Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9574669" data-attributes="member: 87792">I literally gave a citation - the text of the relevant Plane Shift spells. And plane shifting has emphatically changed.If you want a reference to the Astral Plane in specific then another spell that has changed is Astral Projection. In the <a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/astralProjection.htm" target="_blank">3.5 version</a> (which I don't think was changed from 3.0) you explicitly leave your bodies back on the material plane and when you leave the Astral Plane you form a new body and equipment (magic item duplicator?) In the <a href="https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Astral%20Projection#content" target="_blank">5e version</a> there is no restriction on where you leave your body so not even the hint of a restriction as to which plane you can cast Astral Projection from and if you leave the astral plane your body is transported not recreated.3.X Astral Projection explicitly prioritises the Material Plane and the 3.X World Tree is consistent with this as it was a feature of 3.X cosmology. 5e Astral Projection has no such prioritisation and neither does 5e cosmology - so if you try forcing the 3.X World Tree into 5e cosmology without paying any attention at all to the changes between the cosmologies you will be wrong because the cosmology has changed. And this is not a problem with the world tree but with the attempt to force material from another edition in with no care for the changes between editions.Where souls go I agree is fundamental - and a matter for the world. But whether you can use the Astral to planar travel between two planes is not relevant to anyone that I'm aware of outside Spelljammer and 17th level casters - and it has explicitly changed. As for whether planes even exist, there's a difference between not existing and not being able to be found right now. I do not consider the 16 normally listed outer planes the limits to the set.I'm curious about this "fully correctly" rather than just correctly. And the example given, sure. Things look smaller when you are further away.And I was under the impression that where something is even indirectly contradicted you take the new source. And that no one in their senses goes through old books with page references to say they are incorrect. You can use previous editions material but you can not just slap it in there with no thought, care, or attention because there are differences, some subtle and some major.</blockquote>

Verification