Getting a Ravenloft book would decrease the chances of an Innistrad book, which narrows the pool of potential future MTG book settings (Amonkhet plz).
Amonkhet is not likely to get a set for awhile amd I don't think they will do a D&D book for a MtG setting without a current Standard Legel set.
Plus Amonkhet overlaps with Ravenloft almost as much as Innistrad does. Har'Akir/Amber Wastes, with elements of Falknovia (Hoards of Zombies). Amonkhet is arguably as much a horror based set as Innistrad. Amonkhet is very much like Har'Akir. Mummies, curses, one point of light of civilization surrounded by Egyptian style ruins and deserts, ruled by an Evil Pharoah.
I though Zendikar would get a book, but it didn't and niether did Kaldheim or Strixhaven. Next up after these is the Forgotten Realms set. A FR World Campaign Book would count as both q Classic Setting and the MtG tie in book this year.
I believe mechanically speaking on DDB, and I can't imagine this was done without consultation with their contacts at WotC, if a character "takes on" a Gothline to an existing character, the character's prior racial traits are gone. No Tortle shell, no Tabaxi claws, no Dragonborn breath. Should it be this way? Some say so from a balance perspective, and narrative wise I could imagine a Tortle's shell losing it's resiliency, the Dragonborn's breath dissipating after its life has been consumed by the new lineage, etc. Other disagree and I can understand those arguments as well. While agnostic, I hope WotC will be much more explicit as to what happens when a lineage is taken, in a manner persuasive to adherents of both sides of this debate.
Should note this has been discussed _a lot_ in the UA threads for the Gothlines playtest, and yes I'm trying to make "Gothlines" as shorthand for "gothic lineages" a thing. I persist almost as hard as I persist in my advocacy for a dragon themed Barbarian in line with the Monk and Ranger who has DRAGONRAGE actually written in all caps as a feature. These are my investments in the society in which we live.
D&D in general doesn't do horror well. Good horror relies on disempowerment and preys on the weakness of humanity (in many different senses of the word 'weakness'). A typical D&D party is anything but disempowered. DMs trying to do straight-up horror are going to be super disappointed in the results.
Dark fantasy, though? Gothic fantasy? Adopting the aesthetic and putting some edge on one's game? That, D&D can accomplish. Hopefully this book leans more dark fantasy than 'horror' despite the billing.
You're not wrong. To pull it off, you have to keep it low level and definitely low magic. Power removes the fear.
Not necessarily. Gothic horror is all about atmosphere over challenge. Consistent use of the actual Gothic fiction literary technique of Pathetic Fallacy helps, along with soundscapes and even just a suggestion of surmounting odds through NPC rumour, oppression or paranoia can all trump how powerful the party thinks it is. It just relies on the DM finding narrative ways to make the party believe their obstacle is more powerful to gain the gothic horror feel, even if the current BBEG is just a Necromancer NPC stats with a few ghasts running around for lvl11 party. I've been running a gothic campaign from lvl1, currently at 12 and they've not lost the hopeless nature of the gothic setting yet. Anyway, thats my 2c, thanks for reading, carry on, as you were.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
And now I cry as no Lord Soth.... oh well some of these domains look very interesting
But as Todd Kennrick said, he got taken back to Dragonlance. With the book trilogy set in that realm later this year, maybe we might see him in there and we may see a Dragonlance setting or campaign soon to coincide, because franchise marketing, where he may turn up too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
And now I cry as no Lord Soth.... oh well some of these domains look very interesting
But as Todd Kennrick said, he got taken back to Dragonlance. With the book trilogy set in that realm later this year, maybe we might see him in there and we may see a Dragonlance setting or campaign soon to coincide, because franchise marketing, where he may turn up too.
Yeah totally, they could be saving him for a Dragonlance setting.
Also, if anything else fails there's gonna be rules to build your own domains and Dark Lords. You could bring Soth and Sithicus back!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM/Founder for Mimics & Monstrosities, a D&D network.
