Planescape Manual of the Planes for 5e on DMSGuild

New on the DMSGuild is the Manual of the Planes for 5th edition. The cover is stunning.

​

It's over 300 pages and the credits page includes folks from The Draconomicon, The Dragonlance Companion, Tasha's Crucible of Everything Else, Planescape: Metropolis, The Honkonomicon and Planewalker.com

​

I love the special thanks.

This project was made possible by Roll20. Thank you for unlocking new horizons for the latest generation of planewalkers, bashers, berks, and touts. We’d also like to thank the giants on whose shoulders we stand when writing this book: Justice Ramin Arman, Richard Baker, Wolfgang Baur, David “Zeb” Cook, Bruce R. Cordell, Jeff Grubb, David Noonan, F. Wesley Schneider, Rick Swan, and all others who helped create and cultivate Planescape and the planes.

I've just bought it and am reading it now.

Manual of the Planes (5e) - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Manual of the Planes (5e) - From creators behind The Draconomicon, Tasha's Crucible of Everything Else, Planescape: Metropolis, The Honkonomic

www.dmsguild.com

Here is the table of contents.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Uh, this is literally what you said at the time:



And then this




So when you "reviewed" it relative to the WOTC product, which is what I was responding to, you had not even read it.

It was enough to get an idea about what it covered, and it wasn't a review, it was a simple impression based on what I saw, an expectation based mostly on the ToC.

And I was right 100% right.

But honestly I finally got my copy of Midgard World Book, and that one even more brutally outshines the slipcase setting products. That is the standard official setting books should be meeting IMHO.

Between Southlands and Midgard world books, they just destroyed WotC.

 

[Mistwell]

It was enough to get an idea about what it covered, and it wasn't a review, it was a simple impression based on what I saw, an expectation based mostly on the ToC.

The language you used was so over the top that it showed very obvious bias on your part. You were claiming a product was so superior to another that, in the very least, you should have read them both before expressing such a stance. Instead you've doubled and tripled down on the hyperbolic rhetoric. Which you're free to do but my entire point is when you choose to do that, anyone you're trying to persuade to think differently about WOTC on this topic, or about third party products, is much more likely to be dismissive and discount your opinion when you choose that manner to do it.

I definitely would have considered the two third party products more had you left the "I hate WOTC" out of your mention of it entirely. Instead in my view you sabotaged your own attempt to persuade and/or inform people about these two third party products.

 

[Corinnguard]

Which you're free to do but my entire point is when you choose to do that, anyone you're trying to persuade to think differently about WOTC on this topic, or about third party products, is much more likely to be dismissive and discount your opinion when you choose that manner to do it.

Another possibility is that they'll check out these 3pp products in order to see for themselves if he is right or wrong about his views of WoTC.

Sometimes a 3pp product is better than the product made by the main producer of 5e D&D.

 

[Mistwell]

Another possibility is that they'll check out these 3pp products in order to see for themselves if he is right or wrong about his views of WoTC.

Sometimes a 3pp product is better than the product made by the main producer of 5e D&D.

If you're someone who is even "OK" with WOTC, you're not inclined to check out recommendations from someone who uses language that strong to denigrate WOTC in the context of their recommendation.

Imagine anything else in life:

Example. Let's say you happen to like Starbucks coffee. It's not amazing to you, but it's firmly on your "I am fine with this and will continue to enjoy it in the future."

Some stranger comes along and wants you to check out a new coffee shop. They don't say, "If you like Starbucks I think you will love this place because it's like Starbucks only a notch better in flavor." Instead they say, "Starbucks sucks. Starbucks is awful. I can't believe you'd tolerate going to Starbucks. They're just wretched. You should go to this other place instead. Or really any other place."

I think most people would be inclined to dismiss that guy. They'd realize they're not really all that praiseworthy of the other place - the praise for the other place was just an excuse to pontificate about how much they hate Starbucks. And so if you kinda like Starbucks, you know you're not on the same page with that person from the get go.

 

[Corinnguard]

If you're someone who is even "OK" with WOTC, you're not inclined to check out recommendations from someone who uses language that strong to denigrate WOTC in the context of their recommendation.

You are not inclined to check out recommendations from someone who you believe denigrates WoTC. It may be a different story for me. If I was interested in a 3pp product for 5e and I knew that Henadic had bought this same product earlier, I think I would ask him for his thoughts on it. Is it a good product worth spending my money on? What do you personally like about it? Are there any parts of it that you don't like, and are willing to homebrew for a fix? And so forth.

And if Henadic brought up what he didn't like about WoTC during the chat, I would like to think I would ask him about why he doesn't like it. I would like to try and keep an open mind. As what he might say about WoTC isn't going to sway me much in wanting to get the 3pp product I developed an interest in. We would agree to disagree.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

The language you used was so over the top that it showed very obvious bias on your part. You were claiming a product was so superior to another that, in the very least, you should have read them both before expressing such a stance. Instead you've doubled and tripled down on the hyperbolic rhetoric. Which you're free to do but my entire point is when you choose to do that, anyone you're trying to persuade to think differently about WOTC on this topic, or about third party products, is much more likely to be dismissive and discount your opinion when you choose that manner to do it.

I definitely would have considered the two third party products more had you left the "I hate WOTC" out of your mention of it entirely. Instead in my view you sabotaged your own attempt to persuade and/or inform people about these two third party products.

I know what I want in a product, that is a kind of bias yes, one I'm okay with.

But it's not an anti WotC bias, because NOTHING external stops WotC from putting out products of this quality, they consciously choose not to. E: RftLW and EGtW were great, VRGtR was a mixed bag, with GMGtR and MOoT being mostly great.

I loved the Waterdeep products and BG: DiA (except nor having an alternate fuel source to soul coins).

I'm also mostly very happy with the 5.5e playtest, some quibbles, but majority happy.

But S: CoC, Spelljammer, and to a much lesser extent were disasters.

So no I don't have an anti WotC bias.

I just have certain expectations.

 

[Zaukrie]

Just want to say congrats on the sales! Excited and happy for you.

 

[afroakuma]

Just want to say congrats on the sales! Excited and happy for you.

Much appreciated! Really hoping we delivered worthwhile content. I know the alternate preview showcases a few of my fiends - hoping to find out how people enjoy them.

 

[Mistwell]

I know what I want in a product, that is a kind of bias yes, one I'm okay with.

But it's not an anti WotC bias, because NOTHING external stops WotC from putting out products of this quality, they consciously choose not to. E: RftLW and EGtW were great, VRGtR was a mixed bag, with GMGtR and MOoT being mostly great.

I loved the Waterdeep products and BG: DiA (except nor having an alternate fuel source to soul coins).

I'm also mostly very happy with the 5.5e playtest, some quibbles, but majority happy.

But S: CoC, Spelljammer, and to a much lesser extent were disasters.

So no I don't have an anti WotC bias.

I just have certain expectations.

That didn't come through in the post I was replying to. "I like a lot of 5e stuff but I feel like recently they could have done better and this product is a good example of the direction I wish they'd lean into more" is not a theme I really got from your post.

 

[WhatLiesBeyond]

I just noticed that The Isle of Dread is on the plane of water. It's the same island shape as the module.

The Isle of Dread has a lot of weirdness attached to it that I wasn't sure how to handle in this book, hence why I didn't do anything with it. I've been loving the Savage Tide adventure path from 3.5 and recognize the shape from there as well, although the connection to the Plane of Water seems entirely new to 5e.

I wonder if we'll ever go back there and if we'll ever see the Rakasta again.