D&D 5E Revising Classic Settings

grimslade

Krampus ate my d20s
Spelljammer was another campaign world I missed that I’d like to see be brought back, using the Astromundi Cluster & Rock of Braal as the basic location. Mix in the old Crystal spheres with the Astral Sea and you could have adventures between worlds within a “system” or travel outward past the sphere’s edge into other prime planes (via the old phlogiston method) or other planes - perhaps via gates akin to those from Stargate/Stargate Atlantis.

Imagine if in D&D black holes led to the Abyss...
I agree. Leave the actual Spelljammer out of it. I never cared for the Phlogiston in Spelljammer so I woudn't be sad to see it replaced with a portal to the Astral Sea or the Ethereal with Crystal Spheres being gates to other worlds/systems. We need a way to bring ship based adventuring to 5E. I love the Scro and the Imperial Elven Navy aspects. The Neogi and Illithid menace. I could see some of the 3E Spider Moon drow stuff worked in as well. Spelljammer could fit 5E very well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The scros need a new and different new, it sounds as scrotum, and it is a horrible name.

Spelljammer could be a fabulous cash-cow, allowing space to add craziest ideas, for example un-canon crossovers with ersatz characters based in famous sci-fi franchises. Lots of fans would dare to publish homebred versions, and why not?

But it also has got serious metagame effects, because if these "spaceships" are possible, and they travel to trade, then they could cause serious effects into the different spheres, for example kenders visiting Greyhawk, or giths exploring Krynn. If Ravenloft has been rebooted, and I don't blame them, the crystal spheres also could be retconned to allow space for future new crunch (PC races and classes with special game mechanics).

Dd+airships_23fae8_6232870.jpg
 

I think we get a baseline (which multiple people have mentioned here) of nations that don't trust each other, don't necessarily get along, with shades of grey rather than black and white. That goes back to the wargaming roots of the hobby, and has pretty much been a thread throughout all editions of Greyhawk. Beyond that (okay, and the love of Darlene's map), I think it starts to break down. To some it's human-centric, while others see it as a traditional D&D panoply. But that baseline, as @teitan mentioned, is a pretty meaty hook that easily crosses generations.

well, what do the bickering faction think sells Greyhawk?

I agree on draconians != dragonborn. Tinker gnomes, gully dwarves, and kender should be present in Dragonlance, but there's no way around it - they need to be reworked to eliminate the problematic tropes inherent in them. I don't know that they're core to the Dragonlance experience, but they are part of it, certainly.

Dragonlance/Krynn: Draconians are anything BUT "just dragonborn." They need to be their own, completely independent and separate creatures...with five distinct, completely individual sub-types that all do different things. Tinker gnomes, gully dwarves, and kender are supremely irritating, and I wish they'd never been created, but they are distinctly and foundationally "Krynn." They have to stay in and receive their own gnome, dwarf, halfling, respectively, sub-races.
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
I think we get a baseline (which multiple people have mentioned here) of nations that don't trust each other, don't necessarily get along, with shades of grey rather than black and white. That goes back to the wargaming roots of the hobby, and has pretty much been a thread throughout all editions of Greyhawk. Beyond that (okay, and the love of Darlene's map), I think it starts to break down. To some it's human-centric, while others see it as a traditional D&D panoply. But that baseline, as @teitan mentioned, is a pretty meaty hook that easily crosses generations.



I agree on draconians != dragonborn. Tinker gnomes, gully dwarves, and kender should be present in Dragonlance, but there's no way around it - they need to be reworked to eliminate the problematic tropes inherent in them. I don't know that they're core to the Dragonlance experience, but they are part of it, certainly.
I think someone would need their nostalgia goggles fused to their eyes to disagree the TG, GD and kender do not need a rework.
 
Last edited:





Quickleaf

Legend
I know there have been more recent surveys about campaign settings, but the last one I bookmarked was from 2015 by Mike Mearls: D&D Monthly Survey | Dungeons & Dragons

Have any of WotC's more recent surveys changed up what Mike described in 2015?

I seem to remember seeing Birthright in something from last year? Which AFAICR was new in the conversation about reviving D&D's settings.

Mike Mearls said:
The popularity of settings in the survey fell into three distinct clusters. Not surprisingly, our most popular settings from prior editions landed at the top of the rankings, with Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, and the Forgotten Realms all proving equally popular.

Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Spelljammer all shared a similar level of second-tier popularity, followed by a fairly steep drop-off to the rest of the settings. My sense is that Spelljammer has often lagged behind the broad popularity of other settings, falling into love-it-or-hate-it status depending on personal tastes. Greyhawk and Dragonlance hew fairly close to the assumptions we used in creating the fifth edition rulebooks, making them much easier to run with material from past editions. Of the top five settings, four require significant new material to function and the fifth is by far our most popular world.

(A few people asked about Al-Qadim in the comments field, since it wasn’t included in the survey. The reason for that is because we think of that setting as part of the Forgotten Realms. Why did Kara-Tur end up on the list, then? Because I make mistakes!)
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top