I feel like if they divorced a setting from the rest of the M:tG lore, it could be fairly interesting. They are definitely cash grabs though, but only one has been released yet and we haven't seen the contents of the second one. It could be better.
But, you can't really divorce M:tG settings from the rest of the lore. Take Theros, for example. So, at first, it doesn't seem to be that close to the other settings, and isn't very dependent on Planeswalkers. But, there also used to be a god named Xenagos. He was the satyr god of revelry, and he became a god, and was a planeswalker. Also, there was another god named Cacophony that was recently created by another planeswalker with mind-warping powers. Neither of these gods are currently a part of the lore of the world, but they are still important parts of the history of the setting and have made changes to the world overall.
Most, if not all M:tG settings are severely damaged if you separate them from the lore of all of M:tG. Amonkhet depends on planeswalking for its story. Ravnica was recently invaded by planes-traveling zombies and conquered by a dragon-pharoh god. Planeswalkers had to die to defeat Nicol Bolas, and now most, if not all, or Ravnica knows about planeswalkers.
M:tG settings depend on planeswalking for their story.
This is true if you stick strictly to the M:tG storylines. There is another alternative, and its easier to show an example than explain.
You could set an adventure on Amonkhet with the players knowing nothing about Magic. You could have them be initiates of the same crop in the Trials, and eventually discover what the true purpose of the trials are for and become dissenters. Nicol Bolas's origins don't exactly have to be clear; we don't know where Asmodeus come from, yet he still works a a villain.
This is what I meant when I said "divorcing something from the rest of the lore." I guess it was a little to harsh, and I'll change it to "making it so that knowing all the M:tG is not an essential part of playing in the setting. Planeswalkers could be characters similar to Elminster and Mordenkainen. I know almost nothing about them, yet the actions of Elminster have shaped the Forgotten Realms, and I still play FR without this knowledge.
They could do this, but it still wouldn't fix the issue of the storylines advancing the timeline much quicker than D&D worlds. There's too much lore to keep track of in M:tG worlds, even if you ignore planeswalkers in the present and future, as in the past they caused a lot of issues that you basically have to know in settings like Ixalan, Innistrad, and Zendikar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Anyways the next adventure is clearly going to be Icewind Dale, but perhaps with a twist, the modron March walking thru it.
Then next up will be the Planescape Setting, but I think it will absorb Ravenloft and Spelljammer, the hints of this have been coming for awhile. Like Spelljammers planeshifting and Ravenloft being in the Shadowfell.
But this won't be your daddy's Planescape because 5e uses a modified, expanded, hybrid version of the Great Wheel Cosomolgy. So add in the Feywild, Shadowfell, Border Elemental, and Elemental Chaos to Planescape.
Races I think will be Gith, Aasimar, Genasi, will be reprinted. Maybe Tritons, Centuars, and Satyrs.
New races Barbiurs, Bladelings, Shades, and Caliban.
Subraces Eladarin and Shadar Kai reprint.
And a pile of planar subclasses.
Also while the Psionic subclasses mention Darksun, they also mention Planar causes like the Gith, Feywild, and Far Realms.
Centaurs would be redundant with bauriers. The Shadowfell is basically the same as the Plane of Shadows from 3E, which was the Demiplane of Shadows in Planescape, so that's easy to explain. The Feywilds would probably get put into being another plane that's adjacent to the Prime Material Plane. As far as the Elemental Chaos goes, that was a 4th Edition thing and since 5E has the original Inner Planes already, it would be redundant.
The Planescape Cosmology is right in the core books, any Planescape Campaign Book is just going to go into greater details, it's not going to rewrite the default Great Wheel Axis cosmology in favour of the old Great Wheel cosmology, because part of the function of Planescape utility is it's interconnectedness to other settings, so it has to use the default edition cosmology. And the Elemental Chaos is mentioned right in the core 5e books along with the old school type pure elemental/paraelemental planes, and the border elemental planes.
Bariurs are as simular to Centuars as Satyrs are to humans. In 5e terms Centaur are Fey, Bariurs would be Celestials. I think Bariurs are slightly smaller then Centaurs too, but I'm not a 100% on that.
