D&D 5E Check Out Planescape's Table of Contents & More!

Brandes Stoddard has received a copy of Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse (which come out in two weeks!) and is posting loads of photos over on Blue Sky. You can check out his feed for the whole treasure trove--here's a look at the table of contents.

 

[dave2008]

I don’t disagree, but I do think that ‘this is the core box for this line, further support is on its way” lands different than “this is probably the only product you’re going to get”.

Though we all know there is likely to be a lot of support on DMsGuild. Heck, you can already get ton of info on the planes their.

 

[Scribe]

I don't care what WAR says, not everything needs to be covered in belts and angst.

Hard disagree.

Anyway, I'm now docking 2 points, but I still think this looks great.

 

[dave2008]

I am not talking about a DMs Guild product. I am talking about a Planar 3PP product. WotC put the SRD into Creative Commons. Everything in it is fair game. There is a lot of Great Wheel cosmology that is in it. Someone could do a 3PP Great Wheel book and it would be perfectly legal.

OK, I am not familiar with what is actually in the SRD. I assumed setting specific locations and names area not in the SRD

 

[delericho]

They have changed their minds since Eberron on how to handle settings. It's a big part of why I'm mostly done with WotC, as settings are all they have to offer me (for obvious legal reasons). Less is...less I guess?

Indeed. Which is unfortunate, because of all the classic settings they've touched (that I've seen), it was the best, IMO.

Actually, it's perhaps worth noting that 5e Eberron had virtually nothing that we hadn't seen before (and even less following the DM's Guild teaser product). But what it did do, like the 4e version before it, was bring together a lot of the very best of the extensive 3e material to provide a very solid one-volume version of the setting. So while I own all the 3e and 4e books, I still find it to be of value, simply for that.

 

[dave2008]

What is your issue with the quote?

The in-person speech. There is a planescape term for it, but I don't know what it is called. I like more sourcebooks to have more technical writing.

 

[overgeeked]

OK, I am not familiar with what is actually in the SRD. I assumed setting specific locations and names area not in the SRD

It's a mixed bag. Some stuff is detailed other stuff is name dropped, still other stuff is left out completely. Anyone using planar stuff from the SRD will need to be incredibly careful and go over their documents with a fine-toothed comb to ensure they don't accidentally include things not actually covered by the creative commons license.

 

[Demetrios1453]

No so in Ohio, I didn't see most, if any, of those products. That being said I was still playing 1e/BECMI when they came out. Though I didn't really think of 2e as a different edition (looked the same to us), I didn't by many 2e books and none of the settings.

Hmm, I was able to pick them up in my local comic book shops in Cincinnati and Louisville. Although they did seem to have smaller print runs over time. I remember leftover Planes of Chaos sets for years after they came out, but the others were harder to find after their release.

 

[dave2008]

What exactly, the slang? The in-person narration? It seems from text we've seen that both have been dropped (I guess we might see some sidebars or sticky notes in the style, though)

Yes, I like my RPG books more technical in writing. I'm not reading a novel.

 

[Scribe]

OK, I am not familiar with what is actually in the SRD. I assumed setting specific locations and names area not in the SRD

In terms of the planes, there are name drops for a few in 5e. I would have to go back but 3e SRD has more/most?

Just look at the similarities in PF1.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There was also Strixhaven, which was in the Dragonlance style (or Dragonlance was in the Strixhaven style, I suppose). Radiant Citadel was arguably kind of a setting book too, though yet another different style.

Fair enough, although not a point against my claim.