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!

 

[DEFCON 1]

The Warlock's Lurker In The Deep patron in their UA certainly hit me as far more Explorer's Guide To Wildemount than any other potential book... seeing as how one of the PCs in the Critical Role game was an actual warlock with a kraken patron. Now maybe its appearance in UA was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with EGtW... but that seems fishy to me (pun intended.) So I don't take it on faith that all UAs are written and designed for only one specific book and if they aren't selected then they're gone. Especially considering most of the themes can easily be updated and moved from book to book depending on their needs.

 

[Mistwell]

When your argument starts with a defense of blackface, it's probably worth not hitting the Post Reply button.

That was unfair Whizbang. He was not defending blackface, and you took a cheap shot at him for no good reason.

 

[Mistwell]

Yep, just one more in a long line of 5e products I could care less about.

We were all waiting with baited breath to hear if this was the one which interested you. Alas, we are collectively heartbroken to learn once again it is not. But hope springs eternal. And thank you so much for letting us know. At least the wait to hear is finally complete on this one.

 

[Parmandur]

The Warlock's Lurker In The Deep patron in their UA certainly hit me as far more Explorer's Guide To Wildemount than any other potential book... seeing as how one of the PCs in the Critical Role game was an actual warlock with a kraken patron. Now maybe its appearance in UA was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with EGtW... but that seems fishy to me (pun intended.) So I don't take it on faith that all UAs are written and designed for only one specific book and if they aren't selected then they're gone. Especially considering most of the themes can easily be updated and moved from book to book depending on their needs.

That's a possibility, though Titanic (literally, like unto the literal Titans) sea beasts of legendary magic are a big thing for Theros.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That was unfair Whizbang. He was not defending blackface, and you took a cheap shot at him for no good reason.

This isn't defending blackface as a valid artistic choice?

Using non black to play black people and it had a racist connotation to it. It was often done in the previous decades but now, it is viewed as a bad thing and unartistically thing to do.

And it doesn't have a racist "connotation" to it. It's racist. It's always been racist. It is not a new complaint, even in recent decades.

 

[Helldritch]

Dude, Said published Orientalism in 1978. The notion has been around a lot longer than you seem to think.

So? Fringe thinking and main acceptance are two birds of a kind. Some people are well in advance of their time. Others, unfortunately, are freakingly late. Remember that at some point, Freud was THE thing is psychology. THE only thing. Fortunately Young and Papalia came. And I still think about that cherry coke....

 

[Eltab]

Dude, Said published Orientalism in 1978. The notion has been around a lot longer than you seem to think.

(Begin snark) Heard in 1978: "Who is Said, and what is Orientalism?" (end snark)

I take it you think of that paper as a seminal work. The concepts in it did not 'bubble through' to general consciousness for twenty-to-thirty years to be something the general public would think about. Before he published and during that process, the concerns were 'does this sound like fun?' and 'is this just a flat stereotype, no depth to it?'

 

[Helldritch]

This isn't defending blackface as a valid artistic choice?

And it doesn't have a racist "connotation" to it. It's racist. It's always been racist. It is not a new complaint, even in recent decades.

I hadn't seen this reply before I did mine above. Dude, this is almost defamation. You take a part of my post and accuse me of racism by defending the black face when I did not do such a thing. I was showing how the vast majority of people were thinking at the time.

You should really stop assuming the worst in people. I prefer to see that people want to learn and be kind to each other. Stating what was is not defending it. It is trying to understand what the people at that time thought. We have evolved. By what you said about me, 90% of archeologist are racists and xenophobics to the extreme. This is not the case.

Again, please, stop assuming the worst in people. This is not befitting this forum.

Edits... so many typing mistakes... calm down boy, calm down.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Dude, this is almost defamation. You take a part of my post and accuse me of racism by defending the black face when I did not do such a thing. I was showing how the vast majority of people were thinking at the time.

Go back and re-read what you said about cultural appropriation and that entire post. You said that "no one" cared about such things until recently. Blackface is not where the problematic stuff begins.

And again, people always cared. There is not an "evolution," people always cared and other people always knew they cared. They just didn't do anything about it and decided that "everyone" (that they cared about) was OK with it.

Stating what was is not defending it.

You're the one responsible for the words you write. If you had unstated, or unclear stances beyond what you wrote, that's on you.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I take it you think of that paper as a seminal work. The concepts in it did not 'bubble through' to general consciousness for twenty-to-thirty years to be something the general public would think about.

People have been criticizing "South Pacific" since at least 1958, when the movie version came out, two decades before Edward Said wrote Orientalism.

Before he published and during that process, the concerns were 'does this sound like fun?' and 'is this just a flat stereotype, no depth to it?'

I was in middle school when Oriental Adventures came out, and I remember reading reviews that criticized it for being thin stereotypes by people who didn't know much of what they were talking about and didn't bother to try and find out. I find it difficult to believe that they couldn't have created something better if they wanted. 1E stuff generally wasn't great -- around the same time, we got another group of magical faux Romani that the game still has a hard time shaking loose -- but even in the 1980s, people knew the book was problematic.