They're small than Monster Manual centaurs but not significantly different from playable ones. And like centaurs, they have a higher than average movement rate, a natural weapon, and four-footed movement. I doubt that they'll be celestials, they've always been humanoids before. They might get darkvision, magic resistance, and/or free proficiency with perception, but overall from a gameplay perspective they're going to be very close to centaurs. And since centaurs have never had any real ties to the planes, especially the Outer Planes, it doesn't make sense to include both in the same book.
Now, what question I have is what they'd do to bring back some of the celestials that haven't been started out, the Archons, Guardinals, and, well, Eladrin have been turned into something else but there's a need for a chaotic good celestial race.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, the fact that centaurs are fey in GGR doesn't mean that in Planescape lore that they have a connection to the feywild. I doubt they'd be in a Planescape book. I would expect Bauriar to be in it, and they could be celestials. It wouldn't cause many more problems than the centaurs or satyrs being fey.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yeah, the fact that centaurs are fey in GGR doesn't mean that in Planescape lore that they have a connection to the feywild. I doubt they'd be in a Planescape book. I would expect Bauriar to be in it, and they could be celestials. It wouldn't cause many more problems than the centaurs or satyrs being fey.
They are also Fey in Theros. It's not a lock they'd be in a Planescape book unlike Aasimar, but it's possible. I agree with you on Bauriers being Celestials and even the FR wiki counts them as Celestials.
The Celestial keyword is new, and they are native to the upper planes.
There are still Divine Eladarin, MTOF makes that clear, they are basically up lifted Eladarin. Plus any Elf born on Aborea is born a celestial, so that could get cool and weird if they explore that.
Guardinals are easy to bring back, just give them a clearer function that is different from Angels.
Archons are in a weird position because by thr time MOoT comes out there will be 3 Archon Celestials out, one for each lawful alignment. But although they do share the fact that they are Celestials and Lawful they are very different in other ways, so how do they handle that will be interesting. Perhaps there will be Factions of Neutral and Fallen Archons besides the traditional Archons.
For new Chaotic Good race, I'd go with Asuras and or Lillends, perhaps merge them into onr family of racers. My idea for Asuras is where Angels are the logical rational will of a God, manifest, the Asuras is the unconscious passion of a God.
Yeah, the fact that centaurs are fey in GGR doesn't mean that in Planescape lore that they have a connection to the feywild. I doubt they'd be in a Planescape book. I would expect Bauriar to be in it, and they could be celestials. It wouldn't cause many more problems than the centaurs or satyrs being fey.
They are also Fey in Theros. It's not a lock they'd be in a Planescape book unlike Aasimar, but it's possible. I agree with you on Bauriers being Celestials and even the FR wiki counts them as Celestials.
Yes, they are fey in theros, as they will be the same race reprinted. Still has no connection to the Feywild, though. I think Bauriar could be in it as celestials, but possibly as monstrosities or humanoids.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I see some folks mentioning Dark Sun. While I'd like to see a return it's very unlikely in the near term. Making a psionics archetype has been bad enough for WotC, but an entirely world rife with it? Considering they've essentially gone back to the board with the subclasses and scrapped the mystic, it's at best a long term project.
For all we know, they could currently be working on a Dark Sun book, but waiting on being able to get psionics approved for it. I could see it coming out in a year or two if they get it right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
For all we know, they could currently be working on a Dark Sun book, but waiting on being able to get psionics approved for it. I could see it coming out in a year or two if they get it right.
With the amount of hate being hurled by the grognard community, I wouldn't be surprised if they were teasing it out of spite, with no intention to follow up.
For people saying the Critical role book got flak here, I'd say the Theros book got tons of actual hate versus a generally accepted book from Mercer. However as I wrote about Theros in another thread, a shudder went down my spin, then suddenly my disdain of the Magic books somewhat diminished.