I don't know about the revamp of Falkovnia, I like the idea but I don't agree with the reason of why they change it, we already have domains like the Necropolis and Keening that have tons of zombies, even Azalin Rex can raise a endless numbers of undeads when he want to close Darkon's border, so why make another one when two already exist (granted, you cannot enter the Necropolis since you will die in minutes because of the negative energie surrounding to City if you are not aldeady an undead) also, Vlad Drakov in Ravenloft is not a vampire, but is closer to the real Vlad Tepes than Strahd.
I still do not agree about the fact that you can become a dhampir later since you have to be born a dhampir. Also, from the look of it, it look like that in this book, you won't get punished for doing evil acts, sure you could play a necromancer but casting necromancy spells and raising the dead is not a good idea to do in Ravenloft, you will get punish for it and you will get corrupted by the Dark Powers and become a evil character for doing so.
I will probably not agree with everything but still will enjoy reading the new domains. I hope they will have the dread elementals back.
I still do not agree about the fact that you can become a dhampir later since you have to be born a dhampir.
This is why I think they should have used a different name for that lineage. They clearly intended for it to cover more than just people inherently born half vampires, but also vampire tainted or vampire spawn and not just regular blood drinkers either, but psychic vampires and even stranger things. I like that it's a more open concept, but I knew people would get stuck on the name like this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Eh, I can't think of a better name for a "pseudo-vampire" that anyone would respond to. Are you just going to call the UA "Thirsty" or "Ravenous?" Dhampir is the most interesting choice, and though the original folklore refers to those with one vampire parent and one human parent, the zeitgeist has mostly absorbed it as "Vampire but not quite" rather than strictly "genetically half-vampire." I think the name works fine. Better than the mechanics do currently, anyway.
A tour of horror tropes... Seems like WotC's version of the film Stay Tuned. I'm sort of expecting the eventual Spelljammer to be a tour of sci-fi tropes.
I don't know about the revamp of Falkovnia, I like the idea but I don't agree with the reason of why they change it, we already have domains like the Necropolis and Keening that have tons of zombies, even Azalin Rex can raise a endless numbers of undeads when he want to close Darkon's border, so why make another one when two already exist
Merely my own speculations, but I would suspect that the original concepts for Vlad Drakov and Falkovnia were too controversial for what WotC wanted to deal with. Vlad Drakov was extremely misogynistic, brutally sadistic, as well as downright murderous. On top of that, he was basically just a standard human and not some sort of vampire, werewolf, or other creature of the night. So, yes, he was a monster but because the things that he did were monstrous.
If the book is supposed to be geared for players of various ages, I can see why Vlad Drakov would be removed and/or changed to something else. Then again, I might be completely off the mark and we'll see something else picking up this concept/trope in a different domain.
Also, from the look of it, it look like that in this book, you won't get punished for doing evil acts, sure you could play a necromancer but casting necromancy spells and raising the dead is not a good idea to do in Ravenloft, you will get punish for it and you will get corrupted by the Dark Powers and become a evil character for doing so.
We'll have to wait and see how exactly the rules and mechanics are laid out, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Dark Power checks from previous editions are reduced or even removed. I'm also expecting that the traditional Fear, Horror, and Madness checks will be reduced or removed as well. With player agency having such a bigger emphasis in more recent editions, I'd expect that the rules are going to pull away from things that potentially remove that agency (even if temporarily). The Fear, Horror, and Madness checks were to help enforce the "horror" feel, since D&D adventurers aren't going to be as scared about searching a haunted house as the Scooby-Doo gang. Players knowing that they could be basically incapacitated by the horrors that they see made the setting scarier. Similarly, you could permanently become an NPC if you failed enough Dark Power checks despite not being an evil person per se....
Again, I am merely speculating as we wait for the actual book to come out. Pretty excited about them creating a Ravenloft setting book, just simultaneously intrigued and nervous on how they'll handle everything...which being intrigued and nervous are probably good signs for a horror setting, eh?
I'm going to buy since I'd certainly like a 5e setting for Ravenloft. I will say I find it increasingly annoying that Wizards feels the need to reinvent the wheel everytime they return to Ravenloft. Can't we just have an updated, classic version of the setting? I can appreciate the desire to remove or rework the elements of the setting that were offensive or outright racist. But I feel like you can do that easily enough without completely throwing out the old setting. Why are we flipping the genders in Lamordia? Why has Dementlieu moved from the pinnacle of culture and technology where the darklord is waging a mental war with psionic abomination known as the living brain to a "fairy tale" domain....which BTW you'd have much better luck with if you used Kartakass or Tepest (or the shadow rift, the literal realm of the faeries in Ravenloft). I'm a big fan of "if it aint broke don't fix it". Seems like Wizards wants to fix it in case it somehow might be broken. That's not a encouraging sign.
