2e). That's the way of all things though, they need to break a system to find the issues. They had a lot of psionic creatures too, but they weren't especially psionic, if you get what I mean. They were still learning psionics, and it felt less "psionic" initially. They basically skinned magic a different way initially and it was kind of after the will and the way that we kind of started seeing more than just "its a different power source, its internal" being the differentiating thing about psionics. Don't get me wrong, I know that some authors were exploring the mind's eye side of things, but a lot of the initial dark sun stuff was more about the defiler and preserver conflict. I do know that the thri-kreen exploration was the one thing though that they did explore that was especially about mind sciences. |
| keftiu |
Posted - 26 Sep 2020 : 00:19:34
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
On Dark Sun and psionics, honestly the gist was that everyone had a "wild talent", and yet noone was portraying the mental discipline that a true psionic displays. Essentially, one might say that Dark Sun's people were simply spellscarred or had dragonmarks. Not to say that there weren't honest delves into psionics there as well, but just how much it was, etc... might not look like much more than a lot of other worlds if you peel the skin back beyond the marketing (admittedly, I'm not the strongest on Dark Sun lore as I never played the world and have only perused the books).
Every city-state has a psionic academy. One of the main novel characters was a psion. There were two psionic Themes in 4e. The thri-kreen have a whole unique approach to psionics. Best not to speak definitely about a setting you admit you haven’t read!
Just wondering, is your experience from 4th edition or were you around for the original 2e? I ask because when I said that my only reference was 2e (I actually forgot that they did anything in 4e, and I can see where in that edition they probably would have had a better focus on the difference). As we see in everything, perspective is everything. The big marketing push for dark sun was that everyone had a wild talent, but essentially that just meant everyone got a special power that used a point based system. Also, to add, I wasn't speaking definitely, which is why I spoke the way I did (i.e. might be different).
2e Dark Sun was before my time, but I’ve gone back to the books a fair bit; it had a beefy tome called The Will And The Way all about psionic practices of the setting, a huge number of the monsters were psionic, and there were a ton of racial psionic options.
The only major differences between the 2e and the 4e version were a rollback of some of the metaplot, a pretty slight retcon to a few obscure races, and the addition of eladrin, tiefling, and genasi as very rare PC options. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 26 Sep 2020 : 00:13:23
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
On Dark Sun and psionics, honestly the gist was that everyone had a "wild talent", and yet noone was portraying the mental discipline that a true psionic displays. Essentially, one might say that Dark Sun's people were simply spellscarred or had dragonmarks. Not to say that there weren't honest delves into psionics there as well, but just how much it was, etc... might not look like much more than a lot of other worlds if you peel the skin back beyond the marketing (admittedly, I'm not the strongest on Dark Sun lore as I never played the world and have only perused the books).
Every city-state has a psionic academy. One of the main novel characters was a psion. There were two psionic Themes in 4e. The thri-kreen have a whole unique approach to psionics. Best not to speak definitely about a setting you admit you haven’t read!
Just wondering, is your experience from 4th edition or were you around for the original 2e? I ask because when I said that my only reference was 2e (I actually forgot that they did anything in 4e, and I can see where in that edition they probably would have had a better focus on the difference). As we see in everything, perspective is everything. The big marketing push for dark sun was that everyone had a wild talent, but essentially that just meant everyone got a special power that used a point based system. Also, to add, I wasn't speaking definitely, which is why I spoke the way I did (i.e. might be different). |
| keftiu |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 22:30:41
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
On Dark Sun and psionics, honestly the gist was that everyone had a "wild talent", and yet noone was portraying the mental discipline that a true psionic displays. Essentially, one might say that Dark Sun's people were simply spellscarred or had dragonmarks. Not to say that there weren't honest delves into psionics there as well, but just how much it was, etc... might not look like much more than a lot of other worlds if you peel the skin back beyond the marketing (admittedly, I'm not the strongest on Dark Sun lore as I never played the world and have only perused the books).