My original annoyance for them stemmed from the idea that they were going to be 1 offs. Here Ravnica is to sell our new Ravnica card set. Never to be mentioned or used again. So Theros to me seemed like another of those cash grab corporate synergy projects. The lightbulb turned on when I realized that if they were to put several of them out, and then connect them properly with good adventures, they could have an actually interesting plane hopping series of settings tied together marvel cinematic universe style. They can actually make an interesting and expansive setting if they make the right moves going forward with the MtG books.
I still would prefer a core book, and at least give some older settings some love, but I gained some slight optimism going forward. I just disagree with the leaky bucket method as a business practice on principle.
For all we know, they could currently be working on a Dark Sun book, but waiting on being able to get psionics approved for it. I could see it coming out in a year or two if they get it right.
One possiblity is that they will release Dark Sun as a PDF first, before Dark Sun hard cover because the setting is mechanically challenging, like they did for Eberron. Such a pdf book doesn't even take slot.
One possiblity is that they will release Dark Sun as a PDF first, before Dark Sun hard cover because the setting is mechanically challenging, like they did for Eberron. Such a pdf book doesn't even take slot.
Oh god the hate they would get for that. WGtE was a horrible cash-grab.
For all we know, they could currently be working on a Dark Sun book, but waiting on being able to get psionics approved for it. I could see it coming out in a year or two if they get it right.
One possiblity is that they will release Dark Sun as a PDF first, before Dark Sun hard cover because the setting is mechanically challenging, like they did for Eberron. Such a pdf book doesn't even take slot.
I doubt that. Dark Sun doesn't have a Keith Baker to do WotC's work, and then they leach on the profits by making it "official" and promoting it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
For people saying the Critical role book got flak here, I'd say the Theros book got tons of actual hate versus a generally accepted book from Mercer. However as I wrote about Theros in another thread, a shudder went down my spin, then suddenly my disdain of the Magic books somewhat diminished.
Yeah it's kinda funny how reality changes when CR is involved. I've only had Theros for a couple of hours, but what I can see is way more polished than EGtW. The subclasses and options look playtested, and the new monster options are pretty neat. I'm a fan of incremental improvements like that. Honestly I don't give a whiff about the fluff, but it was still worthwhile.
E:RftLW was way more playtested then MOoT, the only thing in MOoT that got a public playtest were the subclasses, where as every player mechanic in E: RftLW was publicly playtested.
E:RftLW was way more playtested then MOoT, the only thing in MOoT that got a public playtest were the subclasses, where as every player mechanic in E: RftLW was publicly playtested.
E:RftLW was way more playtested then MOoT, the only thing in MOoT that got a public playtest were the subclasses, where as every player mechanic in E: RftLW was publicly playtested.
Outside of the Dunamancy and subclasses Wildemount appears to be one of the most polished books in 5e IMHO and helps raise the bar for Campaign Setting Books. I plan on buying it when I can afford to. Lorewise the book is top shelf (I looked at it at Chapters to see if I wanted it). I want the Forgotten Realms book of that quality.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They could do this, but it still wouldn't fix the issue of the storylines advancing the timeline much quicker than D&D worlds. There's too much lore to keep track of in M:tG worlds, even if you ignore planeswalkers in the present and future, as in the past they caused a lot of issues that you basically have to know in settings like Ixalan, Innistrad, and Zendikar.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They're small than Monster Manual centaurs but not significantly different from playable ones. And like centaurs, they have a higher than average movement rate, a natural weapon, and four-footed movement. I doubt that they'll be celestials, they've always been humanoids before. They might get darkvision, magic resistance, and/or free proficiency with perception, but overall from a gameplay perspective they're going to be very close to centaurs. And since centaurs have never had any real ties to the planes, especially the Outer Planes, it doesn't make sense to include both in the same book.
Now, what question I have is what they'd do to bring back some of the celestials that haven't been started out, the Archons, Guardinals, and, well, Eladrin have been turned into something else but there's a need for a chaotic good celestial race.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, the fact that centaurs are fey in GGR doesn't mean that in Planescape lore that they have a connection to the feywild. I doubt they'd be in a Planescape book. I would expect Bauriar to be in it, and they could be celestials. It wouldn't cause many more problems than the centaurs or satyrs being fey.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They are also Fey in Theros. It's not a lock they'd be in a Planescape book unlike Aasimar, but it's possible. I agree with you on Bauriers being Celestials and even the FR wiki counts them as Celestials.
