Given that the Artificer class was printed so late, it's logical to assume that any new Artificer subclass will probably have the base Artificer class reprinted alongside it. And we do have an Artificer subclass in UA at the moment (the Armorer). Personally, the flavor of that subclass lends itself to the space setting of DnD that I don't personally know but hear so much about. I gather that's the same setting that the psionic UA is probably related to? If they were going to reprint the Artificer in another setting, a space DnD setting would be the perfect place to do it. After all, in a world where magic is dominant over science, who else would build the space ships?
Spelljammer exists, and IIRC, there were no artificers back when it existed.
They will probably not make a spelljammer book for awhile, and it will need a lot of changes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You talking about Spelljammer? Artificers could work in that setting fairly easily, though I don't think that it ever had significant psionic focus beyond the fact that mind flayers were common in it.
I'm betting Xanathar's 2.0/Planescape, if there is a 4th book. IF. Major if. Last year they had 5 books, so they might scale back a bit this year. Also, the pandemic could delay a possible 4th book to next year.
I would love it if we got this. So much more than a campaign setting. It's not like you can play in all of the settings. A Xanathar's would be so much more useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
I really hope they're not going to reprint all the subclass options from the settings books in a Xanathar's 2.
At the very least, I doubt we'll see the Artificer get reprinted. Which would probably preclude adding new subclasses for it since Wizard's has been trying to go on the PHB and one other book route for characters instead of splitting up rules between multiple books.
Why would they do the Armourer subclass for Artificers if they weren't planning on reprinting it?
I'm betting Xanathar's 2.0/Planescape, if there is a 4th book. IF. Major if. Last year they had 5 books, so they might scale back a bit this year. Also, the pandemic could delay a possible 4th book to next year.
I would love it if we got this. So much more than a campaign setting. It's not like you can play in all of the settings. A Xanathar's would be so much more useful.
I'm point out that Levi tied Xanther's 2 to a setting, Planescape, which as far as settings go is useful to other settings.
I really hope they're not going to reprint all the subclass options from the settings books in a Xanathar's 2.
At the very least, I doubt we'll see the Artificer get reprinted. Which would probably preclude adding new subclasses for it since Wizard's has been trying to go on the PHB and one other book route for characters instead of splitting up rules between multiple books.
Why would they do the Armourer subclass for Artificers if they weren't planning on reprinting it?
Either just to give something extra to people who play it, or for use in an Eberron-specific book.
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.
Given that the Artificer class was printed so late, it's logical to assume that any new Artificer subclass will probably have the base Artificer class reprinted alongside it. And we do have an Artificer subclass in UA at the moment (the Armorer). Personally, the flavor of that subclass lends itself to the space setting of DnD that I don't personally know but hear so much about. I gather that's the same setting that the psionic UA is probably related to? If they were going to reprint the Artificer in another setting, a space DnD setting would be the perfect place to do it. After all, in a world where magic is dominant over science, who else would build the space ships?
Spelljammer exists, and IIRC, there were no artificers back when it existed.
They will probably not make a spelljammer book for awhile, and it will need a lot of changes.
That must be what I'm thinking of, I've only played 5e so I don't know any of the Old Texts, as it were.
It.... kinda doesn't matter if there weren't Artificers then, though. Unless the setting has a detailed explanation of how the technology and the magic were made to work together to allow spaceships. In which case the explanation could probably be paraphrased as "the Artificers built them", and at the time Artificer was simply not a playable class.
Given that the Artificer class was printed so late, it's logical to assume that any new Artificer subclass will probably have the base Artificer class reprinted alongside it. And we do have an Artificer subclass in UA at the moment (the Armorer). Personally, the flavor of that subclass lends itself to the space setting of DnD that I don't personally know but hear so much about. I gather that's the same setting that the psionic UA is probably related to? If they were going to reprint the Artificer in another setting, a space DnD setting would be the perfect place to do it. After all, in a world where magic is dominant over science, who else would build the space ships?
Spelljammer exists, and IIRC, there were no artificers back when it existed.
They will probably not make a spelljammer book for awhile, and it will need a lot of changes.
That must be what I'm thinking of, I've only played 5e so I don't know any of the Old Texts, as it were.
