D&D 5E 5e/Next Cosmology

[Kobold Avenger]

The editorial this month mentions their intentions with the cosmology of D&D. Like many other things they claim they'll have "something for everyone". And just like it's been with every edition that's had a Manual of Planes, there'll be a toolbox for planar options.

However they do mention the core products will go back to mentioning the Inner and Outer Planes of the Great Wheel and the editions of 3e and before, which I'm quite thrilled with. But they'll also mention 4e's Feywild and Shadowfell, which are the parts of 4e's cosmology I never had a problem with.

 

[Remathilis]

Sounds good. I wouldn't mind Great Wheel+

 

[Alzrius]

One of the best takes on the "Great Wheel+" that I've ever seen was in a third-party product that kept the existing structure, but posited that alongside the "Inner" and "Outer" planes were the newly-discovered "Preternatural Planes."

The Preternatural Planes (which included the so-called "Transitive Planes" such as the Shadow Plane and the Astral, etc.) included a number of planes that the Great Wheel had ignored before now, such as the Faerie Plane, the Plane of Dreams, Purgatory, etc.

It was one of the best ideas for the Great Wheel since Planescape. It'd be great to see WotC take a cue from this.

 

[Greg K]

As long as they are not going to force a cosmology and provide a toolbox for DMs, it sounds good.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Speaking as a 4e-hater, I would point out that the line about "D&D isn't truly D&D without the Great Ring" is another one of those phrases that flips the bird to 4e fans.

From the tone on the board, I think they should be a LOT more careful how they phrase these sort of remarks.

+2 coppers

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, I'm into Great Ring +

I liked 4e's cosmology fine enough, but the idea of burning all that had come before and re-building it from the ground up was very evident there, and VERY problematic for those enthused with 3e's cosmology. 4e's sandwich also didn't interfere much with my PS4e stuff, since one of the ideas of PS is that it's impossible to map infinity anyway.

 

[Minigiant]

4E cosmology is fine. So is the great ring/wheel/ parallelogram. I don't particularly prefer either.

I prefer the Planar Subway.

The idea of a planar toolbox intrigues me.

 

[KidSnide]

I have had mixed opinions on D&D cosmology for some time. On the one hand, there has been some very cool design work in the D&D cosmology (e.g. Planescape and some of the 4e work). But on the other hand, I think designers have fundamentally misunderstood (or at least mis-presented) the role of a cosmology in a campaign.

The idea that you can have multiple different game worlds and a single cosmology is fundamentally flawed. The cosmology is part of the game world. Yes, it may be nice to bolt-on a detailed and well-designed set of planes onto a custom game world, but that's not all that different from bolting-on a detailed and well-designed city or dungeon.

The only real difference between planes and mortal gameworld elements is that planes tend to have specific magic associated with them (usually the magic to get there) and specific monsters (who live there). But, really, that's really no different from a society of wizards that have access to specific types of magic and minions. Making the cosmology part of the campaign choice is a good step in the right direction.

The Great Wheel is a fun idea and a nice place to adventure, but it has the tendency to draw characters from their original game world into the Great Wheel. That's fine if you want to run a game where the PCs "transcend" their petty mortal world for the planes beyond, but many games aren't about "planes beyond". They are about the events in the mortal plane. And if you want to run a game that's about the mortal plane, you are better served by a cosmology that reflects the aspects of your game world that are interesting.

-KS

 

[Neonchameleon]

The Great Wheel rocks - for Planescape*. In a "Philosophers with Clubs" setting the fact that there is a difference between Hades (NE) and Tartaerus (C/NE) makes quite a lot of sense and this sort of difference matters. In just about any other setting the whole thing is pointless and arbitrary, and makes the difference between good and evil appear almost academic. Or "It is good to kill evil babies". Give me the 4e cosmology - and if you can't do that, give me a modified World Tree**.

* The Faction War never happened. And you can't convince me otherwise. (It makes the Spellplague seem like a model of careful handling).

** Which looks a lot like the Great Wheel for practical purposes because Greenwood designed/chose the Realms deities to fit the Great Wheel. But the World Tree is prescriptive rather than descriptive.

 

[Mattachine]

I like the 1e cosmology the most. The Great Wheel is based on it, but I prefer the original. The 1e Manual of the Planes was one of my favorite books, constantly giving me ideas for stories and adventures.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Yeah, that "D&D is not D&D without the Great Wheel" line is kinda bad. It even seems to flatly go against the tone of "change the cosmology to match what you want!" tone they're trying to go for in the article. How did that kind of thing slip through an editor? Do they edit these articles?

I certainly preferred the elemental chaos and astral sea over the excessively over-designed Great Wheel and Inner Planes, but I honestly would like to see something even more new. Or rather, I really would like to see them abandon the idea of a core planar cosmology entirely. It leads to ugliness where they treat non-setting material as if it were a campaign setting. I hated both the 3E and 4E Manual of the Planes because of that. If they want to make a planar setting, then reprint Planescape and build it for the Planescape fans. Otherwise, make the Manual of the Planes a book for people who don't want to play Planescape, and instead want to create their own fantastical realms.

Of course, I'd be just as happy if they removed all talk of the planes from the main books. Planar adventure isn't exactly essential to the typical D&D experience, and it isn't necessary to explain what happens with spells and effects. Dialing back the reliance on bizarre cosmology might help the game a bit.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If they want to make a planar setting, then reprint Planescape and build it for the Planescape fans. Otherwise, make the Manual of the Planes a book for people who don't want to play Planescape, and instead want to create their own fantastical realms.

Please, no. That's not what Planescape was about. Planescape was about a setting involving factions of "philosophers with clubs" (Zeb Cook's words), all brought together in one central meeting place (a city), and with the Lady of Pain there to ensure that no one faction could bring in a nuke (or a God) and take over. It was a setting where people lined up by ideology rather than god or species. Planescape was Sigil and the Factions.

I'd much rather use something more like Spelljammer for a planar setting - that had a much more exploration-y vibe from what I recall. And now someone's going to say how that wasn't Spelljammer either.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The planes I have read them reference so far in 5th Ed:

-Ethereal

-Faerie

-Negative Energy

-Positive Energy

 

[Someone]

D&D is not truly D&D without the Great Wheel

Curses, he's right! My books are actually Rolemaster pages bound with D&D covers!

 

[Steely_Dan]

1st Ed has the Great Wheel, what's wrong with considering that D&D?

Interesting how this seems to be a game where some people want it to be a different game than what it is.

 

[JasonZZ]

I don't want the "Great Wheel", I preferred 4e's base cosmology--it's closer to what I was working on in the later days of 3e.

What has me worried, though, is that the Great Wheel will be written into the mechanics like it was in 3e, so that you have to remake various spells to use anything else.

 

[Herschel]

The Great Wheel blew. I had gone away from it in previous editions and ended up with something that looked a whole lot like what 4E "introduced".

 

[Steely_Dan]

The Great Wheel blew.

See; there's no need for that, if you prefer the World Axis action, fine (I enjoy it myself), but do not say the D&D cosmology of over 30 years blew, it takes away any credibility you might have.

There is cosmological room for all of our preferences.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The Great Wheel is the classic D&D cosmology. That much they have right.

Cosmology shouldn't be assumed more than any aspect of setting though (which is to say, it shouldn't be assumed).

 

[Herschel]

Double post.