Planescape 5 New D&D Books Coming in 2023 -- Including Planescape!

At today's Wizards Presents event, hosts Jimmy Wong, Ginny Di, and Sydnee Goodman announced the 2023 line-up of D&D books, which featured something old, something new, and an expansion of a fan favorite.

The first of the five books, Keys from the Golden Vault, will arrive in winter 2023. At Tuesday's press preview, Chris Perkins, Game Design Architect for D&D, described it as “Ocean’s Eleven meets D&D” and an anthology of short adventures revolving around heists, which can be dropped into existing campaigns.

In Spring 2023, giants get a sourcebook just like their traditional rivals, the dragons, did in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants will be a deep dive into hill, frost, fire, cloud, and storm giants, plus much more.

Summer 2023 will have two releases. The Book of Many Things is a collection of creatures, locations, and other player-facing goodies related to that most famous D&D magic item, the Deck of Many Things. Then “Phandelver Campaign” will expand the popular Lost Mine of Phandelver from the D&D Starter Set into a full campaign tinged with cosmic horror.

And then last, but certainly not least, in Fall 2023, WotC revives another classic D&D setting – Planescape. Just like Spelljammer: Adventures in Space, Planescape will be presented as a three-book set containing a setting guide, bestiary, and adventure campaign in a slipcase. Despite the Spelljammer comparison they did not confirm whether it would also contain a DM screen.

More information on these five titles will be released when we get closer to them in date.

 

[Reynard]

It's not a flaw to expect a role-playing game to include role-playing.

The degree to which any given person creates a fully realized character for their PC is entirely personal. It's about preferences, and raNges from "might as well be a literal pawn" to "this is my REAL SELF!"

There are NO mechanics that can decide this. People inhabited their characters in 1974 and people treat them like pawns in 2022, regardless of rules, editions or play experience. And individual people do it differently with different characters or at different tables.

You don't get to make a judges about whether a person is a real roleplayer based on your judgment of the degree to which they treat their collection of numbers as an imaginary friend.

 

[Faolyn]

The degree to which any given person creates a fully realized character for their PC is entirely personal. It's about preferences, and raNges from "might as well be a literal pawn" to "this is my REAL SELF!"

There are NO mechanics that can decide this. People inhabited their characters in 1974 and people treat them like pawns in 2022, regardless of rules, editions or play experience. And individual people do it differently with different characters or at different tables.

You don't get to make a judges about whether a person is a real roleplayer based on your judgment of the degree to which they treat their collection of numbers as an imaginary friend.

You may want to read the root of this sub-thread. The TL;DR version is: at that time, Gygax saw PCs as pawns and felt that people shouldn't care if they have to make a new one. Micah apparently doesn't "get" that people become attached to their characters that much and seems to agree. Other people, including myself, think that it was stupid to force level limits on non-humans in AD&D, because--as I said, in the linked post--why should I have to give up a character just because I'm playing an elf and hit an arbitrary level limit in my class? (Plus, it would have been better if Gygax had given humans bonuses to make them more attractive than non-humans.)

This is what I was talking about: that role-playing games are role-playing games, and that tossing away a character for dumb reasons like level limits is not something most people want to do. If a game expects you to do that, that game is flawed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You may want to read the root of this sub-thread. The TL;DR version is: at that time, Gygax saw PCs as pawns and felt that people shouldn't care if they have to make a new one. Micah apparently doesn't "get" that people become attached to their characters that much and seems to agree. Other people, including myself, think that it was stupid to force level limits on non-humans in AD&D, because--as I said, in the linked post--why should I have to give up a character just because I'm playing an elf and hit an arbitrary level limit in my class? (Plus, it would have been better if Gygax had given humans bonuses to make them more attractive than non-humans.)

This is what I was talking about: that role-playing games are role-playing games, and that tossing away a character for dumb reasons like level limits is not something most people want to do. If a game expects you to do that, that game is flawed.

