D&D 5E Mearls on other settings

[Bolares]

Anyone else own a near mint copy of Spelljammer boxed set or is it just me?

C'mon, those books are older than me... and I'm certainly not in near mint condition XD

 

[Obryn]

Logically Monks kinda make sense but they get around the inferior weapons thing.

Something like a Sorcerer could maybe work on DS with a DS subclass (as long as they follow the defiling rules) but he Dragon Sorcerer should be out and DS is not that big on wild magic.

If made, it's going to be a D&D 5e setting, not an AD&D 2e setting. If monks had been in AD&D 2e, they absolutely would have fit right into the setting. Having one character who can ignore weapons a few levels before everyone else can is just not going to break anything.

(Also, I think it's a lot cleaner and easier for everyone to make bone/stone/etc. the 'default' weapon, and give metal weapons bonuses. But that's neither here nor there.)

I agree that sorcerers and warlocks and anything else with - let's call it - implied setting flavor - would need to be adapted, with perhaps a new subclass specific to Athas. I agree that Wild isn't setting-appropriate, but Athas has its Elemental Drakes which could serve as a 'totem' of sorts for dragon-style sorcery with just minor tweaks.

 

[Yaarel]

[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION]

Is it possible to restrict the Monk to unarmed combat *only*. No proficiency with any weapon. Theme-wise that could be cool.

 

[Gradine]

If you can't buy low level magic items from a licensed guild crafted in most cities, you've changed a core, fundamental, assumption of Eberron just to make it more like core.
And I can't just simply ignore that, I have to do work to create a magic item economy, because the items are different from past editions, and the core pricing model doesn't make any sense in a world like Eberron. OTOH, you could play Eberron how you're talking in any edition, by simply...saying magic items are more rare.

Finally, I'm not gatekeeping anything. Eberron is what it is, and it's a way of playing dnd that currently has no support in 5e. Using Eberron as a vehicle to explore a different way to play dnd is more valuable than using it to explore how to play Eberron like it's FR.

Here's my issue with that, and it's one of Eberron's fundamental contradictions. One of the key aspects of Eberron, one of the things that sets it apart from, say, especially FR, is that PCs (or characters with levels in PC classes) are exceptionally rare. Oftentimes PCs are the only ones capable of standing up to whatever menace threatens wherever. So why then am I expected to believe that 4e-style magic-item emporiums that cater exclusively to adventurers are somehow part-and-parcel with the setting?

For me, Eberron's wide-magic aspect is all about introducing magic as a consumer commodity. Eberron isn't about +2 axes and wands of lightning bolt; it's about magically-propelled plows and stones that instantly clean laundry. And while I can easily hand-wave magical weapon emporiums if I were playing the setting in 4e, because that system is built around (any honestly necessitates) such easy access to magical equipment, it's always felt like a hand-wave.

That's not to say that Eberron doesn't have a market for magical swords, and canonically they were mass-produced by House Cannith during the Last War and I'm sure they have a lot of leftover stock to unload still since the treaty. But while it makes sense for those stores to stock +1 swords in 3.5 or 4e, in 5e that doesn't make nearly as much sense. So what is a mass-produced "magical" sword in 5e's Eberron? Is it a sword that always stays sharp, never rusts, never needs cleaning? Maybe that magic isn't in the sword but in the scabbard (which I'd imagine would be easier and cheaper to produce, but I'm sure someone with a better grounding in medieval historical accuracy will come in to correct me). Maybe that "magic" bow has a string that never snaps, that "magic" mace feels much lighter to wield (without actually being any lighter) and is thus more accessible to raw conscripts without much upper body strength.

It's these kinds of details, not "a thousand +1 swords", that have always defined the magical economy of Eberron to me. And it's the leaning on these kinds of details that would help bring the setting to life in 5e without screwing up the game balance or having to make many adjustments to the DMG's magic item lists (there'd need to be some, of course, like restricting certain items to Dragonmarked users).

Your interpretation of Eberron is as valid as any other; telling someone not to buy the product because their interpretation doesn't line up to yours is gatekeeping and frankly behavior.

 

[Bolares]

That's not to say that Eberron doesn't have a market for magical swords, and canonically they were mass-produced by House Cannith during the Last War and I'm sure they have a lot of leftover stock to unload still since the treaty. But while it makes sense for those stores to stock +1 swords in 3.5 or 4e, in 5e that doesn't make nearly as much sense. So what is a mass-produced "magical" sword in 5e's Eberron? Is it a sword that always stays sharp, never rusts, never needs cleaning? Maybe that magic isn't in the sword but in the scabbard (which I'd imagine would be easier and cheaper to produce, but I'm sure someone with a better grounding in medieval historical accuracy will come in to correct me). Maybe that "magic" bow has a string that never snaps, that "magic" mace feels much lighter to wield (without actually being any lighter) and is thus more accessible to raw conscripts without much upper body strength.

For me, this is just perfect

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Making Eberron fit 5e magic item assumptions isn't a worthwhile goal, imo. You can do that on your own with literally no effort.

Going the other way takes work for the DM. The path that allows both styles with minimal DM work is obviously good, and "5e has different magic item assumptions" isn't a strong reason to change an established setting's canon.

As to your "contradiction" claim, nope, it isn't a contradiction.

*PC leveled people are rare, not adventurers. Adventurers aren't rare at all.

*the Magic item economy doesn't cater exclusively to adventurers. It also sells to guards, nobles, etc

*the magic item economy has plenty of goods that are useful to both PCs and regular folk, not just arms and armor.

