Spelljammer Spelljammer in D&D 5e Speculation: How Will the Setting Be Changed?

[LuisCarlos17f]

We have forgotten a thing: battleship/seafight encounters. If PCs are traveling by a skyship or like this, they can use catapults, giant crossobows or other weapons too heavy to be carried and used in a dungeon exploration. You could attack sea-kaijus(krakens and cia) or castles in the coast. Should the XPs reward to be different? One of the most famous Lovecraft's stories a ship was used to charge against the big monster.

I don't reject the theory about a possible link between the phlogiston and the Feywild.

And today the videogames about pirates could be a strong influence among the new generation of players.

* What if "darkness/shadow" was an element, based in the "dark matter" from the quantic physics.

 

[glass]

I don’t view change as having an inherent dynamic of needing to have a significant justification. Like, you ask what is gained by making a large change, as if making the change is a negative that needs to be outweighed by some particular good. I just disagree with that premise.

Of course it does. Publishing something as "Spelljammer" while changing all the things that make it bear any resemblance to Spelljammer is dishnonest, and calling for them to do so is dispicable.

EDIT: There is plenty of precedent for planes-travelling ships in D&D already, from astral skiffs in 1e to dominion ships in 4e. If you want ships sailing the planes, you can absolutely already have that without having to pull an embrace-and-destroy on Spelljammer to get there.

_
glass.

 

[see]

The core mistake of 2e Spelljammer design was when, during the original brainstorming session (as mentioned in the Foreword to the original setting), they added the bit where they linked the major settings to Spelljammer and each other. After that, it spent way too much time (particularly in the popular imagination) being a meta-setting, rather than following the core directive of being D&D in space.

I don't know that they'll fix that for any presentation of the setting in 5th edition, but if they don't, it'll make an utter mess of the product.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Of course it does. Publishing something as "Spelljammer" while changing all the things that make it bear any resemblance to Spelljammer is dishnonest, and calling for them to do so is dispicable.

EDIT: There is plenty of precedent for planes-travelling ships in D&D already, from astral skiffs in 1e to dominion ships in 4e. If you want ships sailing the planes, you can absolutely already have that without having to pull an embrace-and-destroy on Spelljammer to get there.

_
glass.

That’s a bit much. I’m pretty sure we are talking about adjusting some details of a pretend elf game setting, not changing the Constitution.

I’m absolutely certain that no one has advocated anything remotely like “Publishing something as "Spelljammer" while changing all the things that make it bear any resemblance to Spelljammer”.

Settings change. It’s a good thing. Adding to the places a spelljamming ship can go doesn’t remake the whole enterprise.

 

[see]

Adding to the places a spelljamming ship can go doesn’t remake the whole enterprise.

Er, yes, it does. Just it would utterly remake an Age of Sail setting if you came along and added planar travel to the things that an ordinary sailing ship can regularly and routinely do. It's not a "detail"; it's a profound and radical change. The fact that "D&D in space" and "D&D on the planes" do not have oodles of third-party literature and film available to illustrate the differences in the genres doesn't change the fact that they are very different genres.

That isn't to say that a hybrid of even radically different genres can't be fun in its own right. But as fun as Shadowrun is, Forgotten Realms fans would be quite rightly upset if you put arcologies, megacorps, and netrunning in Baldur's Gate.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Publishing something as "Spelljammer" while changing all the things that make it bear any resemblance to Spelljammer is dishnonest, and calling for them to do so is dispicable.

One thing that looks beyond reasonable doubt is WotC's next product does not have "Spelljammer" in the title.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So for that crystal thing thread, I looked through an old 2e Planescape guide. I found this map interesting, since it clearly shows the Ethereal plane threaded throughout the Phlogiston:

View attachment 153684

The planar map in the Planescape boxed set is one of my favorite pieces of art D&D has ever released.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s a bit much. I’m pretty sure we are talking about adjusting some details of a pretend elf game setting, not changing the Constitution.

I’m absolutely certain that no one has advocated anything remotely like “Publishing something as "Spelljammer" while changing all the things that make it bear any resemblance to Spelljammer”.

Settings change. It’s a good thing. Adding to the places a spelljamming ship can go doesn’t remake the whole enterprise.

Change is change. It may be inevitable, but it is not inherently good or bad. Insisting that all change is good is very much your personal opinion.

 

[Parmandur]

One thing that looks beyond reasonable doubt is WotC's next product does not have "Spelljammer" in the title.

It seems thst it will be an Adventure compilation, yup.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Change is change. It may be inevitable, but it is not inherently good or bad. Insisting that all change is good is very much your personal opinion.

Please use quotes and clear reasoning to show where I “insisted” any such thing.