It.... kinda doesn't matter if there weren't Artificers then, though. Unless the setting has a detailed explanation of how the technology and the magic were made to work together to allow spaceships. In which case the explanation could probably be paraphrased as "the Artificers built them", and at the time Artificer was simply not a playable class.
I've only played 5e, too, but I did some research on the topic and have run it. It's a good setting.
They do have an explanation of how the spelljamming helms (magic propulsion space thrones) were made, it was a space species of giants called the Arcane.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I really hope they're not going to reprint all the subclass options from the settings books in a Xanathar's 2.
At the very least, I doubt we'll see the Artificer get reprinted. Which would probably preclude adding new subclasses for it since Wizard's has been trying to go on the PHB and one other book route for characters instead of splitting up rules between multiple books.
Why would they do the Armourer subclass for Artificers if they weren't planning on reprinting it?
Either just to give something extra to people who play it, or for use in an Eberron-specific book.
They've explained throughout 5e that they don't want anyone to have to use more than the 3 core rulebooks in order to use any other of their 5e books. If they're printing the Armorer in Xanathar's 2.0, it's going to have the full Artificer reprint.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm betting Xanathar's 2.0/Planescape, if there is a 4th book. IF. Major if. Last year they had 5 books, so they might scale back a bit this year. Also, the pandemic could delay a possible 4th book to next year.
I would love it if we got this. So much more than a campaign setting. It's not like you can play in all of the settings. A Xanathar's would be so much more useful.
I'm point out that Levi tied Xanther's 2 to a setting, Planescape, which as far as settings go is useful to other settings.
Yeah, Planescape doesn't really count as a setting. Sure, it has a bunch of places you can go to, but it's not really a true campaign setting, like Spelljammer isn't. It's more of a way to get around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm betting Xanathar's 2.0/Planescape, if there is a 4th book. IF. Major if. Last year they had 5 books, so they might scale back a bit this year. Also, the pandemic could delay a possible 4th book to next year.
I would love it if we got this. So much more than a campaign setting. It's not like you can play in all of the settings. A Xanathar's would be so much more useful.
I'm point out that Levi tied Xanther's 2 to a setting, Planescape, which as far as settings go is useful to other settings.
Yeah, Planescape doesn't really count as a setting. Sure, it has a bunch of places you can go to, but it's not really a true campaign setting, like Spelljammer isn't. It's more of a way to get around.
Spoken like someone who's never looked at Planescape beyond reading the third edition Manual of the Planes. Planescape absolutely was its own setting with its own characters, factions, plots, and whatnot. The fact that it could also connect to other D&D settings was extra.
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.
I'm betting Xanathar's 2.0/Planescape, if there is a 4th book. IF. Major if. Last year they had 5 books, so they might scale back a bit this year. Also, the pandemic could delay a possible 4th book to next year.
I would love it if we got this. So much more than a campaign setting. It's not like you can play in all of the settings. A Xanathar's would be so much more useful.
I'm point out that Levi tied Xanther's 2 to a setting, Planescape, which as far as settings go is useful to other settings.
Yeah, Planescape doesn't really count as a setting. Sure, it has a bunch of places you can go to, but it's not really a true campaign setting, like Spelljammer isn't. It's more of a way to get around.
Spoken like someone who's never looked at Planescape beyond reading the third edition Manual of the Planes. Planescape absolutely was its own setting with its own characters, factions, plots, and whatnot. The fact that it could also connect to other D&D settings was extra.
I have never played a previous edition of D&D or read a book from then. It is not a typical campaign setting. Planescape is much different from any other campaign setting. Sure, there are characters, factions, plots, and so on, but that doesn't really make a setting. A tavern can have characters, plots, and factions, but wouldn't be considered a setting.
What I mean is, sure it has places to go to and people to meet, but it's much different and overall more useful than most other settings. For a Forgotten Realms game, you're not going to care about who wins the war in Wildemount. But, if you're in either of those settings, you will care who wins the Blood War.
It's more useful. It wouldn't require a setting book like other D&D 5e settings. It could handle both a major character option section as well as some planar maps and information.
Notes: Please treat other users with respect. Removed line that was directed to another user.
Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents. In that spirit, making D&D as welcoming and inclusive as possible has moved to the forefront of our priorities over the last six years. We’d like to share with you what we’ve been doing, and what we plan to do in the future to address legacy D&D content that does not reflect who we are today. We recognize that doing this isn’t about getting to a place where we can rest on our laurels but continuing to head in the right direction. We feel that being transparent about it is the best way to let our community help us to continue to calibrate our efforts. One of the explicit design goals of 5th edition D&D is to depict humanity in all its beautiful diversity by depicting characters who represent an array of ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and beliefs. We want everyone to feel at home around the game table and to see positive reflections of themselves within our products. “Human” in D&D means everyone, not just fantasy versions of northern Europeans, and the D&D community is now more diverse than it’s ever been. Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right. Here’s what we’re doing to improve:
We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do.
When every D&D book is reprinted, we have an opportunity to correct errors that we or the broader D&D community discovered in that book. Each year, we use those opportunities to fix a variety of things, including errors in judgment. In recent reprintings of Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd, for example, we changed text that was racially insensitive. Those reprints have already been printed and will be available in the months ahead. We will continue this process, reviewing each book as it comes up for a reprint and fixing such errors where they are present.
Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.
Curse of Strahd included a people known as the Vistani and featured the Vistani heroine Ezmerelda. Regrettably, their depiction echoes some stereotypes associated with the Romani people in the real world. To rectify that, we’ve not only made changes to Curse of Strahd, but in two upcoming books, we will also show—working with a Romani consultant—the Vistani in a way that doesn’t rely on reductive tropes.
We've received valuable insights from sensitivity readers on two of our recent books. We are incorporating sensitivity readers into our creative process, and we will continue to reach out to experts in various fields to help us identify our blind spots.
We're proactively seeking new, diverse talent to join our staff and our pool of freelance writers and artists. We’ve brought in contributors who reflect the beautiful diversity of the D&D community to work on books coming out in 2021. We're going to invest even more in this approach and add a broad range of new voices to join the chorus of D&D storytelling.
And we will continue to listen to you all. We created 5th edition in conversation with the D&D community. It's a conversation that continues to this day. That's at the heart of our work—listening to the community, learning what brings you joy, and doing everything we can to provide it in every one of our books. This part of our work will never end. We know that every day someone finds the courage to voice their truth, and we’re here to listen. We are eternally grateful for the ongoing dialog with the D&D community, and we look forward to continuing to improve D&D for generations to come.
The emboldened section is about a future product that will come out this year.
Interesting. I realize that this announcement has more to do with racial options, but I wonder if it might also have something to do with that Class Feature Variants UA that came out a while back?
Interesting. I realize that this announcement has more to do with racial options, but I wonder if it might also have something to do with that Class Feature Variants UA that came out a while back?
Probably. It seems like they're focusing on customizability and character creation agency more, so this would fit in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm betting Xanathar's 2.0/Planescape, if there is a 4th book. IF. Major if. Last year they had 5 books, so they might scale back a bit this year. Also, the pandemic could delay a possible 4th book to next year.
I would love it if we got this. So much more than a campaign setting. It's not like you can play in all of the settings. A Xanathar's would be so much more useful.
I'm point out that Levi tied Xanther's 2 to a setting, Planescape, which as far as settings go is useful to other settings.
Yeah, Planescape doesn't really count as a setting. Sure, it has a bunch of places you can go to, but it's not really a true campaign setting, like Spelljammer isn't. It's more of a way to get around.
Spoken like someone who's never looked at Planescape beyond reading the third edition Manual of the Planes. Planescape absolutely was its own setting with its own characters, factions, plots, and whatnot. The fact that it could also connect to other D&D settings was extra.
I have never played a previous edition of D&D or read a book from then. It is not a typical campaign setting.
Yes, that's the entire point of Planescape. It wasn't typical. It took demons, devils, celestials, elementals, and various other creatures that typically only saw use guarding rooms in dungeons or as things for characters to summon and focused on the part of the D&D cosmos where they lived instead of the part where elves or dwarves or humans did. The fact that you could reach it via Planeshift didn't make it less of a setting- that's also true for going from the Forgotten Realms to Greyhawk or Dark Sun (whether or not it can get you to Eberron is something entirely, but Eberron was deliberately designed to be it's own isolated world instead of connected to the D&D Multiverse).
Notes: Please treat other users with respect. Removed line that was directed to another user.
Something else I've just noticed from that announcement, is they have two upcoming books that will feature Vistani, not just the reprint for Curse of Strahd.