"Low level magic isn't rare in this world" *does* contradict "you have to go into dungeons to find a bag of holding or +1 sword"

That whole thing runs counter to Eberron's underlying premises.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Double post

 

[MechaPilot]

That's a cop out. If I'm playing an Athas campaign, I want Athasian PCs. I don't want "Bob, who came from Oerth" hanging out. I want to use Eladrin NPCs, tell stories tied to the Eladrin, and have multiple Eladrin PCs. I don't want "planeswalker eladrin ends up a Athas". There are far better ways to integrate a new race than have every one of them be off-worlders.

It's not a cop-out. It's a valid route for saying "yes" to players who want to play something that isn't otherwise present.

Also, you completely ignored the following part where I stipulated including variants that would be in keeping with the setting:

Maybe, but it's also far less appropriate than saying "they would ordinary be excluded because Athas lacks a connection to the feywild, but here's a modified version that fits with the themes and character of the setting."

You're fighting on both sides of the argument now?

Not at all. I'm saying that orcs in DL make as much sense as Eladrin in Athas, and that in both instances the settings should say "they are ordinarily excluded because (insert reasons here), but here's a modified version that fits with the setting, and here's how to include the original version if you choose to."

There are no orcs. But heres how to import a bunch of orcs from Faerun.

You just said the "they're ordinarily excluded for _____ reason but here's a modified version that fits, and here's a way to include them if you choose to do so" option wasn't good enough when I proposed it. Which is it.

Sure. A 5e update, and then the 2e PDFs to show the world "as it was". Win-win.

As long as I can buy a cheap book or PDF of the 5e mechanical updates only (without having to buy the full 5e setting book) and use that alongside 2e, 3e, or 4e books or PDFs when running a 5e game.

I was. However, isn't ironic to comment how you like the 3e changes to Ravenloft when it introduced Calibans (Ravenloft half-orcs) and found places for paladins, druids, bards, barbarians, monks, and sorcerers in the setting? Not just "ported over and stuck" but home-grown versions? By your Dark Sun example, The Ravenloft PHB should only have had Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, Wizards, Clerics, and then a section on "how to import other classes from other settings".

It shows what I've been on about, you CAN expand the setting's options while keeping true to its spirit.

I literally never said you can't add to a setting or change anything. Maybe you're mistaking me for another poster. So no, it's not ironic. What I have said, and what I am getting pretty sick and tired of having to repeat by now since some people obviously aren't actually reading what I'm saying, is this:

any additions or changes should be in keeping with the tone, themes, character and feel of the setting.

I didn't mean to direct it at you, I was directing it at the setting. A setting needs to grow and evolve. It Dark Sun doesn't allow more options that it did in 2e, its not worth converting. There is nothing about gothic horror that precludes monks or elves. There is nothing about sword-and-sandals that precludes warlocks and dragonborn. There is nothing about romantic fantasy that precludes sorcerers and half-orcs. The tone of the world isn't defined by what is cut out of the PHB.

As long as all the additions or changes are in keeping with the tone, themes, character and feel of the setting, I don't mind. Something clearly evidenced by my enjoyment of several things that were done with 3e Ravenloft, especially with the passing of the torch between Van Richten and the Weathermay twins.

 

[MechaPilot]

If made, it's going to be a D&D 5e setting, not an AD&D 2e setting. If monks had been in AD&D 2e, they absolutely would have fit right into the setting. Having one character who can ignore weapons a few levels before everyone else can is just not going to break anything.

(Also, I think it's a lot cleaner and easier for everyone to make bone/stone/etc. the 'default' weapon, and give metal weapons bonuses. But that's neither here nor there.)

I agree that sorcerers and warlocks and anything else with - let's call it - implied setting flavor - would need to be adapted, with perhaps a new subclass specific to Athas. I agree that Wild isn't setting-appropriate, but Athas has its Elemental Drakes which could serve as a 'totem' of sorts for dragon-style sorcery with just minor tweaks.

I have a homebrew setting called Wildwood, where metal is very rare (as in Dark Sun) because nature won't tolerate the continued existence of civilizations who develop any extensive mining and metalworking capability.

In that setting, weapons of wood, bone, and stone are the default. Metal weapons exist, but they're given benefits as if they were magical weapons (I don't do +X bonuses, but if I did, that's what they'd have). I agree with you that handling inferior quality weapons in that way (where inferior quality weapons are what is ordinarily used) is simplest and easiest.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Any class that gets around the themes of Darksun- Monks for example (unarmed combat is to good on a depleted world).
Time travel based classes (chronomancers)

Okay, this line of thought bugs the heck out of me.


Specifically "I:m going to ban monks from Darksun because fighting unarmed is a very good answer to having poor materials for making weapons"


Do you happen to be aware of the major motivation for creating martial arts in the real world?

Lack of material for making decent weapons.



Monks would likely have existed in the world of Darksun before everything became cataclysmic and bad and so monasteries where people learn how to fight without weapons just makes so much sense.

It's like saying you are creating a setting where openly wielding a weapon is forbidden, so you're getting rid of monks, spellcasters, and daggers because those all are answers to the problem of having your weapons banned. Yes, of course those are answers, that's why people would use them, because they solve the problem that people have, ie not having a reliable way to defend yourself.



Also, why are we banning things that don't exist like that Chronomancer? It... seems to be an odd choice. Did I miss a UA or something?

Logically Monks kinda make sense but they get around the inferior weapons thing

Okay... and?

Why is this a problem? Being a Psion who focuses on blasting with their mind gets around the inferior weapons thing as well. Being a Lizardfolk with a 1d6 bite attack helps get around the inferior weapons thing as well.

Why ban a class that makes sense just because they get around this rather minor point.


I mean, how inferior are the weapons anyways? Bows are still made of non-metal materials, arrows are tipped differently, but does that mean a lower damage die? If glass tipped arrows are going to deal the same 1d8 from a longbow than any archer build also gets around the inferior weapons.

I mean, this seems like a really minor detail and it's just a side effect of little to no metal.