The Celestial keyword is new, and they are native to the upper planes.
There are still Divine Eladarin, MTOF makes that clear, they are basically up lifted Eladarin. Plus any Elf born on Aborea is born a celestial, so that could get cool and weird if they explore that.
Guardinals are easy to bring back, just give them a clearer function that is different from Angels.
Archons are in a weird position because by thr time MOoT comes out there will be 3 Archon Celestials out, one for each lawful alignment. But although they do share the fact that they are Celestials and Lawful they are very different in other ways, so how do they handle that will be interesting. Perhaps there will be Factions of Neutral and Fallen Archons besides the traditional Archons.
For new Chaotic Good race, I'd go with Asuras and or Lillends, perhaps merge them into onr family of racers. My idea for Asuras is where Angels are the logical rational will of a God, manifest, the Asuras is the unconscious passion of a God.
Yes, they are fey in theros, as they will be the same race reprinted. Still has no connection to the Feywild, though. I think Bauriar could be in it as celestials, but possibly as monstrosities or humanoids.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I see some folks mentioning Dark Sun. While I'd like to see a return it's very unlikely in the near term. Making a psionics archetype has been bad enough for WotC, but an entirely world rife with it? Considering they've essentially gone back to the board with the subclasses and scrapped the mystic, it's at best a long term project.
For all we know, they could currently be working on a Dark Sun book, but waiting on being able to get psionics approved for it. I could see it coming out in a year or two if they get it right.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
With the amount of hate being hurled by the grognard community, I wouldn't be surprised if they were teasing it out of spite, with no intention to follow up.
For people saying the Critical role book got flak here, I'd say the Theros book got tons of actual hate versus a generally accepted book from Mercer. However as I wrote about Theros in another thread, a shudder went down my spin, then suddenly my disdain of the Magic books somewhat diminished.
My original annoyance for them stemmed from the idea that they were going to be 1 offs. Here Ravnica is to sell our new Ravnica card set. Never to be mentioned or used again. So Theros to me seemed like another of those cash grab corporate synergy projects. The lightbulb turned on when I realized that if they were to put several of them out, and then connect them properly with good adventures, they could have an actually interesting plane hopping series of settings tied together marvel cinematic universe style. They can actually make an interesting and expansive setting if they make the right moves going forward with the MtG books.
I still would prefer a core book, and at least give some older settings some love, but I gained some slight optimism going forward. I just disagree with the leaky bucket method as a business practice on principle.
One possiblity is that they will release Dark Sun as a PDF first, before Dark Sun hard cover because the setting is mechanically challenging, like they did for Eberron. Such a pdf book doesn't even take slot.
Oh god the hate they would get for that. WGtE was a horrible cash-grab.
I doubt that. Dark Sun doesn't have a Keith Baker to do WotC's work, and then they leach on the profits by making it "official" and promoting it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah it's kinda funny how reality changes when CR is involved. I've only had Theros for a couple of hours, but what I can see is way more polished than EGtW. The subclasses and options look playtested, and the new monster options are pretty neat. I'm a fan of incremental improvements like that. Honestly I don't give a whiff about the fluff, but it was still worthwhile.
E:RftLW was way more playtested then MOoT, the only thing in MOoT that got a public playtest were the subclasses, where as every player mechanic in E: RftLW was publicly playtested.
Because the only new player mechanics in E:RftLW was the Artificer class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
EGtW is the CR book, not Eberron.
Yeah, E:RftLW is the Eberron book. EGTW is the Wildemount book.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Looks like I failed my perception check.
Outside of the Dunamancy and subclasses Wildemount appears to be one of the most polished books in 5e IMHO and helps raise the bar for Campaign Setting Books. I plan on buying it when I can afford to. Lorewise the book is top shelf (I looked at it at Chapters to see if I wanted it). I want the Forgotten Realms book of that quality.