D&D (2024) How will the 5.5e Core Book & in general deal with MtG settings?

[Henadic Theologian]

This caught my attention:

Mostly just mentions here and there, and art such as Bramble Sovereign full art for Dryads in the MM, BUT I could see some monsters that fit both D&D & MtG settings like Theros style Nymphs, Ravnican Angels (Ravnican style Angels would actually fit important gaps in D&D Angel line up), ending up in the MM, with the MtG influences intact. This has already happened in Candlekeep Mysteries with the Naiad when has MtG influences beyond mythogical or D&D influences built into her mechanics.

 

[Yaarel]

Mostly just mentions here and there, and art such as Bramble Sovereign full art for Dryads in the MM, BUT I could see some monsters that fit both D&D & MtG settings like Theros style Nymphs, Ravnican Angels (Ravnican style Angels would actually fit important gaps in D&D Angel line up), ending up in the MM, with the MtG influences intact. This has already happened in Candlekeep Mysteries with the Naiad when has MtG influences beyond mythogical or D&D influences built into her mechanics.

It didnt occur to me that they would, but they just might.

And why not?

I love Ravnica and Strixhaven. For me these are more D&D than Dragonlance or Mystara are because I never played them.

(Well, I played Dragonlance for one session, then we switched to an unrelated homebrew.)

 

[Henadic Theologian]

It didnt occur to me that they would, but they just might.

And why not?

I love Ravnica and Strixhaven. For me these are more D&D than Dragonlance or Mystara are because I never played them.

(Well, I played Dragonlance for one session, then we switched to an unrelated homebrew.)

Another thought in the back of the 5.5e PHB where they list the various historical pantheons and classic setting pantheons, they might also list Theros and even Ravnican Gods. Heck they might even list Kaldheim,Ixalan, and Amonkhet Gods.

 

[Yaarel]

Another thought in the back of the 5.5e PHB where they list the various historical pantheons and classic setting pantheons, they might also list Theros and even Ravnican Gods. Heck they might even list Kaldheim,Ixalan, and Amonkhet Gods.

I hope they put the pantheons in the DMs Guide. Pantheons are worldbuilding options that may or may not happen. The players need to ask the DM what religions are in the setting that their campaign is in.

The Forgotten Realms Guide should have its own religions; the Eberron Guide should have its own religions; the Dark Sun Guide should have its own religions; and the Players Handbook should be as setting-agnostic as possible.

Likewise, Magic the Gathering settings will have their own religions.

 

[glass]

I hope they put the pantheons in the DMs Guide. Pantheons are worldbuilding options that may or may not happen. The players need to ask the DM what religions are in the setting that their campaign is in.

They are, but they are also an character building element for certain classes (specifically divine casters). For example, the DM telling a prospective cleric player to pick from the Kaldheim pantheon does no good if said player does not have access to the details of said pantheon because it is in the DMG.

IOW, a player should not be required to buy the DMG just to create and play a cleric character.

 

[Yaarel]

They are, but they are also an character building element for certain classes (specifically divine casters). For example, the DM telling a prospective cleric player to pick from the Kaldheim pantheon does no good if said player does not have access to the details of said pantheon because it is in the DMG.

IOW, a player should not be required to buy the DMG just to create and play a cleric character.

A Cleric class wont need Zeus, if Zeus doesnt exist in the setting.

When irrelevant, Zeus in the Players Handbook is distracting.

The Cleric needs to consult with the DM about which religions do exist in the campaign. And viceversa, if the player has character concept for a Cleric, the DM needs to consult with the player about how it can fit in in the rest of the world.

Personally, as a worldbuilder DM, I find the Players Handbook disruptive to the world setting that I am trying to communicate with the players.

More than any other class, the Cleric class description must be setting agnostic.

 

[glass]

A Cleric class wont need Zeus, if Zeus doesnt exist in the setting.

But he does need something to tell him what domains are available (etc), and if that information is in the DMG that is not terribly useful.

More than any other class, the Cleric class description must be setting agnostic.

Unless we are going to say that every pantheon is mechanically identical and only the names you attach to "sky god", "war god", etc change, then more than any other class, the cleric class description cannot be setting agnostic. And as a worldbuilder, I would find that kind of shoehorning far worse than any minor distraction from a list of Pantheons I can easily tell players to ignore. Like multiple orders of magnitude worse; utterly corrosive.

 

[Yaarel]

But he does need something to tell him what domains are available (etc), and if that information is in the DMG that is not terribly useful.

The domains themselves are "cosmic forces", sacred symbols: Life, Light, Storm, War, etcetera.

Unless we are going to say that every pantheon is mechanically identical and only the names you attach to "sky god", "war god", etc change, then more than any other class, the cleric class description cannot be setting agnostic. And as a worldbuilder, I would find that kind of shoehorning far worse than any minor distraction from a list of Pantheons I can easily tell players to ignore. Like multiple orders of magnitude worse; utterly corrosive.

My opinion is, every D&D "god" is identical − and fungible.

Oh no, the god of magic just died. No problem. Here is the backup replacement, to fill in that fenderbender. Good as new!



I would rather have each setting with a real cosmological difference and genuinely different religious traditions.

Eberron gets it right. Each culture has its own KIND of religion.

 

[Haplo781]

They are, but they are also an character building element for certain classes (specifically divine casters). For example, the DM telling a prospective cleric player to pick from the Kaldheim pantheon does no good if said player does not have access to the details of said pantheon because it is in the DMG.

IOW, a player should not be required to buy the DMG just to create and play a cleric character.

They need to bring back domains as a core class mechanic.

 

[glass]

They need to bring back domains as a core class mechanic.

Did they take that away?

My opinion is, every D&D "god" is identical − and fungible.

Oh no, the god of magic just died. No problem. Here is the backup replacement, to fill in that fenderbender. Good as new!

I would rather have each setting with a real cosmological difference and genuinely different religious traditions.

Eberron gets it right. Each culture has its own KIND of religion.

Leaving de gustibus aside, you do realise that this supports my position and rebuts yours, right?

I mean, I get it. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had a player present a replacement character who was a follower of Gozreh in my PF1 Greyhawk game, and had to remind them that Gozreh was a Golarion god who did not exist on Oerth. It was a minor annoyance for all concerned, and I would love if it could be avoided. But I cannot see any way of avoiding it that does not fall into "the cure is worse than the disease".