Something else I've just noticed from that announcement, is they have two upcoming books that will feature Vistani, not just the reprint for Curse of Strahd.
(Ravenloft campaign setting? Pretty please?)
I think that the first reference would be in Planescape/Xanathar's 2.0 in the Shadowfell section of the book. The second could be the Icewind Dale adventure book, maybe with a mention of the Vistani.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spelljammer exists, and IIRC, there were no artificers back when it existed.
They will probably not make a spelljammer book for awhile, and it will need a lot of changes.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And Gith
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I would love it if we got this. So much more than a campaign setting. It's not like you can play in all of the settings. A Xanathar's would be so much more useful.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
Why would they do the Armourer subclass for Artificers if they weren't planning on reprinting it?
I'm point out that Levi tied Xanther's 2 to a setting, Planescape, which as far as settings go is useful to other settings.
Either just to give something extra to people who play it, or for use in an Eberron-specific book.
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.
It is my understanding that the vast majority of people DON'T do Adventure League so the PHB + 1 rule is not very relevant to many costumers.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That must be what I'm thinking of, I've only played 5e so I don't know any of the Old Texts, as it were.
It.... kinda doesn't matter if there weren't Artificers then, though. Unless the setting has a detailed explanation of how the technology and the magic were made to work together to allow spaceships. In which case the explanation could probably be paraphrased as "the Artificers built them", and at the time Artificer was simply not a playable class.
I've never played AL myself, but most of the GMs I've had for 5E have at least encouraged the rule for simplicity's sake.
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.
I've only played 5e, too, but I did some research on the topic and have run it. It's a good setting.
They do have an explanation of how the spelljamming helms (magic propulsion space thrones) were made, it was a space species of giants called the Arcane.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They've explained throughout 5e that they don't want anyone to have to use more than the 3 core rulebooks in order to use any other of their 5e books. If they're printing the Armorer in Xanathar's 2.0, it's going to have the full Artificer reprint.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah, Planescape doesn't really count as a setting. Sure, it has a bunch of places you can go to, but it's not really a true campaign setting, like Spelljammer isn't. It's more of a way to get around.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Spoken like someone who's never looked at Planescape beyond reading the third edition Manual of the Planes. Planescape absolutely was its own setting with its own characters, factions, plots, and whatnot. The fact that it could also connect to other D&D settings was extra.
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.
I have never played a previous edition of D&D or read a book from then. It is not a typical campaign setting. Planescape is much different from any other campaign setting. Sure, there are characters, factions, plots, and so on, but that doesn't really make a setting. A tavern can have characters, plots, and factions, but wouldn't be considered a setting.
What I mean is, sure it has places to go to and people to meet, but it's much different and overall more useful than most other settings. For a Forgotten Realms game, you're not going to care about who wins the war in Wildemount. But, if you're in either of those settings, you will care who wins the Blood War.
It's more useful. It wouldn't require a setting book like other D&D 5e settings. It could handle both a major character option section as well as some planar maps and information.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Here's a quote from WotC today:
The emboldened section is about a future product that will come out this year.
Edit: Here's the link to this post:
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Interesting. I realize that this announcement has more to do with racial options, but I wonder if it might also have something to do with that Class Feature Variants UA that came out a while back?
Probably. It seems like they're focusing on customizability and character creation agency more, so this would fit in.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes, that's the entire point of Planescape. It wasn't typical. It took demons, devils, celestials, elementals, and various other creatures that typically only saw use guarding rooms in dungeons or as things for characters to summon and focused on the part of the D&D cosmos where they lived instead of the part where elves or dwarves or humans did. The fact that you could reach it via Planeshift didn't make it less of a setting- that's also true for going from the Forgotten Realms to Greyhawk or Dark Sun (whether or not it can get you to Eberron is something entirely, but Eberron was deliberately designed to be it's own isolated world instead of connected to the D&D Multiverse).
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.
Something else I've just noticed from that announcement, is they have two upcoming books that will feature Vistani, not just the reprint for Curse of Strahd.
(Ravenloft campaign setting? Pretty please?)
I think that the first reference would be in Planescape/Xanathar's 2.0 in the Shadowfell section of the book. The second could be the Icewind Dale adventure book, maybe with a mention of the Vistani.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms