While it's true that we didn't get more than one book for the settings released in 5e, apart from Exandria, what we did get is enough to at least build a foundation for a multi-world adventure imo.
While it's true that we didn't get more than one book for the settings released in 5e, apart from Exandria, what we did get is enough to at least build a foundation for a multi-world adventure imo.
Exandria used to be third party, WoTC has now gone a step further I think? I don't know really how I would describe it? Approved/preferred Contributor? I know it's official, but I mean in view of what WoTC itself can write about it. But one of the reasons Spelljammer worked was that it linked the three main settings, back in the day. Now we only have one of them in detail. Greyhawk and Dragonlance have nothing but 1 adventure for Greyhawk. Eberon is not connected to the rest of the DnD universe. Ravnica and Theros are MtG settings that are interconnected, but not with the larger DnD settings. And Ravnica's world gate is closed. Ravenloft was normally not linked to the phlogiston, yes they did away with that I know. So how do you see to link all of this together with the material we have now?
While it's true that we didn't get more than one book for the settings released in 5e, apart from Exandria, what we did get is enough to at least build a foundation for a multi-world adventure imo.
Exandria used to be third party, WoTC has now gone a step further I think? I don't know really how I would describe it? Approved/preferred Contributor? I know it's official, but I mean in view of what WoTC itself can write about it. But one of the reasons Spelljammer worked was that it linked the three main settings, back in the day. Now we only have one of them in detail. Greyhawk and Dragonlance have nothing but 1 adventure for Greyhawk. Eberon is not connected to the rest of the DnD universe. Ravnica and Theros are MtG settings that are interconnected, but not with the larger DnD settings. And Ravnica's world gate is closed. Ravenloft was normally not linked to the phlogiston, yes they did away with that I know. So how do you see to link all of this together with the material we have now?
As for the M:tG settings, anywhere the Weatherlight could have gone could be accessed by other Spelljammers.
While it's true that we didn't get more than one book for the settings released in 5e, apart from Exandria, what we did get is enough to at least build a foundation for a multi-world adventure imo.
Exandria used to be third party, WoTC has now gone a step further I think? I don't know really how I would describe it? Approved/preferred Contributor? I know it's official, but I mean in view of what WoTC itself can write about it. But one of the reasons Spelljammer worked was that it linked the three main settings, back in the day. Now we only have one of them in detail. Greyhawk and Dragonlance have nothing but 1 adventure for Greyhawk. Eberon is not connected to the rest of the DnD universe. Ravnica and Theros are MtG settings that are interconnected, but not with the larger DnD settings. And Ravnica's world gate is closed. Ravenloft was normally not linked to the phlogiston, yes they did away with that I know. So how do you see to link all of this together with the material we have now?
They very deliberately didn't mention much, if anything, about the Blind Eternities or even planeswalkers in Theros, Ravnica, or Strixhaven. They do mention figures like Elspeth and Kytheon by name, but they never point out they're planeswalkers in the Magic: The Gathering sense. Strixhaven even has the D&D-specific playable races in the setting. Also Ravnica has been open to entry by planeswalkers and anyone who can still operate a planar portal since the collapse of the original Guildpact. And we know planeswalkers can exist in the Great Wheel cosmology because Ellywick Tumblestrum was explicitly called out as one in Wild Beyond the Witchlight.
Also we are getting a Dragonlance book in the future, so it's not just Greyhawk.
Also speaking of Theros, this Fate domain cleric is precisely what I would play if I wanted to play a cleric of Klothys. I would have settled for Knowledge domain or Grave domain (because Klothys is about making sure people meet their fated end), but Fate domain is too on-the-nose not to go with for her.
While it's true that we didn't get more than one book for the settings released in 5e, apart from Exandria, what we did get is enough to at least build a foundation for a multi-world adventure imo.
Exandria used to be third party, WoTC has now gone a step further I think? I don't know really how I would describe it? Approved/preferred Contributor? I know it's official, but I mean in view of what WoTC itself can write about it. But one of the reasons Spelljammer worked was that it linked the three main settings, back in the day. Now we only have one of them in detail. Greyhawk and Dragonlance have nothing but 1 adventure for Greyhawk. Eberon is not connected to the rest of the DnD universe. Ravnica and Theros are MtG settings that are interconnected, but not with the larger DnD settings. And Ravnica's world gate is closed. Ravenloft was normally not linked to the phlogiston, yes they did away with that I know. So how do you see to link all of this together with the material we have now?