I don't know about the revamp of Falkovnia, I like the idea but I don't agree with the reason of why they change it, we already have domains like the Necropolis and Keening that have tons of zombies, even Azalin Rex can raise a endless numbers of undeads when he want to close Darkon's border, so why make another one when two already exist
Merely my own speculations, but I would suspect that the original concepts for Vlad Drakov and Falkovnia were too controversial for what WotC wanted to deal with. Vlad Drakov was extremely misogynistic, brutally sadistic, as well as downright murderous. On top of that, he was basically just a standard human and not some sort of vampire, werewolf, or other creature of the night. So, yes, he was a monster but because the things that he did were monstrous.
If the book is supposed to be geared for players of various ages, I can see why Vlad Drakov would be removed and/or changed to something else. Then again, I might be completely off the mark and we'll see something else picking up this concept/trope in a different domain.
I agree with you that they might have changed some domains because it would maybe be controversial, too similar to real life historical figures or literature which Ravenloft is mostly based of, I just hope that in the book they will at least tell why it was changed, like if Azalin just got tired of Vlad constant invasion and decided to send is undead army to kill Drakov but instead of Falkovnia to merge with Darkon's domain, the Dark Powers decided to give it to a new Darklord instead, that would be good for me, not because they are mostly the same vampire.
also, I too wouldn't be surprised if they removed the Fear, Horror, and Madness checks game mechanics, will wait and see but, if that would be the case, it would remove what make Ravenloft unique compare to the other D&D settings, still, I could just homebrew those rules back into my 5ed campaign if I want to.
'“This incarnation of Ravenloft reimagines a great deal of what came before. Past explorations of the setting directly linked many of the domains of Ravenloft into a pseudo-continent called the ‘Core’. We’ve taken the Core, the heart of the Ravenloft setting, and shattered it. In this new interpretation, every domain is a lonely island drifting through the mists.'
Oh. Ohhhhhhh. Oh no.
That completely kills any enthusiasm I had for this project. Let's be clear- removing the Core is not a small decision. The Core was such an integral part of the campaign setting in second and third editions that removing it is essentially completely abandoning a enormous body of excellently written source material. This is like, I dunno, reintroducing Forgotten Realms without Eliminster being a part of the setting, or bringing back Dragonlance but pretending the novels were never written. It isn't a small tweak to the setting. And at the risk of being the D&D version of the old man yelling at those damn kids to get off his lawn....I can't imagine this as being anything other than a huge mistake and a massive downgrade in past versions of the setting.
It isn't that big of a deal to me, but I only want it for spare parts anyway.
What aspects of setting would be affected by this?
Essentially 2nd to 3rd edition Ravenloft had three kinds of landmasses. The Core, as discussed, was a small continent of 25 or so domains of land and seas filled with alliances, intrigues, betrayals, and occasionally warfare. The whole continent was surrounded by the mists, though as always they could pop up unexpectedly anywhere. Ravenloft also had smaller gatherings of domains known as clusters, which usually only consisted of two or three domains linked together, often by geography (the deserts of the Amber Wastes, the jungles of the Verdous Lands, the snow of the Frozen Reaches, etc). Each Cluster was also surrounded by Mists. Finally, there were the islands of terror, single domains completely encircled by mists.
I don't intend to bore you with a long list of plots, intrigues, alliances, and betrayals that played out as a result of the Core existing. Mechanically it will fundamentally alter many major organizations and possibly character classes of the setting, since ease of communication and general interconnection can no longer be presumed. But mainly what I lament is the seeming presumption that playing in an isolated, lonely domain cut off from the outside world should no longer be an option but the only way to play the game. At the very least the Core was able to function as that "outside world" you were meant to feel isolated from. This seems to be an effort to steer RL unwilling back into the "weekend from hell" game, where being abducted from your homeworld is an inherent part of the setting. Thing is, past editions made great strides in expanding beyond that to make RL a campaign unto itself, with native NPCs and the like. Again, the whole thing feels like a downgrade, a bad idea that came up in 4th edition that for some reason wasn't discarded like so many others when 5th edition came around.
