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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was going to reply to you @Micah Sweet, but @Remathilis did it better!

You're right, in part. 4e's cosmology was definitely different, and I have always ignored its lore, and was happy when 5e brought us back to something closer to what we had. I shouldn't have included it in my statement.

A lot of the 2e changes were either re-naming, additions, or the recontextualization version of the retcon. All of that was fine with me. I wasn't happy with some of the 3e changes either, but I was able to overlook them in a way I can't seem to anymore. Maybe because my favorite campaign settings weren't re-written in 3e.

 

[SkidAce]

...And then Concordant Opposition got retconned into the Outlands. Though personally, I can wrap my head around the Outlands far better.

I had a campaign that used the Outlands as a sort of "First World" concept.

Suspect that might make some people's heads explode...

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The astral domains aren't a bad idea. WotC would rather to sell sourcebooks about places could be explored by low level PCs.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I really don’t get all the complaining about the First World. For one it has hardly been mentioned. Just the tiniest bit if that. Second, use what you want. I have literally never purchased and used a RPG book verbatim. I like to call that creativity or customization.

Lastly I would love a First World setting book. I know that will never happen but that would be the first truly new setting by WoTC in a long time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1e's, mostly. They expanded the universe through 2e and 3e, and even 4e didn't change the past. Up until a few years ago I could see the worlds of D&D as more or less the same as they've always been. Then VRGtR was released, and things have gone off the rails from there, IMO.

I was not even born when 1e was created. So why should anyone who is born after me care what the true history of a setting created back then was?

Giving old things a new spin seems quite cool.

 

[dave2008]

Ok, so the First World is, as I said, a piece of lore I don't like. Is that ok with everyone?

I can't speak for everyone, but that makes perfect sense to me. There is a lot of D&D lore I don't like, some from pretty much every edition. What I like to do in my world building is weaving together the parts I do like!

I personally dislike the 2e lore the most, because it changed the most. However, I do like to find ways to weave it into the lore of my campaign world. Actually, 4e gave me a new perspective that helped me do that better.

 

[dave2008]

Does their existence factor into the history of the setting? Show me an example please.

Are you saying in my setting or published settings? I am not a real big setting historian, so specific details will be difficult for me. However, conceptually they absolutely change the history a setting. I think @Remathilis described it better than I could.

A quick example for me would be the Shadowfell/Feywild. These planes connect to all worlds and previously didn't exist in the lore (with some precedent - but not original - for the demiplane of dread). If you can't see how that changes the history of a setting I don't know what to tell you.

As a follow up I would say Spelljammer (with the whole crystal sphere and phlogiston) was way more damaging than the First World. That is something that was supposed to be a part of all worlds too - but was an active thing. The First World, if true, is ancient history with not practical impact.

 

[dave2008]

I can't speak for @Micah Sweet , but my dislike for the First World is similar to my distaste for the FeyWild and Shadowfell. It's another (destroyed) plane being shoehorned into the cosmology that I have no interest in incorporating into the game worlds I use (homebrew and Greyhawk mostly). I'm irritated because WoTC products will most likely continue to use and incorporate the First World into future products, and new players will likely come to the game expecting it to be Truth, when I don't want to add it in the first place.

Its kind of like ordering steak & potatoes and getting a pizza thrown in on the side you didn't ask for.

While I agree with you. @Micah Sweet was specifically setting the First World apart from the Feywild and Shadowfell as being more damaging than those. When, IMO, those to planes are much more intrusive to D&D lore than the First World at this point. Even if WotC talks more about the lore of the First World - it has no functional impact on the game. The Shadowfell and Feywild do. And of course the inclusion of Spelljammer and Sigil/Planescape had more of an impact than either of those. Those are the ones that still bug me.

However, to clarify, I still like all of those inclusions in D&D lore. I don't agree with all parts, and change them as needed, but I see them as tools to create the lore of my D&D. Honestly, I haven't figured out how or if I will integrate the First World in my Cosmology yet. However, it has similarities to 4e's Dawn War, so if I use a part of it I will probably wrap it up into that concept.

 

[Remathilis]

I really don’t get all the complaining about the First World. For one it has hardly been mentioned. Just the tiniest bit if that. Second, use what you want. I have literally never purchased and used a RPG book verbatim. I like to call that creativity or customization.

Lastly I would love a First World setting book. I know that will never happen but that would be the first truly new setting by WoTC in a long time.

I actually don't want a First World book. I like the idea of a vague common history before time, a place lost to myth and legend, a glory never to be found. A place that only exists in the songs of the dwarves, the lore of the elves, and the memories of the dragons. A place full of contradictions, obscure references and conflicting details that each species has carried over but nobody knows or can prove as true. A place even the Gods dare not speak about anymore.

Keep the First World as a nebulous idea to explain why Tiamat exists in multiple campaign settings or two PCs who both killed Vecna separately can meet in a bar. Any attempt to make it a real setting to explore would ruin the mystique.

 

[LizardWizard00]

You're right, in part. 4e's cosmology was definitely different, and I have always ignored its lore, and was happy when 5e brought us back to something closer to what we had. I shouldn't have included it in my statement.

A lot of the 2e changes were either re-naming, additions, or the recontextualization version of the retcon. All of that was fine with me. I wasn't happy with some of the 3e changes either, but I was able to overlook them in a way I can't seem to anymore. Maybe because my favorite campaign settings weren't re-written in 3e.

So this seems to be less of a lore issue and more of a you issue. I get it, we all become a little less flexible as we get older. I'm no different!