As for the M:tG settings, anywhere the Weatherlight could have gone could be accessed by other Spelljammers.
So not Ravnica as MtG says clearly you can't travel there. Theros I'm not that familiar with. This of course if the Weatherlight is a Speljammer. The firdt mention was around Ice Age or Mirage? So that's a lot of worlds. A lot of them are not compatible withD nD as we know it.
While it's true that we didn't get more than one book for the settings released in 5e, apart from Exandria, what we did get is enough to at least build a foundation for a multi-world adventure imo.
Exandria used to be third party, WoTC has now gone a step further I think? I don't know really how I would describe it? Approved/preferred Contributor? I know it's official, but I mean in view of what WoTC itself can write about it. But one of the reasons Spelljammer worked was that it linked the three main settings, back in the day. Now we only have one of them in detail. Greyhawk and Dragonlance have nothing but 1 adventure for Greyhawk. Eberon is not connected to the rest of the DnD universe. Ravnica and Theros are MtG settings that are interconnected, but not with the larger DnD settings. And Ravnica's world gate is closed. Ravenloft was normally not linked to the phlogiston, yes they did away with that I know. So how do you see to link all of this together with the material we have now?
As for the M:tG settings, anywhere the Weatherlight could have gone could be accessed by other Spelljammers.
So not Ravnica as MtG says clearly you can't travel there. Theros I'm not that familiar with. This of course if the Weatherlight is a Speljammer. The firdt mention was around Ice Age or Mirage? So that's a lot of worlds. A lot of them are not compatible withD nD as we know it.
I just said that Ravnica can be travelled to due to the collapse of the original Guildpact. Planeswalkers have literally played a pivotal role in the plane's events since the Return to Ravnica set, and it's had a series of three return sets years later, one of which was literally a planeswalker-themed set due to a planeswalker war happening on the plane.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter. Any Magic world that gets a setting book is being adapted into a D&D-compatible world. That's generally the aim with books like that. And you as a DM have the liberty to make these worlds accessible by spelljammer if you so choose.
Ellywick is expressly NOT A PLANESWALKER in the MtG sense - this was confirmed in an official article for magic way back. Ellywick Tumblestrum and all the other D&D planeswalkers are not true planeswalkers, and MtG and D&D are not and are likely never going to be connected.
Also I have seen Strixhaven mentioned as another D&D-MtG tie - you mean the Strixhaven that the D&D sourcebook gutted, removed all the lore and known characters from, and changed just enough so that Strixhaven could be just any other magic school? No. D&D Strixhaven was not designed to be connected to the set for MtG, its just to fulfil Harry Potter fantasies some players might have. The name "Strixhaven" is mostly just there because WotC wanted a neat bow with which to tie the book to Magic the Gathering, even if any tie between the set and the setting book is almost entirely removed from the book.
So no, as per Official rulings, MtG and D&D are not connected and cannot be travelled through with Spelljammers (there's a reason why the Weatherlight is such a massive part of the lore, guys, if other Spelljammers existed in MtG the ship would be forgettable and useless), however you're the DM. Whether MtG and D&D are connected is your choice - I've even connected Ravenloft to Innistrad before, and it worked fine. Totally it is cool. But if we pressure WotC to make the connection official, suddenly the careful calculations found in MtG and D&D lore will break apart - how on earth did Sorin Markov's dad become the first Vampire in the Multiverse if Strahd was a vampire first? Why on earth did Ellywick Tumblestrum, The literal greatest bard in the multiverse, not help in War of the Spark? Why is the story of Strixhaven so massively warped and confusing? Where was Nicol Bolas actually exiled after War of the Spark, if there is one Spirit plane in MtG, but multiple (Positive Energy Plane, Shadowfell, etc.) in D&D? It wouldn't ever work from an official standpoint or lore standpoint. But from a homebrew one? Its fine.
Tumblestrum is meant to be an enigma to the player characters. In truth, she is a savvy planar traveler who has visited and entertained folks on countless worlds. In some corners of the multiverse, she is what’s known as a Planeswalker—a fiercely independent and extremely powerful entity not to be trifled with.
I have never seen the term "Planeswalker" be used to describe anyone else in 5e, and definitely not in that way. Not Tasha (even as Zybilna), not Mordenkainen, not Zariel, and so on. Only Ellywick has gotten that kind of description so far. I knew the other planeswalkers in the Forgotten Realms sets don't have sparks and had no connection to the Blind Eternities, which is why I didn't mention them.