I would say intricate factional dynamics predicated on lore just isn't a 5e thing, so the fact that the domains are distinct from each other and _could_ overlap but are not designed in a way that insists so isn't all that surprising. I mean 5e products touch on prior lore but doesn't really rely on it too much. I think manageable worlds for new players will always be the driver. Do long time adherents of some settings miss some continuity (though I think this is in continuity with 4e if I read that post right)? Sure, but I doubt there will be any hard and fast reason a player couldn't have their domains more contiguous than they're mapped, or not mapped in the hardcover.
I mean the box office driver high concept "Monster X v Monster Y" with the PCs caught in the middle, I'd actually be a little surprised if some discussion on using that trope as a stepping stone demonstrating how the domains could interact doesn't make it into the book.
Amonkhet is not likely to get a set for awhile amd I don't think they will do a D&D book for a MtG setting without a current Standard Legel set.
Plus Amonkhet overlaps with Ravenloft almost as much as Innistrad does. Har'Akir/Amber Wastes, with elements of Falknovia (Hoards of Zombies). Amonkhet is arguably as much a horror based set as Innistrad. Amonkhet is very much like Har'Akir. Mummies, curses, one point of light of civilization surrounded by Egyptian style ruins and deserts, ruled by an Evil Pharoah.
I though Zendikar would get a book, but it didn't and niether did Kaldheim or Strixhaven. Next up after these is the Forgotten Realms set. A FR World Campaign Book would count as both q Classic Setting and the MtG tie in book this year.
I believe mechanically speaking on DDB, and I can't imagine this was done without consultation with their contacts at WotC, if a character "takes on" a Gothline to an existing character, the character's prior racial traits are gone. No Tortle shell, no Tabaxi claws, no Dragonborn breath. Should it be this way? Some say so from a balance perspective, and narrative wise I could imagine a Tortle's shell losing it's resiliency, the Dragonborn's breath dissipating after its life has been consumed by the new lineage, etc. Other disagree and I can understand those arguments as well. While agnostic, I hope WotC will be much more explicit as to what happens when a lineage is taken, in a manner persuasive to adherents of both sides of this debate.
Should note this has been discussed _a lot_ in the UA threads for the Gothlines playtest, and yes I'm trying to make "Gothlines" as shorthand for "gothic lineages" a thing. I persist almost as hard as I persist in my advocacy for a dragon themed Barbarian in line with the Monk and Ranger who has DRAGONRAGE actually written in all caps as a feature. These are my investments in the society in which we live.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Not necessarily. Gothic horror is all about atmosphere over challenge. Consistent use of the actual Gothic fiction literary technique of Pathetic Fallacy helps, along with soundscapes and even just a suggestion of surmounting odds through NPC rumour, oppression or paranoia can all trump how powerful the party thinks it is. It just relies on the DM finding narrative ways to make the party believe their obstacle is more powerful to gain the gothic horror feel, even if the current BBEG is just a Necromancer NPC stats with a few ghasts running around for lvl11 party. I've been running a gothic campaign from lvl1, currently at 12 and they've not lost the hopeless nature of the gothic setting yet. Anyway, thats my 2c, thanks for reading, carry on, as you were.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
And now I cry as no Lord Soth.... oh well some of these domains look very interesting
But as Todd Kennrick said, he got taken back to Dragonlance. With the book trilogy set in that realm later this year, maybe we might see him in there and we may see a Dragonlance setting or campaign soon to coincide, because franchise marketing, where he may turn up too.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
Yeah totally, they could be saving him for a Dragonlance setting.
Also, if anything else fails there's gonna be rules to build your own domains and Dark Lords. You could bring Soth and Sithicus back!
DM/Founder for Mimics & Monstrosities, a D&D network.
