D&D 5E WotC Shares Theros Table of Contents

WotC has shared the table of contents of Mythic Odysseys of Theros. Well, part of it, at least.

Update -- thanks to "obscureReviewer" on Twitter, here's a fuller image!

 

[Mercurius]

I said Theros would be the next MtG setting back when Ravnica was announced. Just...here to remind everyone. ^^

So what's next, oh Oracle of Delphi?

 

[Helldritch]

So what's next, oh Oracle of Delphi?

No the Oracle of EN World.

 

[Von Ether]

Strange, I really liked Kara Tur. I found it to be well made and you could go in any direction with it without any trouble. Yes it was a bit too centered on Japan influence but who really cared at that time? Cultural appropriation was not a thing back then and no one was offended by it. By today's standards it would not be that great anymore but not because it was not well made, but because we get so easily offended... That is why a new generic setting would be better.

The last time WotC did an OA, it was set in Rokugan for many of the same reasons, so really Kara Tur's ship may have really sailed at this point. But there was also the reason why 5e had a whole sidebar of suggested names to help a GM reskin his game to other historical periods.

To be honest, I have recently taken to the concept of building a game through subtraction. Just because the D&D books offer everything, doesn't mean you have to rubber stamp it.

"D&D worlds are a vast tapestry made up of many different cultures, each with its own technology level." If your game doesn't offer that technology, think about not letting players have access to it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

They tested a bunch for Theros last year, this is just what passed muster.

I'm fairly certain they only tested 2 subclasses for Theros last year, the Eloquence Bard and Heroism Paladin. They're both in the book. Those other subclasses are almost definitely for Xanathar's 2.0

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

At this point, it seems apparent based on the timeframes of publishing that the 12 Subclasses tested in September and October were for Theros, before they switched gears to variant Class features and Psionics. The Subclasses tested this year would not have been on time for Theros publishing in May (original schedule), so are for ... something else.

I don't think any of the UA before or after the Bard and Paladin UA were meant for Theros. All of them are either Psionics or something for Xanathar's 2.0 IMO. A lot of them are planescape in flavor, like the Genie Warlock, Watchers Paladin, Feywanderer Ranger, Phantom Rogue, or Astral Self Monk, and so on. Ravnica only had 3 subclasses playtested for it, and only 2 made it. Eberron had 4 subclasses and one class tested for it, and 3 subclasses and the class made it. If this pattern is followed on this book, they only playtested 2-4 subclasses for this book. 2 are in it, and I can't think of any UA that is early enough to be intended for Theros. I would say Stars Druid, but that was too late.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think any of the UA before or after the Bard and Paladin UA were meant for Theros. All of them are either Psionics or something for Xanathar's 2.0 IMO. A lot of them are planescape in flavor, like the Genie Warlock, Watchers Paladin, Feywanderer Ranger, Phantom Rogue, or Astral Self Monk, and so on. Ravnica only had 3 subclasses playtested for it, and only 2 made it. Eberron had 4 subclasses and one class tested for it, and 3 subclasses and the class made it. If this pattern is followed on this book, they only playtested 2-4 subclasses for this book. 2 are in it, and I can't think of any UA that is early enough to be intended for Theros. I would say Stars Druid, but that was too late.

The 12 options tested in the 2 months before the Variant Class UA were pretty clearly Magic the Gathering related, and I was calling that the tears for a Magic book at the time. Given the ~8-9 month lead up that is normal from UA to final book, those we're all for Theros. Some have been revised and re-explored, but that was what that batch was about. I think they didn't expect all 12 would make it in, so they threw a bunch of concepts out there to see what stuck.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I really do not see why the hate on MTG setting as D&D setting.

I personally don't like M:tG settings because of a few reasons:

1. They're cash grabs.
2. They're trying to combine 2 different cosmologies into one thing, which I absolutely despise. If Ravnica never had the Outer Planes or a crystal sphere in their lore before, why do they suddenly have them now? (I can answer that, because they want to make more easy cash-grabbing M:tG books in the easiest way possible.) Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms don't have planeswalkers, so don't try to fake that they do.
3. Many of the worlds don't function as D&D worlds, like Ravnica or New Phyrexia, IMHO.
4. M:tG storylines move much quicker than D&D ones, so it's harder to keep up, and there's a bunch of convoluted lore. (Same problem as Forgotten Realms. We don't need another Forgotten Realms.

I just don't think a lot of them work as D&D worlds. A lot of them have good themes, but their timeline progression, and how often M:tG blocks are released, and all the planeswalker nonsense makes things unnecessarily complicated, IMHO.
Feel free to comment and tell me I'm wrong. I like Theros, but would've preferred a plain Greek myth to D&D 5e book, but this'll do. I honestly couldn't care less about Nylea or Heliod, but I do like greek myths. I have a connection with Posiedon, Artemis, and Hades, I just don't have that with the Theros gods.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The 12 options tested in the 2 months before the Variant Class UA were pretty clearly Magic the Gathering related, and I was calling that the tears for a Magic book at the time. Given the ~8-9 month lead up that is normal from UA to final book, those we're all for Theros. Some have been revised and re-explored, but that was what that batch was about. I think they didn't expect all 12 would make it in, so they threw a bunch of concepts out there to see what stuck.

