log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E 3 Classic Settings Coming To 5E?

On the D&D Celebration – Sunday, Inside the D&D Studio with Liz Schuh and Ray Winninger, Winninger said that WotC will be shifting to a greater emphasis on settings in the coming years.

This includes three classic settings getting active attention, including some that fans have been actively asking for. He was cagey about which ones, though.

The video below is an 11-hour video, but the information comes in the last hour for those who want to scrub through.



Additionally, Liz Schuh said there would be more anthologies, as well as more products to enhance game play that are not books.

Winninger mentioned more products aimed at the mainstream player who can't spend immense amount of time absorbing 3 tomes.

Ray and Liz confirmed there will be more Magic: The Gathering collaborations.
 

Staffan

Adventurer
Another thing that you're going to have to address is the fact that TSR nuked most of the settings before they went way in an attempt to try to change up the world to boost sales. This was generally regarded as a terrible idea as it took away what made so many of the settings popular.

Planescape was known as the multiplanar Freakshow partially because of the art. But it was also well-regarded because it had all of the inter factional internecine sniping that caused most of the conflict in Sigil. Then the lady of pain kicks them all out of the city and suddenly the major source of conflict is gone.
My understanding is that there were plans for Planescape that involved letting the factions back into Sigil, but the setting got canceled before getting that far.

Another setting that's gotten a lot of flak for changes wrought by metaplot is Dark Sun. Personally, I think the revised Dark Sun setting is a better setting, because it has more variety. In the original setting, the city-states are mostly the same except for cosmetic differences, but in the revised setting many of the sorcerer-monarchs are dead/gone, leaving things open for more fun stuff. The process of getting there was pretty ham-handed, but I liked the end result.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think the embracing of some silliness in Spelljammer was closer to the goofy antics of most D&D table play style. It recognized the gonzo going on at many D&D tables and didn’t hide from it. It was too much for some who wanted their D&D to be serious business and no silly.

But 5e did get a Giff!
And we have a Gunslinger fighter Archetype to give it too!
 

I wonder about gnomes could become more popular if there is a story where a gnome is a mixture of little ugly duckling and Tyrion Lannister with some special tricks, showing you to be the hero who saves the day you haven't to be the knight with a shinning armour or a bodybuilder barbarian..... and the aasimars the victims of inverse racism, with an horrible reputation of being wolves with sheep's clothing, when really only they suffer a black legend created by enemy propaganda what exagerated the wrong actions by their ancestors.

What about the "furry" races, antropomorphic animals, for example the tabaxi? They could become popular among the no-D&D fandom.
 

I wonder about gnomes could become more popular if there is a story where a gnome is a mixture of little ugly duckling and Tyrion Lannister with some special tricks, showing you to be the hero who saves the day you haven't to be the knight with a shinning armour or a bodybuilder barbarian..... and the aasimars the victims of inverse racism, with an horrible reputation of being wolves with sheep's clothing, when really only they suffer a black legend created by enemy propaganda what exagerated the wrong actions by their ancestors.
Yeah, no.

Gnomes would be popular if they could pick a niche and stick to it, which is why the tinker gnome stereotype stuck so long. It gives gnomes their thing, their stereotype you can explore. Gnomes being unpopular is because for years they've been "All of the things that were left over from elves, dwarves and halflings" and the one time it attempted to do something different with it that had influence was either a somewhat little-known Mystera bit, or Tinker Gnomes, AKA, 'let's just make an entire race a bloody joke'

Warcraft has done a better job of making serious gnomes than D&D ever did which.... Says a lot. A -lot-. This is why Dragonborn and Tieflings have stuck as they have very big, clear, obvious parts to them and their character and stereotype that stick with people. Gnomes haven't had that. They're starting to get it thanks to Warcraft being the most influential RPG thing since LotR, D&D just needs to keep going with what they've started to embrace and go serious with it

What about the "furry" races, antropomorphic animals, for example the tabaxi? They could become popular among the no-D&D fandom.
They already are popular? I don't see why we need to explore any wider. Folks already enjoy those ones
 

My opinion is gnomes aren't so popular because their racial traits in the previous editions only allowed them to be good as illusionist spellcasters or stealth classes (rogues). This is a good reason we need racial traits for PC races to be modular or optional, to allow different types of characters.

D&D has got lots of humanoid races based in antropomorphic animals as the tabaxi, totles or the lupines.
 


Aldarc

Legend
Gnomes would be popular if they could pick a niche and stick to it, which is why the tinker gnome stereotype stuck so long. It gives gnomes their thing, their stereotype you can explore. Gnomes being unpopular is because for years they've been "All of the things that were left over from elves, dwarves and halflings" and the one time it attempted to do something different with it that had influence was either a somewhat little-known Mystera bit, or Tinker Gnomes, AKA, 'let's just make an entire race a bloody joke'

Warcraft has done a better job of making serious gnomes than D&D ever did which.... Says a lot. A -lot-. This is why Dragonborn and Tieflings have stuck as they have very big, clear, obvious parts to them and their character and stereotype that stick with people. Gnomes haven't had that. They're starting to get it thanks to Warcraft being the most influential RPG thing since LotR, D&D just needs to keep going with what they've started to embrace and go serious with it
Gnomes are bearable in Golarion where they are chromatic-haired fey that risk their hair "bleaching" without new experiences. The fey gnomes in 4e were also a nice niche that moved them away from dwarves and halflings, though somewhat closer to elves.
 


no it's because they get benefits and the DM's don't enact the consequences of thier race enough in the games. I'm playing in a game now the Assimar Paladin has been trying to be low key and under the radar but simply can't , everyone know she has blood of the heavens, w'eve got a fetchling who no one trusts because she looks wierd, and after 8 levels the Half orc is finally sloooowly starting to gain acceptance. If more DM's treated those races right I think there would be less of them. A tiefling, once everyone knows you are hell touched should be ostracized, and possibly even have entire churches trying to kill them.