I will also clarify that I'm not claiming they're trying to merge the D&D and MtG multiverses together. What I am claiming is that they have written setting books for some MtG worlds as D&D settings that leave out just enough details about them to allow them to be used as worlds in their own right. And from that position, they can better fit as worlds you connect to in a Spelljammer campaign. The Ravnica setting book for example doesn't account for the fact that Isperia is now dead as knit, nor it does make mention of Kaya becoming the new leader of the Orzhov guild. It doesn't mention Niv-Mizzet being the new Living Guildpact, nor does it mention anything at all that took place in the War of the Spark. And from what I understand, WoTC plans their products a long time in advance, so they would have known where they were headed with the Ravnica storyline while planning the Ravnica setting book.
I think that the next UAs should begin to outline much more clearly what 5.5 is going to be.
It is true that we are already seeing things in this regard in the last UAs, but I would like something more concrete.
For example, if they are really going to eliminate short rests as has been rumored, I would like to start to see how they are going to solve the problems that this entails (mainly in warlocks, but also in fighters, etc...).
By the way, for the rumored 5.5, do you think they are going to release a renewed PHB? Or will it be in a Tasha's type expansion?
I think that the next UAs should begin to outline much more clearly what 5.5 is going to be.
It is true that we are already seeing things in this regard in the last UAs, but I would like something more concrete.
For example, if they are really going to eliminate short rests as has been rumored, I would like to start to see how they are going to solve the problems that this entails (mainly in warlocks, but also in fighters, etc...).
By the way, for the rumored 5.5, do you think they are going to release a renewed PHB? Or will it be in a Tasha's type expansion?
Revamped PHB, DMG, and MM for 5.5E, but it'll possibly be like how VGtM and MToF were replaced by MP: MotM, in that it serves as a "paid errata" for the current content, rather than replacing it. Basically, the optional class features from TCoE will be added to all classes in place of the features they replace or similar, and the spellcasting, rests, and other rules will change, but WotC will claim "you can still play with 5E Legacy content if you want", despite the fact that nearly everyone will switch to 5.5E over 5E as it is now, because... that's what people do. Even if 5.5E is worse. 4E was a weird exception to the rule, I think. But yeah, 5.5E's core rules will be an alternative set of core rules, using nearly exactly the same mechanics as 5E, but with a few basic changes that could have been done much cheaper for players in a supplemental product like TCoE.
Plus, it's probably going to be 11% more expensive, just 'cause life.
I think that the next UAs should begin to outline much more clearly what 5.5 is going to be.
It is true that we are already seeing things in this regard in the last UAs, but I would like something more concrete.
For example, if they are really going to eliminate short rests as has been rumored, I would like to start to see how they are going to solve the problems that this entails (mainly in warlocks, but also in fighters, etc...).
By the way, for the rumored 5.5, do you think they are going to release a renewed PHB? Or will it be in a Tasha's type expansion?
Revamped PHB, DMG, and MM for 5.5E, but it'll possibly be like how VGtM and MToF were replaced by MP: MotM, in that it serves as a "paid errata" for the current content, rather than replacing it. Basically, the optional class features from TCoE will be added to all classes in place of the features they replace or similar, and the spellcasting, rests, and other rules will change, but WotC will claim "you can still play with 5E Legacy content if you want", despite the fact that nearly everyone will switch to 5.5E over 5E as it is now, because... that's what people do. Even if 5.5E is worse. 4E was a weird exception to the rule, I think. But yeah, 5.5E's core rules will be an alternative set of core rules, using nearly exactly the same mechanics as 5E, but with a few basic changes that could have been done much cheaper for players in a supplemental product like TCoE.
Plus, it's probably going to be 11% more expensive, just 'cause life.
I’ll probably switch over unless the new rules are egregiously bad.
Well, presumably the new rules will be better. They will clarify things, fix others that don't work, etc...
In my experience, AD&D 2.5 improved AD&D 2.0 and D&D 3.5 made D&D 3.0 playable (I'm still amazed that we even played 3.0. I don't know how we managed such a feat).
Say what? This is when most of the groups I knew or played in stopped playing. And the ones that continued refused 2.5 for its insane power creep.
There must be everything in this life. There are also those who continued to play Holmes' BD&D, and that's fine. But the revised editions of Mentzer and Moldvay, well, they were revised. Fixed things that weren't working, explained a few things better, and generally extended the life of the game (to the mid-90s). I mean, I know people who still play the original edition of Holmes, but frankly that doesn't mean it's any better than what came after.