I don't believe this at all. They would never put 12+ subclasses in a setting book. Let's list them:

1. Barbarian and Monk. The barbarian is wild-magic/fey in theme. The monk is the Astral Self. Both of these are Planescape, not Magic: the Gathering or Theros.
2. Sorcerer and Warlock. The sorcerer is the Aberrant Mind, which is connected to the Far Realm, but is now the Psionic Sorcerer. The Warlock is the Lurker in the Deep, which is more connected to the Elemental Plane of Water or krakens than M:tG or Theros.
3. The two theros subclasses.
4. Cleric, Druid, Wizard. The cleric seems to be shadowfell, if they're doing Planescape, but I'm not sure. Druid is Wildfire, which is 100% elemental plane of fire. The Wizard is Onomancy, which is true naming, so that's the Lower Planes/Fiends. That's Planescape, not M:tG.
5. Fighter, Ranger, Rogue. Fighter is the Rune Knight, not M:tG. Ranger is Swarmkeeper, which is connected to fey, so that's Planescape. The rogue is now the Phantom rogue, which is undeniably connected to planescape, not M:tG.

Those are the 12 subclasses that lead up to the class feature variants. I don't see any of those being connected to Theros or M:tG.

 

[Helldritch]

I personally don't like M:tG settings because of a few reasons:

1. They're cash grabs.
2. They're trying to combine 2 different cosmologies into one thing, which I absolutely despise. If Ravnica never had the Outer Planes or a crystal sphere in their lore before, why do they suddenly have them now? (I can answer that, because they want to make more easy cash-grabbing M:tG books in the easiest way possible.) Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms don't have planeswalkers, so don't try to fake that they do.
3. Many of the worlds don't function as D&D worlds, like Ravnica or New Phyrexia, IMHO.
4. M:tG storylines move much quicker than D&D ones, so it's harder to keep up, and there's a bunch of convoluted lore. (Same problem as Forgotten Realms. We don't need another Forgotten Realms.

I just don't think a lot of them work as D&D worlds. A lot of them have good themes, but their timeline progression, and how often M:tG blocks are released, and all the planeswalker nonsense makes things unnecessarily complicated, IMHO.
Feel free to comment and tell me I'm wrong. I like Theros, but would've preferred a plain Greek myth to D&D 5e book, but this'll do. I honestly couldn't care less about Nylea or Heliod, but I do like greek myths. I have a connection with Posiedon, Artemis, and Hades, I just don't have that with the Theros gods.

1) Any book from any company are cash grab. A company is there to make cash. Otherwise there is no point in doing what they do.

2) Right about that. But it could be argued that Mordenkainen, Elminster and Dalamar are close contender as they have been having conversations in Dragon Magazines decades ago when MTG did not even existed. The what is a planeswalker in D&D is debatable at worst. And what about the Immortals in the gold box set? They were planeswalking alright. Planeswalking has always been a part of D&D. Alternate worlds (even in the GDQ 1-4) or demi planes (WG 8, Isle of the Ape), or even in OD&D (X2 Castle Amber. Etienne would be a prime candidate for a Planeswalker as he does go to earth's France).

3) Horror was not a genre for D&D and yet... Ravenloft proved me wrong. Psionics was trash, it was not D&D and yet, Darksun proved me wrong again. Ravnica works perfectly well within the D&D rules. I have the book and I absolutely love it. But my guess is that Theros will be the one that I will have in two copies... D&D can work in any setting. Remember Buck Rogers? Sci-fi with AD&D rules...

4) That is true. But setting do not have to go as fast. It will be for the DM to decide to follow or not to follow the evolution. And they do not move back to setting as fast as you are implying. I am no longer a MtG player. But they kept the same pattern over the years and I think that if they go back to Ravnica, we would have a free PDF like we had for Innistrad, Ixalan, Kadalesh and Amonketh.

You are entitled to your opinion. And an opinion is personal. I know that I have mine. Would I have prefered a true Greek Setting book? Of course! But Something out of the ordinary but still close to it is also a good thing. After all, nothing prevents you from replacing Theros Mythos with Greek gods! From the looks of it, it would not even be hard. The book can give you insight on how you could do the Greek campaign you always wanted. I was a bit like you until I read Ravnica. Me and my players take what we like from the books and discard the rest.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The (one of the) problem(s) with Kara-Tur is that it unnecessarily had two Chinas and two Japans to go with its Mongolia/northern steppes, Korea, Southest Asia, etc. and all of them with barely any serial numbers filed off. It was boring as [expletive deleted]. Added to that, it was wedded to the extremely Japan-centric rules of Oriental Adventures which just made things a mess.

The only things that I really miss from OA/Kara-Tur are hengeyoukai, korobokuru (which I'd retcon as a halfling sub-race), the some of the monsters.

Since 100+ years has passed since the last look at Kara-Tur, I think the way I'd update it would be to dissolve most of the existing nations (posit the region went through a massive Spellplague induced civil war) to come up with a much less "ripped from history" picture. Death for the Shou Empire, to start.