See, I would probably see hitting a level limit as an indication that my PC's wandering days were at an end and it was time to return to my people, probably with some kind of elevated social position. Then that character becomes an NOC who would likely interact with the PCs in the future whenever they visit their home.

Sounds like a cool retirement to me. I might do that anyway, limit or no limit.

 

[overgeeked]

You don't need to be emotionally attached to a character to role-play it.

It's also a role-playing game. A game with dice and death, by the way. Being so attached you cannot accept that it's also a game seems like an obvious flaw in the playstyle.

 

[Remathilis]

It was an aspect of Gary's D&D. Calling it a flaw is just personal opinion.

I don't sit around with my friends telling epic tales of how I discovered who killed Mr Body in the conservatory with the lead pipe. I don't commission fan art of the Monopoly thimble. I don't have a problem with treating PCs like Kleenex, but I still think it was an oversight for Gary and the early designers to assume that a player character would have the same player investment as a wargame unit. Luckily, it's been addressed in subsequent supplements and editions.

 

[Velderan]

You may want to read the root of this sub-thread. The TL;DR version is: at that time, Gygax saw PCs as pawns and felt that people shouldn't care if they have to make a new one. Micah apparently doesn't "get" that people become attached to their characters that much and seems to agree. Other people, including myself, think that it was stupid to force level limits on non-humans in AD&D, because--as I said, in the linked post--why should I have to give up a character just because I'm playing an elf and hit an arbitrary level limit in my class? (Plus, it would have been better if Gygax had given humans bonuses to make them more attractive than non-humans.)

This is what I was talking about: that role-playing games are role-playing games, and that tossing away a character for dumb reasons like level limits is not something most people want to do. If a game expects you to do that, that game is flawed.

I'm convinced in 2e racial level limit restrictions were an optional rule, but it's more likely I'm remembering wrong and it was just a rule my group decided "this is dumb" and ignored.

 

[Faolyn]

See, I would probably see hitting a level limit as an indication that my PC's wandering days were at an end and it was time to return to my people, probably with some kind of elevated social position. Then that character becomes an NOC who would likely interact with the PCs in the future whenever they visit their home.

Sounds like a cool retirement to me. I might do that anyway, limit or no limit.

Choosing to retire from adventuring is cool.

Being forced to stop because of some arbitrary limit that whose only reason is "Gygax wanted humans to be in charge" is not cool.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm convinced in 2e racial level limit restrictions were an optional rule, but it's more likely I'm remembering wrong and it was just a rule my group decided "this is dumb" and ignored.

Sorry, they were a real rule in 2e.

The other races have fewer choices of character classes and usually are limited in the level they can attain. These restrictions reflect the natural tendencies of the races (dwarves like war and fighting and dislike magic, etc.). The limits are high enough so a demihuman can achieve power and importance in at least one class. A halfling, for example, can become the best thief in the land, but he cannot become a great fighter.

The limits also exist for play balance. The ability of humans to assume any role and reach any level is their only advantage. The demihuman races have other powers that make them entertaining to play -- particularly the ability to be multi-classed (see Glossary). These powers balance the enjoyment of play against the ability to rise in level. Ask your DM for the level limits imposed on nonhuman characters.

You don't need to be emotionally attached to a character to role-play it.

It's also a role-playing game. A game with dice and death, by the way. Being so attached you cannot accept that it's also a game seems like an obvious flaw in the playstyle.

Being attached to a character =/= unable to accept it's a game.

And we weren't talking about death; we were talking about limits on class level for nonhumans.

 

[Reynard]

Choosing to retire from adventuring is cool.

Being forced to stop because of some arbitrary limit that whose only reason is "Gygax wanted humans to be in charge" is not cool.

You aren't forced to retire. But maybe the game changes. Maybe the story isn't about exploring ruins or mapping vast wilderness anymore. Maybe the game is about carving out a kingdom, building a legacy, raising an army. these are all things inherent in D&D that have been lost and ignored in the modern era.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You aren't forced to retire. But maybe the game changes. Maybe the story isn't about exploring ruins or mapping vast wilderness anymore. Maybe the game is about carving out a kingdom, building a legacy, raising an army.

