Planescape Check Out The Planescape Character Options

WotC has unveiled some of the character options to be found in the upcoming Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse setting in a D&D Beyond article and a video.

The player options include two backgrounds and a handful of feats. The backgrounds are the Gate Warden and the Planer Philosopher, and the feats include Scion of the Outer planes, which gives you a damage resistance and a cantrip based on the plane you have a connect with. For example, a chaotic Outer Place give you resistance to poison and access to the minor illusion cantrip, which the Outlands give you resistance to psychic damage and the mage hand cantrip. Also included are a couple of new spells and some magic items.

Preview Planescape Character Options for Your Multiversal Adventures

This article is a deep dive into the backgrounds and feats found in the three-book set Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse!

www.dndbeyond.com

​

 

[Weiley31]

They are in the Monster book. Better than a specific Player option, I'd rather they made general rules to turn any Monster into a PC.

I'm all for that. Now if ONLY WoTC had an existing rule in 5E for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm all for that. Now if ONLY WoTC had an existing rule in 5E for it.

Why? What does it matter? Is WotC somehow the best designer? I sure don't see that.

 

[Weiley31]

Why? What does it matter? Is WotC somehow the best designer?

No. Especially with the amount of 3PP material I have for 5E. I meant that more as a response in regard to "Yeah, they ARE in the Monster book, but that still doesn't help alleviate the player option issue since WoTC has yet to come up with such a rule like how they had it with monster pcs in 3.0/3.5"

 

[Blue]

I'm surprised they made this video. If you sell a book to DMs and you add some backgrounds and feats, they act as a nice little cherry on top that a DM can share with the players if they're using the setting. But by making a "New Player Options" (and magic items) video, it gives the vibe that you're trying to sell the book to players too. A few backgrounds and feats is obviously not enough for players to actually get excited about buying the book, and so this video just opens them up to "wow, no content just like Spelljammer" criticism.

I see this is your first D&D book since TSR was the publisher. WotC has always put character options in books except adventures and monster manuals, and even has put it in some of those. They always market the books for any D&D hobbyist to buy, not just DMs.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry, not buying that. D&D is chock full of "old fantasy archetypes" that exist because someone wanted to play Van Helsing or Aragorn or Conan. Better than half the classes evoke some fantasy trope or another and arguing how successful it is at it is an age old D&D tradition (stares in Ranger). There is no argument you can make that will convince me that druid or monk deserve to be classes, cavalier and necromancer subclasses, and witch and summoner not all.

Well I can think of 2 reasons...

1. Witch... There are currently living practitioners of Wicca/witchcraft aka witches... how do you maneuver around that with this class and is the RoI worth it for WotC to attempt?

2. Summoner... action economy unless we're going to put some serious limitations in place and essentially create a watered down version of the archetype.

 

[Stormonu]

Can’t get the copy right on those.

You must be confusing them with GW.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You must be confusing them with GW.

Neither company is great. Shame the IP they control is so cool.

 

[Parmandur]

I see this is your first D&D book since TSR was the publisher. WotC has always put character options in books except adventures and monster manuals, and even has put it in some of those. They always market the books for any D&D hobbyist to buy, not just DMs.

Alternatively, in my experience usually only DMs buy books with player options.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

2. Summoner... action economy unless we're going to put some serious limitations in place and essentially create a watered down version of the archetype.

Example 867 of why the name 'summoner' is a bad name for the Pathfinder summoner class, and any theoretical dnd equivalent.

Any time the fact that it's not a horde class is explained, you get someone a few messages later assuming it's a horde class.

 

[Blue]

Alternatively, in my experience usually only DMs buy books with player options.

Sure thing. But the statement was that WotC markets the book to all hobbyists, not just DMs. This was a response to a question about why WotC would put out a preview of the player options.