D&D 5E Cosmological Layout
- Thread starter SkidAce
- Start date
Im pretty sure 5e has gone back to the cosmos of the past, at least according to the players handbook, but it did add some of the elements from 4e into it. A revised Look! We still have the Feywild I see they have kept the name elemental chaos but changed its cosmetology. The wheel is back and the elemental planes are back.
And it wasn't crap because I didn't like it, It was crap without me knowing about it. I wasn't aware they had changed the cosmos at all as I didn't play 4e, I just happened upon the manual of planes 4e when I was looking for information on the Warlocks patrons from the Feywild. So it was crap years before I read about it. That might explain why they scrapped it and reverted back to the older version.
As for the home brew, I can see the work he put into remaking the cosmic landscape. Skidace obviously put a lot of work into moving the planes around and making new ones. It looks great for the homebrew game and his artistic ability is on point.
dave2008
Legend
The 5e DMG discusses the Dawn War Pantheon and the World Axis cosmology. That is what I was talking about. You could use both in 5e with no issues.
Again, because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is crap. It is your opinion that it is crap, so to you it seems that it always was, but that is a very narrow point of view. If you can't realize that is your subjective opinion and not objective fact then that is just sad for you.
Personally, I find it much more interesting than the great wheel and I started with 1e D&D / AD&D back in the 80's. It was one the reasons I started playing D&D again as it was like a deluge cleaning out the Augean stables of AD&D. It definitely reflects real-life mythologies more, but perhaps you are not familiar with them.
dave2008
Legend
Perhaps you have a lack of knowledge about the cosmology then. Maybe you should read-up on it some more before you make bold claims?
Once again, its not my opinion that makes it crap. If I had never read the 4e manual of planes it would still be crap. My opinion has nothing to do with it. The 5e rules as presented in the players handbook (you know the rule book? right? you seen it?) has reverted away from the 4e. So much for the cleaning out the Augean stables huh. They didn't do that because it such a great improvement. You are free to like it even if it was crap. I think the concept of the "Plane" of Feywild is crap but I really like the concept of the setting. It could have been its own campaign setting.
Let me say it a way you might be able to understand. You can like a bad movie all you want.. it is still a bad movie. At that point you can argue how good the move is or you can suck it up and say I like it even though its a bad movie.
Dave buddy you seem a little lost, if you played DnD in the 80's you know that 4e changed the cosmology of the universe. It a clear change from everything else. They added planes, they moved planes, they removed planes and they merged planes. In 5e they scrap the majority of it and went back the original concepts. I don't lack knowledge in that aspect as I can freely point to the source material if you need it.
5e seems to be a refinement or evolution of the DnD settings , the world axis more a deviation. My opinion of this is moot. It is what it is. There is nothing for you to be defensive about, I don't care if you love the wheel, the tree,the axis or any of the other examples they provide for creating your own campaign world. But the GAME DESIGNERS picked the wheel.
EDIT: I don't want to hijack this thread bickering back and forth with you on what ever bovine scatology straw arguments you want to muck off the Augean stables floor. (like how I included your reference in that? It was very inclusive of me) the focus should be on his creation and the fine job he did putting it together, so if you have a reply take it to private messages and we can spare these good people our squabbling.
Last edited:
dave2008
Legend
Correct, because it is not crap
I am always surprised that people have such narrow perspectives. Your logic is extremely flawed. You are trying to apply an objective determination to a subjective quality. By what metric have you, or the entire world I guess, determined the World Axis cosmology is crap?
You are of course free to call something crap, but doing so does not make it so. To be clear, even if WA is objectively not as good as the GW that would not make it crap. The quality of a fictional cosmology is almost entirely subjective. It is an opinion, not an objective fact. Your continued ramblings will not change that fact.
I am aware. However, the fact that it changed things doesn't make the cosmology crap. It might be frustrating to those who are tethered to the Great Wheel, but that is beside the point. It might change one's view of the cosmology, but it doesn't mean it has more or less merit as a cosmology.
To be honest I was thinking more about the overall mythology of World Axis and not just the cosmos itself. Knowledge of what was added and subtracted or rearranged is only the surface of it. If that is the extent of your knowledge, then you have answered my question.
Oh I wouldn't say I love the World Axis cosmos, but I do prefer it to the Great Wheel. In fact, the cosmos we use has bits of both. We have the traditional outer planes of the great wheel located like the domains within the astral sea and we have the positive and negative plans too, but I am think about dropping them as they don't do anything for us. I actually constructed a 3d CAD model of it once, but I am not sure what happened to it. I definitely prefer the World Axis mythology, but that could be used with the Great Wheel with little effort.
What is your point? Are you trying to suggest that because WotC switched back to the Great Wheel (mostly) for 5e that the World Axis is crap? Again, that is a very narrow perspective. As I noted above, even if the GW is better, that doesn't make the WA crap.
I wonder, can you explain what you believe makes the World Axis objectively crap? Or, what makes the Great Wheel Great?
dave2008
Legend
Good point! Unfortunately I already replied. In the future I will PM you if I feel the need.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Not sure whether this will add anything or not, but the way I've always seen it is that all the different worlds are in one great big Prime Material plane*. However, this leads to some odd and messy interactions with long-range transport spells - can you teleport to another world? - and so I tweaked both teleport (range becomes the planet or world you are on) and planeshift (used to jump between planes or between worlds in the Prime Material) to suit. I also see many of the "outer" planes as in effect just being their own worlds for purposes of teleport etc., only ridiculously big in some cases.
* - which is also what's driving much of my discussion in the lore-as-canon thread regarding things from one published setting being able to appear in another: they're all in the same plane.
Lan-"if someone ever comes up with a reptilian cosmology would it be called "Planes on a Snake"?"-efan
* - which is also what's driving much of my discussion in the lore-as-canon thread regarding things from one published setting being able to appear in another: they're all in the same plane.
Lan-"if someone ever comes up with a reptilian cosmology would it be called "Planes on a Snake"?"-efan
Thank you.
Yeah, all those material worlds floating in space could be one great big material plane, and would definitely cause teleport concerns. (assuming you want travel to be part of the adventure, as I do)
Thats the reason I define it as "The Million Spheres" and basically limit teleport to that world or sphere.
Similar Threads
