Ravnica: Is This The New D&D Setting? [UPDATED & CONFIRMED!]

If so... meh?

 

[Dausuul]

Y'know, when that UA with the Circle of Spores druid showed up a while back, I thought, "Man, that sounds like classic Golgari."

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I think the cover girl is of the School of Invention subclass they had in an UA article months ago. Hopefully they really went back to the drawing board with that one, as I felt there were many issues with that subclass.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Its called expanding the audience.

You and I already buy everything. They can survive us being disappointed.

What's at stake here is getting new gamers into buying D&D books.

They have simply decided the number of new customers isn't increasing as quickly if they release something nobody outside of DnD has heard of.

This. I'd love a 5E version of Spelljammer or Planescape but you have to bring new people in as well. I don't know much about Ravnica but it sounds cool as hell. Eberron was new once, I recall being excited about it in 2004 - that was then and this is now. Time for innovation again.

 

[vpuigdoller]

I believe at least the artificer class is inside the Ravnica book. Im wondering about the races though. Second option is a free pdf with the races and class on wizards website or dms guild.

 

[Mercule]

Its called expanding the audience.

You and I already buy everything. They can survive us being disappointed.

You may be speaking directly to Jester David based on specific knowledge, but this sounds like general assumption.

As another grognard, I do not already buy everything. I have plenty of disposable income to throw at D&D, but I don't buy stuff that seems tightly coupled to the Realms (or other settings I don't like). I specifically buy things for settings I like, including to mine for homebrew.

5E has been releasing stuff that mostly tied to the Realms, even when it doesn't need to be. The net effect is that my disposable income is mostly going towards buying books for other systems (even though I'm currently playing D&D exclusively) or towards board games on Kickstarter.

This isn't to say that the MtG crossover is a bad thing (I think it's good, even if it doesn't look interesting to me). I'm just poking at the idea that the established players are, or will continue to, throw money at WotC without consideration.

 

[Mercule]

I believe at least the artificer class is inside the Ravnica book. Im wondering about the races though. Second option is a free pdf with the races and class on wizards website or dms guild.

Source?

If there's enough material in the book for me to mine, I'll probably check it out. I suspect that there's very little I actually care about, though. If this is true, I might end up just cherry-picking the artificer on DDB.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm sure there are a lot of MtG fans who aren't Ravnica fans who won't care about this. (One of the first comments I saw on Twitter was "I want Tarkir".) And there are the MtG fans who are Ravnica fans who don't care about D&D and have no interest in this book.
Maybe some MtG fans will see this, give the book a read and decide to play D&D. But I suspect not having a familiar world was a the barrier to MtG fans jumping into the game or checking out D&D books.

Speaking as someone who hasn't played Magic in 20+ years, I'll be buying this book purely because it's new and interesting. I suspect a fair amount of D&D fans fall into the "neophile" category.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

if they do announce a product that hybridizes Planescape and Spelljammer, that would piss me off. Those are two strongly-flavoured settings that each have their places and have their fans, but which really shouldn't be mixed - like putting fish sauce on cherry ice cream.

That's like saying: "Underwater adventures, aerial adventures, Underdark adventures, and surface-based adventures shouldn't be mixed in the Forgotten Realms." I mean, if you get in an astral skiff/airship and fly up, you're in "Spelljammer". If you plane shift, you're in "Planescape." If you timetravel, you're in "Chronomancer." It's all the D&D Multiverse. It's all the Planes of Existence.

Mearls has confirmed that 5E space travel is a kind of planar travel.

Yeah, Sigil has a different feel than the Rock of Bral. But I'm asking for a Manual of the Planes (or a MotP-style world-hopping adventure!) that has a chapter on Sigil (and planar travel), a chapter on the Rock of Bral (and spacetravel), and a chapter on some iconic timetravel nexus (e.g. the Comeback Inn, or the Nexus from CM6, or the Age of Blackmoor itself).

When I say "meta-setting", I'm not talking about a new "brand" with a new logo. Not even the "Forgotten Realms" logo is seen on 5E products. I'm not calling for some kind of mashed up "Planejammer" hybrid.

Simply presenting the various modes of transit, and key adventure sites. Whether they be reachable by planar travel, spacetravel, or timetravel. The D&D Multiverse is already a meta-setting. That's all.

 

[Aguirre Melchiors]

i really like the style '' adventure with hard setting description'' would be a great way to introduce planescape or spell jammer.

 

[delericho]

That's like saying: "Underwater adventures, aerial adventures, Underdark adventures, and surface-based adventures shouldn't be mixed in the Forgotten Realms."

No, it's not. Because going underwater is not the same thing as going into the Underdark - they're different locations within the same setting. If they said that going underwater was somehow a "kind of going into the Underdark" then there would be a problem.

I mean, if you get in an astral skiff/airship and fly up, you're in "Spelljammer". If you plane shift, you're in "Planescape." If you timetravel, you're in "Chronomancer." It's all the D&D Multiverse. It's all the Planes of Existence.

And those are all fine. But if getting into that airship and flying 'up' meant you were in Planescape then I would have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with them having different ways to get around. What I have a problem with is if they decide that they're all the same way to get around.