Every city-state has a psionic academy. One of the main novel characters was a psion. There were two psionic Themes in 4e. The thri-kreen have a whole unique approach to psionics. Best not to speak definitely about a setting you admit you haven’t read! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 14:14:32
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
On Dark Sun and psionics, honestly the gist was that everyone had a "wild talent", and yet noone was portraying the mental discipline that a true psionic displays. Essentially, one might say that Dark Sun's people were simply spellscarred or had dragonmarks. Not to say that there weren't honest delves into psionics there as well, but just how much it was, etc... might not look like much more than a lot of other worlds if you peel the skin back beyond the marketing (admittedly, I'm not the strongest on Dark Sun lore as I never played the world and have only perused the books).
I read a few of the novels. Psionics was in heavy use. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 13:30:12
On Dark Sun and psionics, honestly the gist was that everyone had a "wild talent", and yet noone was portraying the mental discipline that a true psionic displays. Essentially, one might say that Dark Sun's people were simply spellscarred or had dragonmarks. Not to say that there weren't honest delves into psionics there as well, but just how much it was, etc... might not look like much more than a lot of other worlds if you peel the skin back beyond the marketing (admittedly, I'm not the strongest on Dark Sun lore as I never played the world and have only perused the books). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 13:11:35
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Dark Sun wasn't the only setting with psionics, true -- but it was the only setting built around psionics, where it was properly integrated instead of being crudely bolted on after the fact. Psionics in other settings are generally bolted on and don't get much more than a token nod.
I love psionics, myself, but earlier editions consistently dropped the ball on making them feel like an equal part of the game.
I don't think Psionics was bolted onto Eberron, its an important part of the setting.
It's also not bolted on for FR, but its also not as central outide the underdark or Jhaamdath's sphere of influence.
I don't know enough about Eberron to agree or disagree on that one.
But since the Realms was adapted for D&D, and D&D was built around the 4-class model, then yes, psionics was bolted on. Psionics was always an afterthought, until Dark Sun. I know that 1E had psionics, but even there, it was just an additional ability that some characters had -- the characters themselves still fit somewhere into that tank/sneak/magic person/healer model.
The psionics on Eberron were more on another continent, a continent in which the people were sharing their bodies with extraplanar entities.
Basically, and I'm stretching my mind back decades, but my general feel for Eberron was like it was 3 campaign worlds mashed together. There was the technomagical place that was a classic campaign, but post apocalyptic war had occurred. There was the "psionic continent" and there was "that jungle continent down south that's still savage". I think there was a 4th area that was "here be dragons". |
| keftiu |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 03:40:45
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Dark Sun wasn't the only setting with psionics, true -- but it was the only setting built around psionics, where it was properly integrated instead of being crudely bolted on after the fact. Psionics in other settings are generally bolted on and don't get much more than a token nod.
I love psionics, myself, but earlier editions consistently dropped the ball on making them feel like an equal part of the game.
I don't think Psionics was bolted onto Eberron, its an important part of the setting.
It's also not bolted on for FR, but its also not as central outide the underdark or Jhaamdath's sphere of influence.
Keith Baker put almost all of the psionic content on a far-off continent so that tables who dislike them can ignore them. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 03:33:29
Psionics were originally an "optional" system appended to the 1E rules. Eagerly embraced by all players (that I've met) because it offered a chance to play with more powers.
Not really appropriate for classic Tolkien-inspired fantasy fiction. More the realm of sci-fi. Because (contrary to what D&D often explains) it is basically just magic with a different (and cooler-sounding) name.
But some of the prominent fantasy fiction of the era (like Kurtz's Deryni novels, Lieber's Lanhkmar/Nehwon novels, Moorcock's Eternal Champion novels, and tons of Cthulhu Mythos stuff) did include psionic themes. Which Gygax translated straight into his AD&D 1E rulebooks.
2E initially attempted to abolish psionics. Stating outright that it's basically just magic with a different name, more the realm of sci-fi.
A few years later it introduced PHBR5: Complete Psionics Handbook and revised a bunch of monster entries. Then built psionics into Darksun. Then shoehorned psionics into Spelljammer, Planescape, etc. Psionics were standard fare by the time "2.5E" rolled around.
3E initially attempted to abolish psionics again. And didn't take long to bring psionics back into D&D again.
3.5E initially tried to ignore psionics, just sort of pretended it never existed and handwaved it off. At the same time defining psionics quite comprehensively in the d20/SRD ... so psionics were quickly reintroduced yet again, and so seamlessly that it almost seemed as if the 3.5E rules were originally designed to include them all along ...
4E basically included psionics as "a different kind of magic", basically just another keyword for powers and templates. It actually adapted psionics into the game much better than any edition before.
I'm not sure if Asimov's Foundation novels were an inspiration. But the line between fantasy and sci-fi often overlaps, as do the interests of their readers. Gygax was pretty nerdy, he certainly could have been exposed to sci-fi concepts. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 02:51:16
Weren't psionics originally a nod to characters like the Mule (from Asimov's Foundation series), that were quite prolific back then?
But, I agree with Wooly. Besides Dark Sun, the only other setting where psionics are an integral part of its feel and tone is 4e's Nentir Vale. For the other settings, psionics are just an addition, not something that, if you remove it, the setting will lost a fundamental part of it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 01:54:24
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Dark Sun wasn't the only setting with psionics, true -- but it was the only setting built around psionics, where it was properly integrated instead of being crudely bolted on after the fact. Psionics in other settings are generally bolted on and don't get much more than a token nod.
I love psionics, myself, but earlier editions consistently dropped the ball on making them feel like an equal part of the game.
I don't think Psionics was bolted onto Eberron, its an important part of the setting.
It's also not bolted on for FR, but its also not as central outide the underdark or Jhaamdath's sphere of influence.
I don't know enough about Eberron to agree or disagree on that one.
But since the Realms was adapted for D&D, and D&D was built around the 4-class model, then yes, psionics was bolted on. Psionics was always an afterthought, until Dark Sun. I know that 1E had psionics, but even there, it was just an additional ability that some characters had -- the characters themselves still fit somewhere into that tank/sneak/magic person/healer model. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 01:50:14
Part of the point of Spelljammer was to connect the settings. It was an explicit objective openly stated by the designers. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 01:01:05
Something I read long ago, I believe was on usenet that claimed at some point in time TSR demanded that all realms include elements of other realms. That Forgotten Realms needed to add spelljammer and psionics to allow visits from those worlds. It was claimed that the spelljammer was placed in Evermeet so that it existed in the Realms. However very hard to get access to. This would have been under second edition of course.
|
| Gyor |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 00:07:37
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Dark Sun wasn't the only setting with psionics, true -- but it was the only setting built around psionics, where it was properly integrated instead of being crudely bolted on after the fact. Psionics in other settings are generally bolted on and don't get much more than a token nod.
I love psionics, myself, but earlier editions consistently dropped the ball on making them feel like an equal part of the game.
I don't think Psionics was bolted onto Eberron, its an important part of the setting.
It's also not bolted on for FR, but its also not as central outide the underdark or Jhaamdath's sphere of influence. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 25 Sep 2020 : 00:04:39
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
https://youtu.be/ejcQN-Kw7y0
A video argueing that WotC hates the SCAG.
Meh, this Only applies to Adventure League play, which I really can't stand. It's based on the whole PHB +1 concept, that you can only choose the PHB and one other player supplement. So if a spell is in -say- Xanathar's Guide and you've chosen PHB and SCAG well then you're SOL. If you want to play as an Aasimar from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, well that's it.
Fortunately my group just does it's thing and we can be more open with the system.
Sidebar: haven't watched that video yet, but on what Diffan just said... what moron in their company (and yes, I will go so far as to use that term in this instance and truly MEAN it) decides to tell their PAYING clientele that they can only pick a SINGLE alternate source of rules for use in their game system in which they're pushing the purchase of multiple rule books. While I could see coming up with some rulings, like maybe "you can't use X and Y book together because they're decidedly different campaign settings", beyond that it gets way too controlling. Guess that's part of why I never got into that kind of play (well, that and I've never played in a game store. I've always played from mine or someone else's house, or a few one-off convention games I ran under 1e or 2e rulesets).
I agree, it's stupid and gives a disincentive to buy more books. And it's clearly causing major issues in AL. 4e's Living Forgotten Realms tried something like that and by the end they'd dropped it, because it causes head aches as more books ate published. 5e made it worse by publishing subclasses and races/subraces in seperate books for most part. This creates the problem that none PHB races, subraces, and classes get screwed. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 23:29:04
Dark Sun wasn't the only setting with psionics, true -- but it was the only setting built around psionics, where it was properly integrated instead of being crudely bolted on after the fact. Psionics in other settings are generally bolted on and don't get much more than a token nod.
I love psionics, myself, but earlier editions consistently dropped the ball on making them feel like an equal part of the game. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 19:54:39
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
I have to say, a Dark Sun revival would be a pleasant surprise; I might even do a Guild project for it...
I’ll be stunned if these 3 settings aren’t Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer, and would be genuinely stunned if I was wrong on any of that. There’s been so many Spelljammer references, they’ve already hinted at more Ravenloft and a Vistani rewrite in it, and psionics in Tasha’s make DS obvious.
Alot of folks still want a full psionics class and Darksun isn't the only setting with Psions, Eberron and FR both have Psionics.
I think for now they will wait till they have a full Psion class to do Darksun, although the Psionic subclasses will reference Darksun in Tasha's.
Jeremy Crawford said that the Psionic subclasses in Tasha's doesn't mean they won't do a full Psion class in the future. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 19:51:41
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
I have to say, a Dark Sun revival would be a pleasant surprise; I might even do a Guild project for it...
I’ll be stunned if these 3 settings aren’t Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer, and would be genuinely stunned if I was wrong on any of that. There’s been so many Spelljammer references, they’ve already hinted at more Ravenloft and a Vistani rewrite in it, and psionics in Tasha’s make DS obvious.
Alot of folks still want a full psionics class and Darksun isn't the only setting with Psions, Eberron and FR both have Psionics.
I think for now they will wait till they have a full Psion class to do Darksun, although the Psionic subclasses will reference Darksun in Tasha's.
Jeremy Crawford said that the Psionic subclasses in Tasha's doesn't mean they won't do a full Psion class in the future. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 19:44:17
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
I’m no Spelljammer fan, myself, but they’ve been cramming a ton of references to it in 5e so far: you can find a spelljammer and its helm in Dungeon of the Mad Mage (which also let you visit a Githyanki dock in orbit!), for instance, and the Giff got a writeup in the Tome of Foes. Spelljammer has seen more love in this edition than any since it was being actively supported.
Hey, one thing I am curious about on that and don't feel like dragging out the book for it.... is it actually a separate helm in the module? I note that a lot of problems (not all) go away whenever the helm itself isn't "portable" to any ship that you bolt it to, so if "the ship itself" is the magic item that allows plane travel, that's at least a step in the right direction in my book. It also technically means that the "ship" isn't using a "spelljamming helm" but rather "its a ship that can move in wildspace" if you catch my drift.
Spoiler
There is also Nautiliods in Frostmaiden and in Volo's Guide to Monsters and BG3. And Dan Dillion apparently confirmed it, but I don't know if he was serious.
I thought Darksun and Planescape were the most likely 3rd setting (with the other two being Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft), because of their tier one popularity, but I was alot less certain about what the 3rd setting was, then FR and Ravenloft.
But it does make a certain sense, they have been using APs to experiment with Spelljammer and general vechile rules, where as while they have some Psion stuff now, they may still want to figure out a psion class before doing Darksun. And there maybe reasons why they don't feel ready to do Planescape yet. Plus they've been meanly teasing people with Spelljammer for years to the point where it stopped being funny and just dickish to Spelljammer fans, so this would make up for it. Plus its a potential link between D&D Classic Settings and MtG settings and Exandia.
There is also the possiblity they merged Spelljammer and Planescape into a single Metasetting setting, which is hinted at by the fact that unlike in 2e, Spelljammers are capable of planeshifting, or at least some of them can, like Nautiliods. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 Sep 2020 : 11:54:17
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
I’m no Spelljammer fan, myself, but they’ve been cramming a ton of references to it in 5e so far: you can find a spelljammer and its helm in Dungeon of the Mad Mage (which also let you visit a Githyanki dock in orbit!), for instance, and the Giff got a writeup in the Tome of Foes. Spelljammer has seen more love in this edition than any since it was being actively supported.
Hey, one thing I am curious about on that and don't feel like dragging out the book for it.... is it actually a separate helm in the module? I note that a lot of problems (not all) go away whenever the helm itself isn't "portable" to any ship that you bolt it to, so if "the ship itself" is the magic item that allows plane travel, that's at least a step in the right direction in my book. It also technically means that the "ship" isn't using a "spelljamming helm" but rather "its a ship that can move in wildspace" if you catch my drift. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 22:07:51
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
https://youtu.be/ejcQN-Kw7y0
A video argueing that WotC hates the SCAG.
Meh, this Only applies to Adventure League play, which I really can't stand. It's based on the whole PHB +1 concept, that you can only choose the PHB and one other player supplement. So if a spell is in -say- Xanathar's Guide and you've chosen PHB and SCAG well then you're SOL. If you want to play as an Aasimar from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, well that's it.
Fortunately my group just does it's thing and we can be more open with the system.
Sidebar: haven't watched that video yet, but on what Diffan just said... what moron in their company (and yes, I will go so far as to use that term in this instance and truly MEAN it) decides to tell their PAYING clientele that they can only pick a SINGLE alternate source of rules for use in their game system in which they're pushing the purchase of multiple rule books.
I don't play Adventure League, so I cannot comment on how it is at the actual store/FLGS but from my estimation, it's supposed to lessen the work on the DM on the adventures they run, and supposed to cut down on the type of Players that do a lot of cherry-picking of spells, archetypes, and races to achieve Ultimate Combos.
Looking at how tight the 5E ruleset really is, aside from some outlier options, it's pretty well balanced (at least, from a 3.5 perspective). I think people still go with the Fighter/ranger dual-crossbow (Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter) build that deals quite a bit of damage and there's also a Tabaxi Monk that can run some 900 mph ....still nothing mind-blowing.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
While I could see coming up with some rulings, like maybe "you can't use X and Y book together because they're decidedly different campaign settings", beyond that it gets way too controlling. Guess that's part of why I never got into that kind of play (well, that and I've never played in a game store. I've always played from mine or someone else's house, or a few one-off convention games I ran under 1e or 2e rulesets).
Same. I've done something similar when running 3.5/4E - for example - I didn't allow Dragonmarks in my Realms games because they were ingrained with the lore of Eberron. I also wouldn't allow Chosen in Eberron or people who could wield Spellfire. Races is a bit different, as I don't see why Shifters couldn't exist in Forgotten Realms, Changlinegs or Warforged (recreated as Gondsmen) either.
What I find really silly is that if you wanted to do, say a human Alchemist, for Rime of the Frost Maiden, you could only use the PHB and the Eberron book.....for a Realms game. Maybe FLGS could be asked to assume Setting Books (options in SCAG) for all Realms-related adventures and then it would be PHB + Setting book + 1? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 21:31:26
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
I’m no Spelljammer fan, myself, but they’ve been cramming a ton of references to it in 5e so far: you can find a spelljammer and its helm in Dungeon of the Mad Mage (which also let you visit a Githyanki dock in orbit!), for instance, and the Giff got a writeup in the Tome of Foes. Spelljammer has seen more love in this edition than any since it was being actively supported.
I'm pretty sure those are more aimed at (or inserted by) a Spelljammer fan among the designers, instead of anything else.
