D&D (2024) DMG Chapter Preview: James Wyatt Talks Cosmology

[Henadic Theologian]

It's interesting that along side all these planes Eberron is there, I want to know if they explain how Eberron/Great Orrey fits within the broader cosmology.

I like that Paraelemental Planes are back properly, although I wish they'd figure out how to fit in the Quasi Elemental planes in too.

I'm glad the layers are listed for the Planes, along with stuff like Oceanus.

The art I'd gorgeous.

I like that the Planar effects are else where so that they can manifest outside the plane when the Planar energies manifest on say the material plane, Echo planes, etc...

He forgot to mention the elemental chaos.

Also he mentions Ray Winninger wrote a portion of the DMG 2024.

 

[Corinnguard]

It's interesting that along side all these planes Eberron is there, I want to know if they explain how Eberron/Great Orrey fits within the broader cosmology.

Back in 5e's Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, there was mention of how Eberron fit within the broader cosmology.

The myths of Eberron describe the involvement of the three Progenitor Dragons in that world's creation: Siberys, the Dragon Above; Khyber, the Dragon Below; and Eberron, the Dragon Between. These godlike beings are said to have created a microcosm of the multiverse in the depths of the Ethereal Plane, sequestered away from the Outer Planes and all the influence of the gods and other cosmic powers. Viewed through the lens of "Elegy for the First World," Eberron is thus not actually a fragment of the First World, but a second-generation derivative of that original realm-yet even Eberron is profoundly shaped by dragons.

Not sure if this will be the case in 5.5e, if and when a new version of Eberron shows up.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not sure if this will be the case in 5.5e, if and when a new version of Eberron shows up.

Probably not, because from what I've been able to glean... Keith Baker doesn't really even care about trying to "define" it anymore.

If a player wants Eberron to be a part of the "D&D Multiverse", they can. If they want it to be a completely separate thing that has nothing to do with the "D&D Multiverse", they can. And it doesn't matter what anyone else writes in different books about it or tries to define how they all connect (or don't)... every DM can just do what they want.

We don't need the books to reflect our choices. They are merely singular versions that we can take or leave-- mine for ideas or ignore. It's up to every player to decide for themselves.

 

[TwoSix]

Probably not, because from what I've been able to glean... Keith Baker doesn't really even care about trying to "define" it anymore.

If a player wants Eberron to be a part of the "D&D Multiverse", they can. If they want it to be a completely separate thing that has nothing to do with the "D&D Multiverse", they can. And it doesn't matter what anyone else writes in different books about it or tries to define how they all connect (or don't)... every DM can just do what they want.

We don't need the books to reflect our choices. They are merely singular versions that we can take or leave-- mine for ideas or ignore. It's up to every player to decide for themselves.

Yep. One thing I really like about Keith Baker is that his entire focus for Eberron is "What tells the best stories for you?" He does not care a whit about canonicity or continuity, which is way too rare in someone who's done a well-known project of worldbuilding.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Back in 5e's Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, there was mention of how Eberron fit within the broader cosmology.

The myths of Eberron describe the involvement of the three Progenitor Dragons in that world's creation: Siberys, the Dragon Above; Khyber, the Dragon Below; and Eberron, the Dragon Between. These godlike beings are said to have created a microcosm of the multiverse in the depths of the Ethereal Plane, sequestered away from the Outer Planes and all the influence of the gods and other cosmic powers. Viewed through the lens of "Elegy for the First World," Eberron is thus not actually a fragment of the First World, but a second-generation derivative of that original realm-yet even Eberron is profoundly shaped by dragons.

Not sure if this will be the case in 5.5e, if and when a new version of Eberron shows up.

They need to pick something and stick with it, if this is the story they picked, then stick with it, don't keeping changing it.

 

[Minigiant]

They need to pick something and stick with it, if this is the story they picked, then stick with it, don't keeping changing it.

I think the idea is the Dragon gods created the First World but each setting which this theory with their dragon gods.

 

[Parmandur]

It's interesting that along side all these planes Eberron is there, I want to know if they explain how Eberron/Great Orrey fits within the broader cosmology.

I don't think "Eberron is a seperate cosmos" really holds weight in the DMG.

He forgot to mention the elemental chaos.

Both ideas are basically covered on the first page of the chapter, which states that the Great Wheel is just a theoretical model, which may or may not reflect anything "real" per se since the way people travel between Planes is through portals. The "spatial" relationship is philosophical.

As such. There is a section for "Other Configurations" that includes the 4E World Axis w/ Elemental Chaosand the Great Orrey scheme (though neither are called out by name):

"For your campaign, you can use a different model of the planes. Here are several examples:

• "Planes situated among the roots and branches of a great cosmic tree (literally or figuratively)"
• "Material Realms suspended between two other realities: the astral realms (the Astral Plane and the Outer Planes) above and the Elemental Realms (the Inner Planes) below"
• "A cosmology with fewer planes: a Material Plane; the Transitive Planes; a single undifferentiated Elemental Plane, where all four elements churn in chaos; an Overheaven where good deities and Celestials dwell; and an Underworld, where evil deities and Fiends reside"
• "Planes arranged in a complex system of orbits, with planes exerting greater influence on the Material Plane the closer they draw to it"

 

[Parmandur]

They need to pick something and stick with it, if this is the story they picked, then stick with it, don't keeping changing it.

It is all written in shifting sand: take what you will and work with it, WotC won't be more consistent than they have been.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think "Eberron is a seperate cosmos" really holds weight in the DMG.

Both ideas are basically covered on the first page of the chapter, which states that the Great Wheel is just a theoretical model, which may or may not reflect anything "real" per se since the way people travel between Planes is through portals. The "spatial" relationship is philosophical.

As such. There is a section for "Other Configurations" that includes the 4E World Axis w/ Elemental Chaosand the Great Orrey scheme (though neither are called out by name):

"For your campaign, you can use a different model of the planes. Here are several examples:

• "Planes situated among the roots and branches of a great cosmic tree (literally or figuratively)"
• "Material Realms suspended between two other realities: the astral realms (the Astral Plane and the Outer Planes) above and the Elemental Realms (the Inner Planes) below"
• "A cosmology with fewer planes: a Material Plane; the Transitive Planes; a single undifferentiated Elemental Plane, where all four elements churn in chaos; an Overheaven where good deities and Celestials dwell; and an Underworld, where evil deities and Fiends reside"
• "Planes arranged in a complex system of orbits, with planes exerting greater influence on the Material Plane the closer they draw to it"

My campaign is based on the 9 worlds of Norse mythology. Of course I also approach it more like quantum physics: we don't really understand it but we can come up with constructs that make sense to us that seem to fit. Is there really a world tree that spans different realms? Maybe. Or maybe they just describe it that way because a tree makes sense.

Then again, I've never really had much use for things like a plane of fire where people instantly die if they go there. I never saw a reason for it to exist if it's not a potential playground and I don't think things like fire elementals need a home plane of existence.

So any cosmology should be whatever works for a DM and group.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the 2014 DMG they were border regions that were "sometimes called" the Plane of Ice/Ooze/Magma/Ash. None had their own independent section and all were described under the entries for the four main elemental planes. Their positions as planes of their own seems to have had serious doubt cast on them. And they were definitely not called "para-elemental."

What is the practical difference between them being regions planes between the main elemental planes and them being their own planes between the elemental planes?