Mimics & Monstrosities Youtube
Mimics & Monstrosities Twitch
Occasional DM's Guild Content Creator
I don't know about the revamp of Falkovnia, I like the idea but I don't agree with the reason of why they change it, we already have domains like the Necropolis and Keening that have tons of zombies, even Azalin Rex can raise a endless numbers of undeads when he want to close Darkon's border, so why make another one when two already exist (granted, you cannot enter the Necropolis since you will die in minutes because of the negative energie surrounding to City if you are not aldeady an undead) also, Vlad Drakov in Ravenloft is not a vampire, but is closer to the real Vlad Tepes than Strahd.
I still do not agree about the fact that you can become a dhampir later since you have to be born a dhampir. Also, from the look of it, it look like that in this book, you won't get punished for doing evil acts, sure you could play a necromancer but casting necromancy spells and raising the dead is not a good idea to do in Ravenloft, you will get punish for it and you will get corrupted by the Dark Powers and become a evil character for doing so.
I will probably not agree with everything but still will enjoy reading the new domains. I hope they will have the dread elementals back.
This is why I think they should have used a different name for that lineage. They clearly intended for it to cover more than just people inherently born half vampires, but also vampire tainted or vampire spawn and not just regular blood drinkers either, but psychic vampires and even stranger things. I like that it's a more open concept, but I knew people would get stuck on the name like this.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Eh, I can't think of a better name for a "pseudo-vampire" that anyone would respond to. Are you just going to call the UA "Thirsty" or "Ravenous?" Dhampir is the most interesting choice, and though the original folklore refers to those with one vampire parent and one human parent, the zeitgeist has mostly absorbed it as "Vampire but not quite" rather than strictly "genetically half-vampire." I think the name works fine. Better than the mechanics do currently, anyway.
A tour of horror tropes... Seems like WotC's version of the film Stay Tuned. I'm sort of expecting the eventual Spelljammer to be a tour of sci-fi tropes.
Any 5E Spelljammer is a good Spelljammer!
Well, this is cool, if expected. Seems like some good stuff.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
Merely my own speculations, but I would suspect that the original concepts for Vlad Drakov and Falkovnia were too controversial for what WotC wanted to deal with. Vlad Drakov was extremely misogynistic, brutally sadistic, as well as downright murderous. On top of that, he was basically just a standard human and not some sort of vampire, werewolf, or other creature of the night. So, yes, he was a monster but because the things that he did were monstrous.
If the book is supposed to be geared for players of various ages, I can see why Vlad Drakov would be removed and/or changed to something else. Then again, I might be completely off the mark and we'll see something else picking up this concept/trope in a different domain.
We'll have to wait and see how exactly the rules and mechanics are laid out, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Dark Power checks from previous editions are reduced or even removed. I'm also expecting that the traditional Fear, Horror, and Madness checks will be reduced or removed as well. With player agency having such a bigger emphasis in more recent editions, I'd expect that the rules are going to pull away from things that potentially remove that agency (even if temporarily). The Fear, Horror, and Madness checks were to help enforce the "horror" feel, since D&D adventurers aren't going to be as scared about searching a haunted house as the Scooby-Doo gang. Players knowing that they could be basically incapacitated by the horrors that they see made the setting scarier. Similarly, you could permanently become an NPC if you failed enough Dark Power checks despite not being an evil person per se....
Again, I am merely speculating as we wait for the actual book to come out. Pretty excited about them creating a Ravenloft setting book, just simultaneously intrigued and nervous on how they'll handle everything...which being intrigued and nervous are probably good signs for a horror setting, eh?
I'm going to buy since I'd certainly like a 5e setting for Ravenloft. I will say I find it increasingly annoying that Wizards feels the need to reinvent the wheel everytime they return to Ravenloft. Can't we just have an updated, classic version of the setting? I can appreciate the desire to remove or rework the elements of the setting that were offensive or outright racist. But I feel like you can do that easily enough without completely throwing out the old setting. Why are we flipping the genders in Lamordia? Why has Dementlieu moved from the pinnacle of culture and technology where the darklord is waging a mental war with psionic abomination known as the living brain to a "fairy tale" domain....which BTW you'd have much better luck with if you used Kartakass or Tepest (or the shadow rift, the literal realm of the faeries in Ravenloft). I'm a big fan of "if it aint broke don't fix it". Seems like Wizards wants to fix it in case it somehow might be broken. That's not a encouraging sign.