I've not read that far into the 5E Undermountain book (because ye gods, did they nerf it!), but I'm wondering exactly how a squidship wound up down there. Halaster generally kept things local to the Heartlands. |
| keftiu |
Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 21:16:35
I’m no Spelljammer fan, myself, but they’ve been cramming a ton of references to it in 5e so far: you can find a spelljammer and its helm in Dungeon of the Mad Mage (which also let you visit a Githyanki dock in orbit!), for instance, and the Giff got a writeup in the Tome of Foes. Spelljammer has seen more love in this edition than any since it was being actively supported. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 14:38:48
quote:
Originally posted by keftiu
I have to say, a Dark Sun revival would be a pleasant surprise; I might even do a Guild project for it...
I’ll be stunned if these 3 settings aren’t Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer, and would be genuinely stunned if I was wrong on any of that. There’s been so many Spelljammer references, they’ve already hinted at more Ravenloft and a Vistani rewrite in it, and psionics in Tasha’s make DS obvious.
As I've said, my first love of D&D settings was Spelljammer; my username comes from there... But I don't think Spelljammer is going to be in the mix, because it's just too problematic.
I recall when it was around the first time, a lot of people couldn't get past the idea that space travel in a fantasy setting wouldn't follow all the real-world rules of space travel. And unless they isolate all the game worlds from Spelljammer, they'll have to figure out a way to keep even one or two ships from having a dramatic impact on groundling society.
Also, even when Spelljammer was a supported setting, Spelljammer material often clashed with material for specific settings. In Krynnspace, for example, it was stated that Krynn's moons formed an equilateral triangle around the planet and stayed equidistant from each other -- meaning conjuctions and the Night of the Eye could not possibly happen. (The same supplement also brought us an NPC that gets my vote for Worst RPG Concept Ever: Little Biggnome, a 6-inch tall, flying, superstrong gnome. I like to use Elfquest's Madcoil as an example of ideas that can't work as presented, but Little Biggnome goes way beyond that) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 11:41:00
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
https://youtu.be/ejcQN-Kw7y0
A video argueing that WotC hates the SCAG.
Meh, this Only applies to Adventure League play, which I really can't stand. It's based on the whole PHB +1 concept, that you can only choose the PHB and one other player supplement. So if a spell is in -say- Xanathar's Guide and you've chosen PHB and SCAG well then you're SOL. If you want to play as an Aasimar from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, well that's it.
Fortunately my group just does it's thing and we can be more open with the system.
Sidebar: haven't watched that video yet, but on what Diffan just said... what moron in their company (and yes, I will go so far as to use that term in this instance and truly MEAN it) decides to tell their PAYING clientele that they can only pick a SINGLE alternate source of rules for use in their game system in which they're pushing the purchase of multiple rule books. While I could see coming up with some rulings, like maybe "you can't use X and Y book together because they're decidedly different campaign settings", beyond that it gets way too controlling. Guess that's part of why I never got into that kind of play (well, that and I've never played in a game store. I've always played from mine or someone else's house, or a few one-off convention games I ran under 1e or 2e rulesets). |
| keftiu |
Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 10:50:29
I have to say, a Dark Sun revival would be a pleasant surprise; I might even do a Guild project for it...
I’ll be stunned if these 3 settings aren’t Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer, and would be genuinely stunned if I was wrong on any of that. There’s been so many Spelljammer references, they’ve already hinted at more Ravenloft and a Vistani rewrite in it, and psionics in Tasha’s make DS obvious. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Sep 2020 : 09:41:16
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
https://youtu.be/ejcQN-Kw7y0
A video argueing that WotC hates the SCAG.
Meh, this Only applies to Adventure League play, which I really can't stand. It's based on the whole PHB +1 concept, that you can only choose the PHB and one other player supplement. So if a spell is in -say- Xanathar's Guide and you've chosen PHB and SCAG well then you're SOL. If you want to play as an Aasimar from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, well that's it.
Fortunately my group just does it's thing and we can be more open with the system. |
|
|
