Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
That's fair, but it's also not unlikely that, if the book wasn't going to exist, we wouldn't be getting the updated subclass any time soon. The regular D&D releases have their own needs, and if Swashbuckler (or any other subclass) doesn't fit, they're not going to increase page count just to make it available. If it does belong, I suspect we'll see it in the mainline book as well.
It's also not really any different from a practical standpoint to options appearing in a FR or Ravenloft book.
And eventually, I fully expect we'll get a book consolidating the setting-gated player options, or at least the good ones, like we did in the 5e era.
Imagine that the only way to play a Bladesinger was through SCAG?
To be fair, the Bladesinger was a subclass based on setting specific lore and the elves. It really belonged in a proper setting book. Swashbuckler doesn't have ties to any specific setting or lore.
That's still a D&D set book, not a different IP. So it's apples to oranges
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
In current 5.5e the "only" way to play a Bladesinger is through Heroes of Faerun. What's your point? The only way to play an Artificer in 5.5e is through the Eberron sourcebook. The only way to play a Grave Domain cleric is through the Horrors Within sourcebook.
The World of Warcraft sourcebook is being produced by Wizards of the Coast. It's just another setting book that contains subclasses usable in any world. This is how it's always been done, except when Tasha's and Xanathar's did a roundup of classes to get them into one book and clean them up. And I'm sure that down the road, they'll do the same thing for the current crop of 5.5e subclasses.
You're forgetting that there were seven years between 2015 and 2022, where:
No imagination needed.
My post was in response to someone suggesting the setting specific player options be released in a future book like Xantha’s and Tasha’s in 5e, which did republish Bladesinger and I know most of you know what I mean
Then perhaps rather than being snarky, you could've simply said "Maybe the updated classes in the WoW book will be reprinted down the line in Tasha's-like book, like they did with the Bladesinger in SCAG"? It genuinely sounded like you were comparing the WoW book to SCAG 1:1
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I think that Universes Beyond will be divisive. The direction D&D is going in seems to be a flood the zone strategy, releasing more content than people can keep up with. Only looking at what is currently announced is short-sighted. Five years from now, I fear I will be labeled a jerk gatekeeper if I don't allow UB in my games. I imagine new players attracted to D&D because of UB may have different expectations and may settle in to their IP corner. "I play D&D" may need to be qualified in a way that parallels different systems.
People are saying that D&D and Magic are different and while I agree with that, here's the differences on my mind:
Unlike Magic where incorporating cards from other UB and non-UB strengthens your deck, there's no need to explore beyond the one UB IP that was attractive. I have seen it said that most of the players attracted by UB for Magic don't stay.
Unlike Magic where there's a general legality - where all recent products are included in play by default - D&D works rather the opposite, where core products like the PHB are the only products assumed to be included in play by default with DM approval needed for other options. What does a new player's experience look like if the only product they own is disallowed? That's a very different new player experience for a UB Magic player compared to a UB D&D player. So I think there will be a prescriptive push to be inclusive of UB options.
One of the biggest complaints about UB for Magic is the breaking of immersion from all the disparate products mashed together. But Magic isn't a narrative-focused game. D&D is, and the breaking of immersion from the mash up of UB products will be an even bigger issue than in Magic.
Maybe there's a UB product you're really looking forward to. But I don't think it's worth the long-term outcomes.
Another point - people will be re-buying products they already own - like I doubt the Dark Sun PHB variant will be the only one. I don't think that's a good thing in general.
Taldorei, Wildemount, Netherdeep, Humblewood, Strixhaven, Acquisitions Incorporated, Rick and Morty, Ravnica, Obijima...the list goes on for settings people exclude already. We're already in "five years from now" for many of those.
And that’s just third party or MTG settings. Look at Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Mystara, Krynn, Forgotten Realms and it becomes obvious that excluding settings is as old as the game
And WoW is an extremely analogous setting, so what new element is going to be introduced? Undead style player race? Already a thing. Humanoids with horns, goat hooves, tails, and brightly colored skin? Been in both 5e PHBs. A new flavor of elf? There’s already a least half a dozen. Lycanthropic player race? Been in 5e since Eberron. Some new magic items? That’s already a staple of pretty much every player book, and their occurrence in a campaign is already subject to DM discretion. What exactly does WoW introduce that’s outside D&D’s core paradigm?
That's, as far as we know, 11 books over the course of 2027. This may seem like a lot, but here's the key detail—none of them are setting agnostic. We have (presumably)
If we discount the collector mindset who simply has to get them all for the sake of owning them, that's actually a fairly even spread of books across settings. If you're not into horror and grimdark, you'll likely skip Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Death Saves. If you prefer classic fantasy, you'll probably only grab Forgotten Realms and/or Greyhawk.
Now yes, there is the possibility of needing "all" the books to get access to all the player and DM options, but I still file that under a collector mindset. Also we don't know what these books will contain. It's very possible the partnered studio and D&D Icons setting will be mechanics lite due to not existing within the core D&D team.
My point is I don't think this is a flood of books, I think it's diverse spread of offerings beyond "here's more Forgotten Realms".
As for only looking at what has been announced, that's all we can do. Speculating isn't worth anything other than anxiety.
Also, the number of books they're releasing has nothing to do with UB, which is (as they've said) additive to their release schedule, not replacing something core-D&D related.
Then you tell those people calling you a "jerk gatekeeper" that they can find another table. This is neither a new issue, or an actual problem. You get people doing this today if a DM doesn't allow artificer or warforged. I literally got called this (not by a prospective player mind you) for not having PC centaurs as an option in my campaign. The point is DMs will always have the power to curate their settings and players who don't like that can find another table.
The MtG teams, as well as my own anecdotal experiences, beg to differ on the persistence rates of players brought in via UB. I personally know 4 different people who got deep into MtG following picking up UB sets (specifically Warhammer 40k, Doctor Who, and Marvel x2). So I'd be inclined to believe it is a positive impact factor on the player base.
The same as it looks today. As I've mentioned this is not a new situation. If a player owns Ravenloft: Horror Within but the DM doesn't allow Reborn or Dhampir, the players can find another table or pick another option. New players shouldn't be buying books blind anyway, that's not a requirement to play D&D and is something actively discouraged across the community and by WotC themselves. It's why the free Basic Rules exist. It's why content sharing is a thing.
Again, a non-issue because a DM is not obligated to allow an option that breaks the immersion of the campaign, and to argue they are is a strawman. If a player wants to play a lightsabre wielding WoW orc, I as DM can tell them no.
That's a collector thing, you don't need the Dark Sun PHB, that's just if you want it like the limited edition covers. There are likely people who haven't transitioned from 5e to 5.5e but Dark Sun has piqued their interest so they'll pick up the alternate cover PHB.
tl;dr - No one can force you to include UB content in your game, let alone force you to include it as exactly presented via the source IP. UB will not change how anyone runs their games.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Here’s my question about the WoW setting, how many people are going to name a character Le’Roy Jen’Kans?
25,641.5 over the first two years after release.
Don't forget Harrison Jones and Johnny Awesome 😁