D&D 5E Is there even a new D&D setting?

Though we’ve been speculating about what the new setting recently pre-announced for D&D might or might not be (Icewind Dale being one suggestion), there's some doubt about whether it exists at all!

The press release that was sent out said:

Fans of D&D will learn all about the new setting and storyline as well as accompanying new products

The web page for the event says:

Fans of D&D will learn all about the new storyline as well as accompanying new products

The word “setting” is missing from the web page, but exists in the press release. The text is the same otherwise.

I don’t know which order the two were written in, or if the latter changed, or if the former contains extra information.

 

[Mercurius]

Still fond of:

"Shemeska's Guide to the Cage"

though my most confident bet for a "name of x" format book is still:

"Melf's Guide to the Flanaess"

I think it would more likely be Gary Gygax's World of Greyhawk as an homage, or simply The World of Greyhawk.

"Flanaess" is one of those odd Gygaxian words that they might not want to grace the cover.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I think it would more likely be Gary Gygax's World of Greyhawk as an homage, or simply The World of Greyhawk.

"Flanaess" is one of those odd Gygaxian words that they might not want to grace the cover.

"Melf" seems likely to me due to the probably involvement of Luke Gygax in any Greyhawk setting book. Especially after Melf is now playable in Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Xenonnonex]

As you say, it's tied to the orders of wizardry, not the alignment of the characters. A good sorcerer doesn't get affected by Solinari, but a good Wizard of High Sorcery does. So in a mechanical sense, it is tied to class, not to alignment. Now it may be that class (or in a probable 5E interpretation, subclass, has an alignment requirement, but that's second order. The mechanic is the class, and there is support for that in 5E.

It is tied to both. Allegiance is declared to alignment based on the Moon and Wizard Order.
Solinari is god of good magic. Lunitari is god of neutral magic. Nuitari is god of evil magic. Again. Tied to both alignment and class. The good sorcerer would be getting magic through Solinari. Unless the setting timeline is delusional.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

It is tied to both. Allegiance is declared to alignment based on the Moon and Wizard Order.
Solinari is god of good magic. Lunitari is god of neutral magic. Nuitari is god of evil magic. Again. Tied to both alignment and class. The good sorcerer would be getting magic through Solinari. Unless the setting timeline is delusional.

Sorcerers do not get their powers from the moons. They are not wizards. Neither are Knights of the Thorn. And renegade mages are not affected by the moons, no matter their alignment.

And you can be of a different alignment than your order. Fistandantilus was already evil before he changed from red robe to black.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'd guess that the planar manual would be Asmodeus's Travel Guide to the Planes, Vi's Vivacious Manual of Otherworldly Places, Shemska's Manual of the Planes, Elminsters Guide to the Planes, or something along those lines.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Sorcerers do not get their powers from the moons. They are not wizards. And renegade mages are not affected by the moons, no matter their alignment.

What does god of x magic mean. It does not care about distinction of class.
Again. The right timeline needs to be made clear. Sorcerers arose after the Chaos War. In that timeline the gods left.
Evil renegades get their powers from Takhisis.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Man, I dislike Dragonborn.

Why do you hate dragonborn?

 

[Xenonnonex]

Why do you hate dragonborn?

The puns just Dragon. He melted.

 

[Mercurius]

Why do you hate dragonborn?

Just an aesthetic thing, and probably not worth discussing at any length, at least in this thread. Different strokes and all. I'm not a D&D traditionalist and like exotic races and such--Talislanta is one of my all-time favorite settings--but for some reason, many of the D&D races that emerged in the last couple decades rub me the wrong way: dragonborn, tieflings, goliaths, shardminds, warforged, etc, all to varying degrees. But I like genasi and aasimar (a deva avenger I played in 4E was one of my all-time favorite PCs).

I'm not exactly sure why this is, but it may be because the races I don't like (man, that sentence sounds bad out of context) remind me of video games, which I'm generally not a fan of (that's another topic). Or it might be that they seem a bit zoo-like; I tend to also not like "furries" and anthropomorphic races, except in rare instances.

I can't say for certain, but I might like them better if they were either more draconic and alien, not wearing and using humanoid garb and weapons, or less draconic, human-like beings with reptilian qualities and/or draconic heritage in some way. I suppose if I was designing a world with something akin to a dragonborn, I'd make them humanoid-born, but gradually developing the ability to shift into a dragon, even permanently (similar to Dark Sun).

As a general rule, when I DM I don't include most of those races in my homebrew, unless a player insists on it, and then I'll work with them and make them from some far often distant land, unique, and/or altered in some way. I find that they tend to not thematically fit with my homebrew styles.

 

[darjr]

The Lady’s pamphlet of pain