Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[MonsterEnvy]

Speaking for myself, I think doing Planescape in a three-book slipcase format can work out alright as long as they don't try to cram in too much.

I would adore a proper, full-sized hardcover Manual of the Planes for the Great Wheel, but that probably would be too much without a drastically increased page count or dedicating a fourth book in the set to it - maybe we can get one down the road at some point, but for the time being it's probably best to let that aspect be carried by the existing planar entries in the DMG, whatever specific planar locations are detailed in the adventure module(s), and previous edition/3rd party material on the DMs Guild.

Instead, they should probably just focus on a solid city-guide for Sigil in the player-facing book (plus the standard player options, faction descriptions, etc.). If they do that and make a decent plane-hopping "Tour around the Great Wheel" for the adventure book, I think that will work well enough.

Particularly given that this release should also finally open Planescape up on DMs Guild.

I think it would fine in a three-book slipcase so long as they cram in more. All three books should be 94 pages.
My idea is Book 1 Sigil, Book 2, the Planes and some creatures in each of them, book 3 adventure.

 

[cbwjm]

I'll definitely be enforcing any alignment restrictions for the magical orders. I think I'll also be restricting the classes, going to keep it wizardry only but might create some similar background feats for sorcerers based on the old saga rules and backgrounds. If they do change sorcerer to draw upon different spell lists, then that can easily cover mystics as well.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I think it would fine in a three-book slipcase so long as they cram in more. All three books should be 94 pages.
My idea is Book 1 Sigil, Book 2, the Planes and some creatures in each of them, book 3 adventure.

Having just gotten the physical set, if they drop the DM screen, they'll have at least 32 more pages to work with. And that's even before the possibility of just making the books and set bigger.

 

[Hussar]

As far as being "tied to the gods of magic" thing, well... kind sorta? I mean, it had sort of the impact depending on the moon phase (which was such a HUGE PITA to track in game) but, outside of that, didn't really do anything. Yup, if you were a black robe, you were supposed to be evil, and you got bonuses when Nuitari was waxing and Lunitari was waning - but, at the end of the day, it never really mattered.

It was mostly just a heavy handed way to make sure that you didn't have evil PC's in the group. No more evil wizards, because evil wizards have to wear this big honking sign around their neck declaring to everyone, "HEY EVIL WIZARD HERE!" Not really, perhaps, the most subtle of things.

Remember, for most of the WotL, Raistlin wasn't evil. He was Neutral. It's not until almost the very end of the series that he shows up in black robes.

So, maybe it might be an idea to just have all wizards tied to the moon phases and different schools of magic function differently depending on the moons. I forget exactly how they did it in the UA.

In any case, this isn't a retcon. This is a full on reboot. Which is EXACTLY what everyone claimed they wanted. They didn't want retcons. They didn't want to carry on the timeline. They wanted WotC to reboot the setting. You can see this over and over again on the forums. People constantly bitching about the retcons and, "oh no, why can't they just go back to the start of the setting and do it over?!?!"

Well, you got what you wanted. They are redoing the setting. It's an "inspired by" setting.

 

[cbwjm]

Was just reading about the setting from what little information they have, it is set during the war of the lance, so I might add in a few restrictions to races and classes.

• Races. Not sure if they will be limiting what races are available, however I will limit them to the classic races. No tieflings or half-orcs for example, though I could probably use half-orc to replace the half-ogre.
• Classes I will also limit:
  • If set after Goldmoon finds the disks then there can be clerics, otherwise no clerics (or druids) until later in the campaign.
  • No bards, they kind of get in the way of the setting. Same with warlocks.
  • Knights of Solamnia I will likely limit to fighter, paladin, and ranger.
  • Wizards of High Sorcery, limited to wizards only and I think I will restrict the subclasses as well to a limited degree.
  • No sorcerers, which also means no lunar sorcerer. I really like the split between wizardry and sorcery so I think I'll keep it for the setting. This also means that once sorcery is in the setting, that I'll change the ability score used from Charisma for sorcerers and Wisdom for Celestial sorcerers to represent mystics.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And to what I suspect is your total lack of surprise, I love SNW in large part because it hews pretty close to TOS. That being said, it's also a great show in its own right.

Wait you…what!?

I am actually genuinely very surprised that you both like TOS, and don’t hate SNW.

I mean it feels like TOS, has the same spirit, but is updated to progressive 21st Century moral norms and ethics, and isn’t afraid to deviate from canon.

Like, it’s my favorite Trek since DS9, so I’m glad that someone who I so often disagree with also likes it, I’m just surprised.

I guess I just categorize it in the same type of revisit as Van Richten’s and the upcoming Dragonlance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wait you…what!?

I am actually genuinely very surprised that you both like TOS, and don’t hate SNW.

I mean it feels like TOS, has the same spirit, but is updated to progressive 21st Century moral norms and ethics, and isn’t afraid to deviate from canon.

Like, it’s my favorite Trek since DS9, so I’m glad that someone who I so often disagree with also likes it, I’m just surprised.

I guess I just categorize it in the same type of revisit as Van Richten’s and the upcoming Dragonlance.

Where do they deviate from canon? There is nothing in SNW that contradicts previous Trek.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Where do they deviate from canon? There is nothing in SNW that contradicts previous Trek.

Oh man. Im sure a search of Reddit discussions about the show will fill in the blanks, here.

They haven’t made any major changes or contradictions yet, but certainly they have made some by implication, recontextualised some things, etc, and I’ve seen too many [descriptive term] cry about it online to think it’ll be hard to find examples.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh man. Im sure a search of Reddit discussions about the show will fill in the blanks, here.

They haven’t made any major changes or contradictions yet, but certainly they have made some by implication, recontextualised some things, etc, and I’ve seen too many [descriptive term] cry about it online to think it’ll be hard to find examples.

I want to give them the benefit of the doubt; I love Trek, and also feel SNW is the best I've seen since DS9 (although I'm also fond of Lower Decks). Recontextualizing and making implications is not, to me, the same thing as what was done with Ravenloft. I understand you feel differently, however, and I'm not interested in having that discussion again; I have my blood pressure to consider!

My understanding is that the new DL novel goes to some lengths to show the problematic nature of stereotypes. That's great! We can show that things aren't always how they seem, without contradicting events that have occurred in the fiction. Changing history is what I have a problem with. It matters to me more than the "gamability" of material, believe it or not.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Changing history is what I have a problem with.

Would you have less of a problem with it if they, say, used a lore justification for the changes? Isn't there some time-traveling magic item in Dragonlance (I know there's one in the most recent book, at least)? If they were to say "Clerics exist earlier in this version of Dragonlance because some Cleric from the future went back in time and spread the faith of the gods before Goldmoon did" (maybe to make there be fewer casualties in the War of the Lance), would you take issue with that?

If so, why? You've said before you have no problem with metaplots in other threads. I personally hate them and think this kind of excuse for changing a world is bad for the game, but you clearly take no issue with them. If you don't take issue with that kind of excuse . . . why, exactly?