Reviewing some rules to make them worse, although it is possible, is difficult. What is common is that a person, for whatever reason, because he does not adapt to the changes, because the revision fixes holes that were exploited, or for any other reason, does not want to change to the new revision. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of taste.
What I mean is that reviewing things is fine, and it is necessary. And it generally improves the product despite the inevitable grumps.
Well would you look at that....dragonborn in the new playtest get darkvision. Someone on this forum got some flak for asking if dragonborn could get that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While it's true that we didn't get more than one book for the settings released in 5e, apart from Exandria, what we did get is enough to at least build a foundation for a multi-world adventure imo.
Exandria used to be third party, WoTC has now gone a step further I think? I don't know really how I would describe it? Approved/preferred Contributor? I know it's official, but I mean in view of what WoTC itself can write about it. But one of the reasons Spelljammer worked was that it linked the three main settings, back in the day. Now we only have one of them in detail. Greyhawk and Dragonlance have nothing but 1 adventure for Greyhawk. Eberon is not connected to the rest of the DnD universe. Ravnica and Theros are MtG settings that are interconnected, but not with the larger DnD settings. And Ravnica's world gate is closed. Ravenloft was normally not linked to the phlogiston, yes they did away with that I know. So how do you see to link all of this together with the material we have now?
I like all the different settings. I can always homebrew connections between them if I want.
As for the M:tG settings, anywhere the Weatherlight could have gone could be accessed by other Spelljammers.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They very deliberately didn't mention much, if anything, about the Blind Eternities or even planeswalkers in Theros, Ravnica, or Strixhaven. They do mention figures like Elspeth and Kytheon by name, but they never point out they're planeswalkers in the Magic: The Gathering sense. Strixhaven even has the D&D-specific playable races in the setting. Also Ravnica has been open to entry by planeswalkers and anyone who can still operate a planar portal since the collapse of the original Guildpact. And we know planeswalkers can exist in the Great Wheel cosmology because Ellywick Tumblestrum was explicitly called out as one in Wild Beyond the Witchlight.
Also we are getting a Dragonlance book in the future, so it's not just Greyhawk.
Also speaking of Theros, this Fate domain cleric is precisely what I would play if I wanted to play a cleric of Klothys. I would have settled for Knowledge domain or Grave domain (because Klothys is about making sure people meet their fated end), but Fate domain is too on-the-nose not to go with for her.
So not Ravnica as MtG says clearly you can't travel there. Theros I'm not that familiar with. This of course if the Weatherlight is a Speljammer. The firdt mention was around Ice Age or Mirage? So that's a lot of worlds. A lot of them are not compatible withD nD as we know it.
I just said that Ravnica can be travelled to due to the collapse of the original Guildpact. Planeswalkers have literally played a pivotal role in the plane's events since the Return to Ravnica set, and it's had a series of three return sets years later, one of which was literally a planeswalker-themed set due to a planeswalker war happening on the plane.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter. Any Magic world that gets a setting book is being adapted into a D&D-compatible world. That's generally the aim with books like that. And you as a DM have the liberty to make these worlds accessible by spelljammer if you so choose.
Ellywick is expressly NOT A PLANESWALKER in the MtG sense - this was confirmed in an official article for magic way back. Ellywick Tumblestrum and all the other D&D planeswalkers are not true planeswalkers, and MtG and D&D are not and are likely never going to be connected.
Also I have seen Strixhaven mentioned as another D&D-MtG tie - you mean the Strixhaven that the D&D sourcebook gutted, removed all the lore and known characters from, and changed just enough so that Strixhaven could be just any other magic school? No. D&D Strixhaven was not designed to be connected to the set for MtG, its just to fulfil Harry Potter fantasies some players might have. The name "Strixhaven" is mostly just there because WotC wanted a neat bow with which to tie the book to Magic the Gathering, even if any tie between the set and the setting book is almost entirely removed from the book.