I agree with you that they might have changed some domains because it would maybe be controversial, too similar to real life historical figures or literature which Ravenloft is mostly based of, I just hope that in the book they will at least tell why it was changed, like if Azalin just got tired of Vlad constant invasion and decided to send is undead army to kill Drakov but instead of Falkovnia to merge with Darkon's domain, the Dark Powers decided to give it to a new Darklord instead, that would be good for me, not because they are mostly the same vampire.
also, I too wouldn't be surprised if they removed the Fear, Horror, and Madness checks game mechanics, will wait and see but, if that would be the case, it would remove what make Ravenloft unique compare to the other D&D settings, still, I could just homebrew those rules back into my 5ed campaign if I want to.
https://dnd.dragonmag.com/2021/02/23/in-the-works-van-richtens-guide-to-ravenloft/content.html
'“This incarnation of Ravenloft reimagines a great deal of what came before. Past explorations of the setting directly linked many of the domains of Ravenloft into a pseudo-continent called the ‘Core’. We’ve taken the Core, the heart of the Ravenloft setting, and shattered it. In this new interpretation, every domain is a lonely island drifting through the mists.'
Oh. Ohhhhhhh. Oh no.
That completely kills any enthusiasm I had for this project. Let's be clear- removing the Core is not a small decision. The Core was such an integral part of the campaign setting in second and third editions that removing it is essentially completely abandoning a enormous body of excellently written source material. This is like, I dunno, reintroducing Forgotten Realms without Eliminster being a part of the setting, or bringing back Dragonlance but pretending the novels were never written. It isn't a small tweak to the setting. And at the risk of being the D&D version of the old man yelling at those damn kids to get off his lawn....I can't imagine this as being anything other than a huge mistake and a massive downgrade in past versions of the setting.
It isn't that big of a deal to me, but I only want it for spare parts anyway.
What aspects of setting would be affected by this?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Essentially 2nd to 3rd edition Ravenloft had three kinds of landmasses. The Core, as discussed, was a small continent of 25 or so domains of land and seas filled with alliances, intrigues, betrayals, and occasionally warfare. The whole continent was surrounded by the mists, though as always they could pop up unexpectedly anywhere. Ravenloft also had smaller gatherings of domains known as clusters, which usually only consisted of two or three domains linked together, often by geography (the deserts of the Amber Wastes, the jungles of the Verdous Lands, the snow of the Frozen Reaches, etc). Each Cluster was also surrounded by Mists. Finally, there were the islands of terror, single domains completely encircled by mists.
I don't intend to bore you with a long list of plots, intrigues, alliances, and betrayals that played out as a result of the Core existing. Mechanically it will fundamentally alter many major organizations and possibly character classes of the setting, since ease of communication and general interconnection can no longer be presumed. But mainly what I lament is the seeming presumption that playing in an isolated, lonely domain cut off from the outside world should no longer be an option but the only way to play the game. At the very least the Core was able to function as that "outside world" you were meant to feel isolated from. This seems to be an effort to steer RL unwilling back into the "weekend from hell" game, where being abducted from your homeworld is an inherent part of the setting. Thing is, past editions made great strides in expanding beyond that to make RL a campaign unto itself, with native NPCs and the like. Again, the whole thing feels like a downgrade, a bad idea that came up in 4th edition that for some reason wasn't discarded like so many others when 5th edition came around.
The Core more like "the lore" I think it will be fine without all that stuff laid out explicitly.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I would say intricate factional dynamics predicated on lore just isn't a 5e thing, so the fact that the domains are distinct from each other and _could_ overlap but are not designed in a way that insists so isn't all that surprising. I mean 5e products touch on prior lore but doesn't really rely on it too much. I think manageable worlds for new players will always be the driver. Do long time adherents of some settings miss some continuity (though I think this is in continuity with 4e if I read that post right)? Sure, but I doubt there will be any hard and fast reason a player couldn't have their domains more contiguous than they're mapped, or not mapped in the hardcover.
I mean the box office driver high concept "Monster X v Monster Y" with the PCs caught in the middle, I'd actually be a little surprised if some discussion on using that trope as a stepping stone demonstrating how the domains could interact doesn't make it into the book.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.