So, retiring. Retiring from adventuring.

these are all things inherent in D&D that have been lost and ignored in the modern era.

Then maybe they're not "inherent in D&D" if most people don't play with them.

 

[Reynard]

So, retiring. Retiring from adventuring.

But not retiring from playing.

Then maybe they're not "inherent in D&D" if most people don't play with them.

Look, if people don't follow the game as it is designed over time, I don't know what to tell you. Literally up until 4E and 5E, there was an explicit intent that you didn't just keep going into random holes and punching things in the face once you reached superhuman levels. You gained followers and built strongholds and commanded domains. It's built into the overall design from the beginning. If you remove it without rep0lacing it, of course the game gets unmanageable and boring and nonsensical.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But not retiring from playing.

But you're still forced out of playing the game the way the rest of the party can because of your race. Because Gygax didn't like non-human adventurers. That's dumb. That's bad game design.

Look, if people don't follow the game as it is designed over time, I don't know what to tell you. Literally up until 4E and 5E, there was an explicit intent that you didn't just keep going into random holes and punching things in the face once you reached superhuman levels. You gained followers and built strongholds and commanded domains. It's built into the overall design from the beginning. If you remove it without rep0lacing it, of course the game gets unmanageable and boring and nonsensical.

Except it was replaced. D&D isn't just about going into dungeons, killing things, and taking their stuff. The scope of the game has evolved way past that.

 

[Reynard]

But you're still forced out of playing the game the way the rest of the party can because of your race. Because Gygax didn't like non-human adventurers. That's dumb. That's bad game design.

So non human characters can start expanding into that non-adventuring space sooner. What's the problem?

Except it was replaced. D&D isn't just about going into dungeons, killing things, and taking their stuff. The scope of the game has evolved way past that.

That's right. They can go into other nations and kill people and take their stuff. or travel the planes and kill things and take their stuff. When you extend adventuring to level 20 all you are doing is stopping the intentional evolution of the game built into from the beginning.

People wondewr why folks never bother to play past 11th level anymore, and the answer is simple: because fighting for treasure is boring after that point. There needs to be new challenges and a different focus. Gygax and the rest of the TSR era design crew knew this, and built it into the game.

The game is meant ot evolve, and always has been. You being mad that it isn't the same game at 14th level is you not getting it.

 

[Faolyn]

You aren't forced to retire. But maybe the game changes. Maybe the story isn't about exploring ruins or mapping vast wilderness anymore. Maybe the game is about carving out a kingdom, building a legacy, raising an army. these are all things inherent in D&D that have been lost and ignored in the modern era.

So, you mean, retire.

Unless all the human PCs decide to stop with you and not gain any XP?

Maybe those things have been lost in the modern era because very few people actually wanted to engage in them back then.

Edit: Ninja'd by Levistius.

 

[Faolyn]

But not retiring from playing.

Look, if people don't follow the game as it is designed over time, I don't know what to tell you. Literally up until 4E and 5E, there was an explicit intent that you didn't just keep going into random holes and punching things in the face once you reached superhuman levels. You gained followers and built strongholds and commanded domains. It's built into the overall design from the beginning. If you remove it without rep0lacing it, of course the game gets unmanageable and boring and nonsensical.

That certainly wasn't part of 3x (remember the Epic Level book?) and I seriously doubt it was a major part of 2e either, especially when they opened up the planes with the Outer Planes MCA and later Planescape. Which means it hasn't been part of D&D for the majority of D&D's existence.

Heck, even Basic D&D had Immortals rules, which involved getting to 36th level, not creating a castle.

Edit:

So non human characters can start expanding into that non-adventuring space sooner. What's the problem?

Why should non-human characters have to do that? Why can't non-human characters keep adventuring?

There is no reason besides Gygax said so, and that is not an acceptable reason for most people.

 

[Remathilis]

So non human characters can start expanding into that non-adventuring space sooner. What's the problem?

