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

glass

(he, him)
No, magic by definition can only do things that are impossible. If it's not impossible it's not magic.
Magic can kill people. Magic can set things on fire. Neither of these things is impossible, even without magic. QED.

Even if you were right, this would be in no way a rebuttal to my point.

Try telling that to the Red Queen.
I have no idea what you mean by this.

I don't see any evidence for that. Demi- means "half" or "partial", not "inside". In the D&D sense I generally take it to mean "finite", whereas full planes are infinite. Bags of Holding do not break when you cast Plane Shift whilst carrying one. The space inside is not inside the Material Plane or it would stop working.
It seems like you would agree with me that the @Henadic Theologian's assertion that Eberron's crystal sphere had "like over a dozens planes" "shoved" into it was both wrong and kinda silly. So why are you arguing with me exactly?

But for the record, there are plenty of references to demi-planes being inside other planes in the history of D&D, although most of the ones that come to mind are for older editions. For example, in the 2e version of Ravenloft, you got the maximum bonus with you sword of the planes, because you were technically in the ethereal plane. Of course, Ravenloft has changed a lot over the years since then....

_
glass.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The point that continues to fly over you head, is that some things are impossible in the real world, and somethings are impossible everywhere by definition because of the meaning of the words. "Creating matter from nothing" is an example of the former. "Creating a square that is not a rectangle" is an example of the latter. Do you see the difference now?
You have not established literally any reason to think that a plane can't exist inside another plane. I have provided examples that concentric planes are the norm in dnd.

Nothing about what you're saying is flying over anyone's head. You aren't making some advanced argument that others just don't understand, you're just objecting to something with a nonsensical non-argument because you don't like it.
That's a big [citation needed].
not really. that's literally the canon for dnd 5e, and has been since the beginning of the edition.
You don't get to tell me that the whole source and root of my objection is irrelevant.
Sure I do. Because it is.
 

glass

(he, him)
You have not established literally any reason to think that a plane can't exist inside another plane. I have provided examples that concentric planes are the norm in dnd.
So have I! Literally one post above yours.

Nothing about what you're saying is flying over anyone's head.
Clearly there is, since you were just telling me that planes inside other planes was a thing, a post after I said literally the same thing....

not really. that's literally the canon for dnd 5e, and has been since the beginning of the edition.
Then it won't be difficult to cite, will it?

Sure I do. Because it is.
Well you can say it; but saying it doesn't actually do anything. You do not get to choose what I care to debate and what I do not.

ETA:
You aren't making some advanced argument that others just don't understand, you're just objecting to something with a nonsensical non-argument because you don't like it.
Part of me thinks that this is a colossal waste of time, and I should just IL you for a few days. But another part of me really gets to the bottom of what you are trying to say and what you think I am trying to say. And the latter part won this round, so: What is the "it" that you think I do not like? EDIT: Apparently @doctorbadwolf agrees with the first part, as they appear to have blocked me. It's weird - even my quoting of them disapears! I guess I will never know what "it" was....

_
glass.
 
Last edited:


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
How is a retcon, not a change that invalidates the setting history? Isn’t that literally what a retcon is?
A retcon adds material to history (continuity) retroactively. It includes new events which are assumed to have happened in the past of the setting, or new motivations for existing events. Star Trek Discovery in its first two seasons is an example. It does not change the course of history, or say that previously published history didn't happen, but it may provide more context or add more nuance. Marvel comics, for example, has added many, many events to the past of the MU as retcons, but everything they originally published is assumed to have still happened in the core 616 universe.

Sometimes allowances have to made due to the passage of real life time for long-running franchises, leading to a sliding time scale in some cases or a "broad strokes" depiction of older events in others. And sometimes mistakes are made and need to be corrected or smoothed over. But in all of my favorite franchises, effort is put forth to keep continuity as "together" as possible, and to avoid directly replacing history.

I don't always like retcons (Star Trek Discovery in its first two seasons is an example), but given the (admittedly unfortunate) choice between a bad story beat that doesn't disrupt history vs. a good story beat that does, I'm going with option A every time. I care about worldbuilding integrity too much to do otherwise.
 

michaeljpastor

Adventurer
A retcon adds material to history (continuity) retroactively. It includes new events which are assumed to have happened in the past of the setting, or new motivations for existing events. Star Trek Discovery in its first two seasons is an example. It does not change the course of history, or say that previously published history didn't happen, but it may provide more context or add more nuance. Marvel comics, for example, has added many, many events to the past of the MU as retcons, but everything they originally published is assumed to have still happened in the core 616 universe.

Sometimes allowances have to made due to the passage of real life time for long-running franchises, leading to a sliding time scale in some cases or a "broad strokes" depiction of older events in others. And sometimes mistakes are made and need to be corrected or smoothed over. But in all of my favorite franchises, effort is put forth to keep continuity as "together" as possible, and to avoid directly replacing history.

I don't always like retcons (Star Trek Discovery in its first two seasons is an example), but given the (admittedly unfortunate) choice between a bad story beat that doesn't disrupt history vs. a good story beat that does, I'm going with option A every time. I care about worldbuilding integrity too much to do otherwise.
A lot of you're describing is "patches" which are additive without altering the original text. It's a type of retcon.
 





Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top