Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6154864" data-attributes="member: 78752">I'm conflicted by all of this.  I love Planescape -- own a complete collection -- but the D&D4 cosmology was just so elegant.  I will miss the Astral Sea something fierce.  Maybe they'll drop back to AD&D1 for inspiration and bring back the Plane of Concordant Opposition and its empty expanse.  The Outlands were never well developed beyond a bunch of isolated points of interest in any case.  Might as well make them floating islands.I kind of like the elemental rings but hope they retain D&D4's internal consistency and use concentric rings of intensity throughout the cosmology if that's the direction they choose to go, even if it means kissing the Sea goodbye.  It was the internal consistency that made D&D4's setting so attractive -- as amazing as Planescape is, it is very cobbled together.I have no objection to the logic that makes the Feywild and Shadowfell bridges to the energy planes (again, hope they make them all rings), but I sincerely hope Mike's use of the name Ravenloft was a slip -- no one in-universe has ever called the Demiplane of Dread "Ravenloft," not even the Barovians.As much as I love Spelljammer I'd just as soon see the developers not waste their time with a non-transitive version.  Space travel isn't much fun without ports of call.  Of course, part of me is pretty convinced that all the setting name-dropping at the end of the article is for naught anyway -- I suspect the goal is to make D&D5 /compatible/ with all of those settings and sell old PDFs, not actually publish new material for any of them.Still folded into the astral, I hope.  It's always been redundant, and far less interesting than its Githyanki-infested cousin.</blockquote>

Verification