So no, as per Official rulings, MtG and D&D are not connected and cannot be travelled through with Spelljammers (there's a reason why the Weatherlight is such a massive part of the lore, guys, if other Spelljammers existed in MtG the ship would be forgettable and useless), however you're the DM. Whether MtG and D&D are connected is your choice - I've even connected Ravenloft to Innistrad before, and it worked fine. Totally it is cool. But if we pressure WotC to make the connection official, suddenly the careful calculations found in MtG and D&D lore will break apart - how on earth did Sorin Markov's dad become the first Vampire in the Multiverse if Strahd was a vampire first? Why on earth did Ellywick Tumblestrum, The literal greatest bard in the multiverse, not help in War of the Spark? Why is the story of Strixhaven so massively warped and confusing? Where was Nicol Bolas actually exiled after War of the Spark, if there is one Spirit plane in MtG, but multiple (Positive Energy Plane, Shadowfell, etc.) in D&D? It wouldn't ever work from an official standpoint or lore standpoint. But from a homebrew one? Its fine.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Then what is this about:
I have never seen the term "Planeswalker" be used to describe anyone else in 5e, and definitely not in that way. Not Tasha (even as Zybilna), not Mordenkainen, not Zariel, and so on. Only Ellywick has gotten that kind of description so far. I knew the other planeswalkers in the Forgotten Realms sets don't have sparks and had no connection to the Blind Eternities, which is why I didn't mention them.
I will also clarify that I'm not claiming they're trying to merge the D&D and MtG multiverses together. What I am claiming is that they have written setting books for some MtG worlds as D&D settings that leave out just enough details about them to allow them to be used as worlds in their own right. And from that position, they can better fit as worlds you connect to in a Spelljammer campaign. The Ravnica setting book for example doesn't account for the fact that Isperia is now dead as knit, nor it does make mention of Kaya becoming the new leader of the Orzhov guild. It doesn't mention Niv-Mizzet being the new Living Guildpact, nor does it mention anything at all that took place in the War of the Spark. And from what I understand, WoTC plans their products a long time in advance, so they would have known where they were headed with the Ravnica storyline while planning the Ravnica setting book.
I think that the next UAs should begin to outline much more clearly what 5.5 is going to be.
It is true that we are already seeing things in this regard in the last UAs, but I would like something more concrete.
For example, if they are really going to eliminate short rests as has been rumored, I would like to start to see how they are going to solve the problems that this entails (mainly in warlocks, but also in fighters, etc...).
By the way, for the rumored 5.5, do you think they are going to release a renewed PHB? Or will it be in a Tasha's type expansion?
Revamped PHB, DMG, and MM for 5.5E, but it'll possibly be like how VGtM and MToF were replaced by MP: MotM, in that it serves as a "paid errata" for the current content, rather than replacing it. Basically, the optional class features from TCoE will be added to all classes in place of the features they replace or similar, and the spellcasting, rests, and other rules will change, but WotC will claim "you can still play with 5E Legacy content if you want", despite the fact that nearly everyone will switch to 5.5E over 5E as it is now, because... that's what people do. Even if 5.5E is worse. 4E was a weird exception to the rule, I think. But yeah, 5.5E's core rules will be an alternative set of core rules, using nearly exactly the same mechanics as 5E, but with a few basic changes that could have been done much cheaper for players in a supplemental product like TCoE.
Plus, it's probably going to be 11% more expensive, just 'cause life.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I’ll probably switch over unless the new rules are egregiously bad.
Well, presumably the new rules will be better. They will clarify things, fix others that don't work, etc...
In my experience, AD&D 2.5 improved AD&D 2.0 and D&D 3.5 made D&D 3.0 playable (I'm still amazed that we even played 3.0. I don't know how we managed such a feat).
Say what? This is when most of the groups I knew or played in stopped playing. And the ones that continued refused 2.5 for its insane power creep.
There must be everything in this life. There are also those who continued to play Holmes' BD&D, and that's fine. But the revised editions of Mentzer and Moldvay, well, they were revised. Fixed things that weren't working, explained a few things better, and generally extended the life of the game (to the mid-90s). I mean, I know people who still play the original edition of Holmes, but frankly that doesn't mean it's any better than what came after.
Reviewing some rules to make them worse, although it is possible, is difficult. What is common is that a person, for whatever reason, because he does not adapt to the changes, because the revision fixes holes that were exploited, or for any other reason, does not want to change to the new revision. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of taste.
What I mean is that reviewing things is fine, and it is necessary. And it generally improves the product despite the inevitable grumps.
Well this was a big one.
I know you said this a while back, but now you you finally got your wish!
(I wonder what races will be printed next with Thri-Kreen, Giff, and more, out of the way?)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Yeah. The biggest one ever.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Well would you look at that....dragonborn in the new playtest get darkvision. Someone on this forum got some flak for asking if dragonborn could get that.