I don't know why you suppose churchs should be killing tieflings (and you're not the first to suggest this). There's plenty of myths and legends about heroic figures with demonic ancestry. Look at the story of Merlin. He's born as a hellspawn but because he's baptised as birth by a priest and hence his demonic destiny is averted. Why do so many people want their religious figures genocidal?
 


Nymrod

Explorer
Gnomes would be popular if they could pick a niche and stick to it, which is why the tinker gnome stereotype stuck so long. It gives gnomes their thing, their stereotype you can explore. Gnomes being unpopular is because for years they've been "All of the things that were left over from elves, dwarves and halflings" and the one time it attempted to do something different with it that had influence was either a somewhat little-known Mystera bit, or Tinker Gnomes, AKA, 'let's just make an entire race a bloody joke'

I mean there are always Eberron Gnomes. Those seem fairly popular and are clearly defined (with the Trust being a very unique take on a society that is actually non-evil)
And Warcraft gnomes ARE tinker gnomes that are mostly used for comic relief. Heck their devices malfunction most of the time too.
 

Nymrod

Explorer
Gnomes are bearable in Golarion where they are chromatic-haired fey that risk their hair "bleaching" without new experiences. The fey gnomes in 4e were also a nice niche that moved them away from dwarves and halflings, though somewhat closer to elves.
The interesting part of 4e fey gnomes was their enslavement to the fomorians imo which gave them a very specific niche; that the Fomorians had also helped destroyed the elf empires of old was their only real link to the gnomes. The Feydark concept was imo brilliant and worth salvaging for other editions. The Giantkin in general are a brilliant design and 4E gave them a chance to shine.
 

Aldarc

Legend
The interesting part of 4e fey gnomes was their enslavement to the fomorians imo which gave them a very specific niche; that the Fomorians had also helped destroyed the elf empires of old was their only real link to the gnomes. The Feydark concept was imo brilliant and worth salvaging for other editions. The Giantkin in general are a brilliant design and 4E gave them a chance to shine.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the lore building of 4e was HIGHLY UNDERRATED. 4e sought to make the D&D universe into a coherent one. It even put a tremendous amount of thought into systematizing the undead and their origins.
 

Nymrod

Explorer
On the Faction War possibly working, the thing is the narrative space for factions but outside of Sigil was already occupied by the Sects (several of which WERE factions that got exiled on the last time the Lady did a purge)
 

Nymrod

Explorer
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the lore building of 4e was HIGHLY UNDERRATED. 4e sought to make the D&D universe into a coherent one. It even put a tremendous amount of thought into systematizing the undead and their origins.
I like a lot of the 4E lore building. I am sure a lot of people do; it's just so hard to get past them senseless nuking any number of other things. Like what they did to FR. They treated Eberron with a lot more respect and when the time came to publish Dark Sun they probably had realized that they should focus on the best incarnation of a setting and rolled back part of Arthas' history.

On Dark Sun's post Prism Pentad era I would not say it has no merits at all, just that they are outweighed heavily. So much of the mystery of the setting is lost by them explaining everything instead of just hinting at possible reasons why things are so. And honestly I think that each of the cities plays very differently if you chose to make a campaign that is focused on one of them, it's not just the aesthetics.
 

And Warcraft gnomes ARE tinker gnomes that are mostly used for comic relief. Heck their devices malfunction most of the time too.
Warcraft gnomes also have the tragedy to them which is explored in a few places, albeit not much. But, there is more to them than just 'tinkering'

Also they're countered against the goblins, where its "When gnomish devices malfunction its not too bad, when goblin devices malfunction you just explode"
 

Nymrod

Explorer
Warcraft gnomes also have the tragedy to them which is explored in a few places, albeit not much. But, there is more to them than just 'tinkering'

Also they're countered against the goblins, where its "When gnomish devices malfunction its not too bad, when goblin devices malfunction you just explode"

They are still mostly used for comic relief and the tragedy of Gnomeregan or the leper gnomes is barely explored. But honestly D&D settings are judged at a much higher bar than Warcraft.
 

humble minion

Adventurer
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the lore building of 4e was HIGHLY UNDERRATED. 4e sought to make the D&D universe into a coherent one. It even put a tremendous amount of thought into systematizing the undead and their origins

I think that was both a plus and a minus, to be honest. There's things like gnomes and the fey that had been long-time neglected in terms of lore that got some much-needed attention in this process. But on the downside, the big 4e lore rewrite tended to homogenise things, and shoehorn generic 'D&D universe' concepts into settings where those concepts were completely inappropriate. The Raven Queen in FR, which already had at least 3 separate death gods, for instance, not even counting demon lords or nonhuman deities. Tieflings and the feywild in Athas. And so on. There were a lot of holes in D&D lore that 4e laudably attempted to fill, and often with really interesting ideas, but it hammered wrongly-shaped pegs into a few too many of them. But there's still an awful lot there that is worth mining for inspiration.

Which tbh sums up 4e in general in a lot of ways. Some great ideas. Didn't know when to stop.
 



Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top