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.

 

[Remathilis]

It's not dumb. It's just a (probably) unpopular opinion, certainly at this point. But because its been reduced, we don't actually know if new players would be interested in it, because all they've been exposed to is WotC's current style.

So what's your opinion on tsr raising the level limits in 2e? (I posted them above for consideration). I ask because while they still exist in 2e, they are considerably more generous and combined with options for high ability scores, effectively moot (an elf mage with an 18 Int has a level cap of 18. Boo hoo, you are 2 levels shy of PHB Max. Cry into your single 9th level spell slot).

So was TSR in 1989 catering to the same entitled players that you claim WotC is in the 2000's, or maybe even in those ancient days of late 1e they figured out those harsh level limits were detrimental to the game and updated them? Maybe they figured out people want to play non-humans to a high level too.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I could never figure out how level limits were supposed to make sense lore wise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It should be. It's the "Dungeon Master's Guide". If it fails at guiding DMs at doing their job, the book has failed. That's probably a major reason why people have complained about the DMGs of so many editions. And it's another bad design choice Gygax made.

I disagree with your personal opinion here. The DMG could do a better job providing useful and varied optional rules and playstyle advice, but IMO that is absolutely the job it should be doing.

 

[Remathilis]

And most players gravitated towards those classes with higher limits from a combination of the mechanical advantage and the race/class ideals of the time (and, to a point even today). It would be rare to even hit those limits in the 17 - 19 range, especially with multiclass characters. And, annoying as not being able to hit level 20 like humans could, hitting levels 17 - 19, wasn't a huge difference, as hit points and THAC0s weren't that much different at that point, and any of those characters would have reached hit their max attacks per round or level 9 spells.

Exactly. Combined with the fact that most campaigns didn't last into the upper teen levels, most demihumans had effectively no limit for the length of regular play.

I don't have the book anywhere near me, but Unearthed Arcana might have also added options to expand the 1e level limits. If so, then the erosion level limits as a hard check on demihuman play was already failing in 1985. Which puts the argument that level limits did their job to the years in the beginning of the game's life, and lasted about as long as gender-based strength and alignment languages.

 

[Velderan]

I don't really want to jump into this conversation, but you made me curious. Would it bother you if the situation was reversed? What if humans were limited to 9th level and demi-humans had no limit? Not trying to pick on you just curious why it doesn't bother you that races had arbitrary level limits. I know your really and lore and this restriction doesn't really lean into the lore IMO,

This actually give me an idea: what if max level was based on lifespan or something? So the max level by race was the race's average lifespan divided by 10 or something. That seems to make some fantasy logic actually.

Essentially that's why the rule never worked for me. I get it was supposed to be a balancing thing to encourage more human players, but it quickly falls apart when you wonder why an elf with centuries to live can't ascend to the highest levels of being a wizard with all the time they have to study and learn.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really want to jump into this conversation, but you made me curious. Would it bother you if the situation was reversed? What if humans were limited to 9th level and demi-humans had no limit? Not trying to pick on you just curious why it doesn't bother you that races had arbitrary level limits. I know your really and lore and this restriction doesn't really lean into the lore IMO,

This actually give me an idea: what if max level was based on lifespan or something? So the max level by race was the race's average lifespan divided by 10 or something. That seems to make some fantasy logic actually.

I don't use level limits, because I play 5e and it doesn't have them. But if they were for humans instead (and humans were more powerful so there was reason for it), I would be ok with that. I like trying out different characters, and am not deeply attached to any of them (which does not mean I don't roleplay them), so if I can't play any given one anymore its not a big deal to me.

That being said, I actually think we're better off now personally. However, that doesn't mean that the way things used to be done was "dumb", or objectively bad. Those are insulting and disrespectful terms, and that attitude is the main issue I have here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Normally I would be right with you, being all in on de gustibus as I am. But in this case I cannot really get behind "a mechanic should do what it is designed to do" as being a matter of opinion.

Fair enough. As I said, I don't use or particularly like the rule, although its not a deal breaker for me. My issue is with the insulting language here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So what's your opinion on tsr raising the level limits in 2e? (I posted them above for consideration). I ask because while they still exist in 2e, they are considerably more generous and combined with options for high ability scores, effectively moot (an elf mage with an 18 Int has a level cap of 18. Boo hoo, you are 2 levels shy of PHB Max. Cry into your single 9th level spell slot).

So was TSR in 1989 catering to the same entitled players that you claim WotC is in the 2000's, or maybe even in those ancient days of late 1e they figured out those harsh level limits were detrimental to the game and updated them? Maybe they figured out people want to play non-humans to a high level too.

I'm fine with them being reduced or gone personally, as long as the power differential that led to them is also gone. Making humans better back in 1e would have been an idea more to my liking. But I really don't like the insulting language used here, and I don't like opinion stated as fact. That I have occasionally been guilty of the same behavior just makes me strive to be better.

 

[dave2008]

I don't use level limits, because I play 5e and it doesn't have them. But if they were for humans instead (and humans were more powerful so there was reason for it), I would be ok with that. I like trying out different characters, and am not deeply attached to any of them (which does not mean I don't roleplay them), so if I can't play any given one anymore its not a big deal to me.

That's interesting, your a big lore person. I thought level limits having a game / meta reason for existing instead of a lore reason would bother you. Doesn't it just feel out of place? I just never made sense to m that elves, who lived hundreds of years, couldn't reach the same level as humans. That doesn't feel odd? I get not being attached to a character, but in other threads you seem very attached to lore and world building. How do level limits fit into that in your mind?

That being said, I actually think we're better off now personally.

I agree

However, that doesn't mean that the way things used to be done was "dumb", or objectively bad. Those are insulting and disrespectful terms, and that attitude is the main issue I have here.

To be clear, I was never claiming it was dumb or objectively bad. That was other people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's interesting, your a big lore person. I thought level limits having a game / meta reason for existing instead of a lore reason would bother you. Doesn't it just feel out of place? I just never made sense to m that elves, who lived hundreds of years, couldn't reach the same level as humans. That doesn't feel odd? I get not being attached to a character, but in other threads you seem very attached to lore and world building. How do level limits fit into that in your mind?

I agree

To be clear, I was never claiming it was dumb or objectively bad. That was other people.

I'm not saying you did.

I prefer that there be lore reasons for rules, yes. I don't particularly like the level limit rule as it applies to nonhumans and I don't use it personally, for the reasons you describe. I object to the language some (not you) have used to describe those rules, and the downside of them isn't really an issue for me, because I'm always happy to hop to a new character. I don't use them in my games, but it wouldn't bother me if I was in a game that included them.