I'm sure all the other players won't mind while I spend time each session role-playing out my dwarf's tavern ownership.

Honestly, BECMI was far better at this than AD&D. After demihumans hit max level, they could continue to gain attack ranks, which improved their to-hit and also gained special abilities like resistance to spells. Also, since each race was a class, they also improved their saves faster than a human, meaning they had great saves far sooner than a human would. It wasn't perfect, but it attempted to give demihumans something to look forward to beyond name level.

 

[Reynard]

Yes. BECMI did it best. But it was in every edition of D&D at least up to 3rd (i didn't play 4ae so maybe it was there too). Doing standard adventuring stuff was intended to become lass of a focus as the PCs gained higher levels. There were other challenges to explore. It was built into the game from 0E, with followers and fortresses construction.

It wasn't that high level PCs were prohibited from adventuring, it was just assumed most of their time would be dedicated to other things because of responsibilities. Bt like old Arthur or Conan or Eric, sometimes those adventures would demand attention. The difference in all those cases is, of course, a recognition of the protagonist's mortality.

If you have fun playing 15th level characters going on the same adventures they did at 5thlevel: congratulations. But that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about higher leve PCs wanting to do something great.

 

[Remathilis]

That certainly wasn't part of 3x (remember the Epic Level book?) and I seriously doubt it was a major part of 2e either, especially when they opened up the planes with the Outer Planes MCA and later Planescape. Which means it hasn't been part of D&D for the majority of D&D's existence.

Heck, even Basic D&D had Immortals rules, which involved getting to 36th level, not creating a castle.

Edit:


Why should non-human characters have to do that? Why can't non-human characters keep adventuring?

There is no reason besides Gygax said so, and that is not an acceptable reason for most people.

It was less of a factor in 2e also because 2e raised the level limits.

A 1e dwarf was capped at 9th level, and that's if they had a 18 strength. In 2e, it was 15th level, with the optional rule to gain up to +3 additional levels for a high prime requisite (18th for our 18 strength dwarf).

Just a quick comparison, assuming 18 prime requisite. 1e vs 2e.

Dwarf fighter 9 vs 15
Elf fighter 7 vs 12
Halfling fighter 6 vs 9

Elf wizard 11 vs 15
Gnome wizard 7 vs 15

Dwarf cleric 8* vs 10
Half-Elf cleric 5 vs 14

Half-elf ranger 8 vs 16

Now there are some downgrades, to be fair...

Halfling thief Unlimited vs 15
Half-elf druid unlimited vs 9

And with the optional rule, you can add up to +3 more to the 2e side. For most races, level limits were a formality I'm 2e.

* Dwarf cleric, or any cleric but a human or half-human was not allowed in 1e officially until Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So non human characters can HAVE TO start expanding into that non-adventuring space sooner. What's the problem?

There. Fixed your statement. "Can" is wrong. "Have to" is correct. Level caps force your character to either lag behind the others or be forced to stop playing the way they are because of your race choice. That's just bad. It's bad game design.

That's right. They can go into other nations and kill people and take their stuff. or travel the planes and kill things and take their stuff. When you extend adventuring to level 20 all you are doing is stopping the intentional evolution of the game built into from the beginning.

People wondewr why folks never bother to play past 11th level anymore, and the answer is simple: because fighting for treasure is boring after that point. There needs to be new challenges and a different focus. Gygax and the rest of the TSR era design crew knew this, and built it into the game.

The game is meant ot evolve, and always has been. You being mad that it isn't the same game at 14th level is you not getting it.

I have never had a problem with high-level play in my 5e campaigns. At least, not as much as people like to pretend/say it's a problem at their tables. And my adventures are more than "go to places and kill people". Not all adventures involve killing. That's changed in D&D, too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Choosing to retire from adventuring is cool.

Being forced to stop because of some arbitrary limit that whose only reason is "Gygax wanted humans to be in charge" is not cool.

Fair enough. Doesn't bother me.