D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[Neonchameleon]

Not at all. Eladrins in 4e clearly are intended to fill the same story niche as pre-4e eladrins. They even use the same titles (Ghaele, Bralani etc).

Only sort of. Eladrins in 4e have multiple niches (like any PC race). They can use the pre-4e Eladrin niche, but I find them much better in a more either traditional or urban fantasy cosmology than I do with the Great Wheel. Eladrin as the Fae or the Sidhe works perfectly. (For all James Wyatt claimed 4e wasn't about tripping through fairy rings he made a good cosmology for it with the Feywild and the Shadowfell).

I'm not touching on that at all. No where have I suggested that D&D is a generic fantasy game.

Just as well because it isn't

What happens if WotC decides they want to use both pre-4e and 4e archons in 5e?

What happens if they decide they want to use both pre-Blood War daemons and post-Blood War daemons?

And that may be a reasonable argument. But the changes from 1e to 2e continued and evolved over a period of a decade before they were incorporated into 3e. Yes, 4e might not be a major alteration of 1e (I actually think it's a bigger alteration than you're crediting) but it was a huge change to the lore that had existed throughout 2e and 3e, which were themselves built upon a foundation laid out by 1e. So it's kind of disingenuous to say that the change between 3e and 4e is equivalent to the change between 1e and 2e... because it's not.

Indeed. It is kind of disingenuous to say that the change between 3e and 4e is equivalent to that between 1e and 2e. There were no entire classes removed from the game by removing their deity so they could not come back. There was no abolishing daemons and devils for yugoloths. 2e took the mythological infernal creatures out of core and they only crept back.

Elves and eladrin are listed as separate races, and that's what most people pay attention to. That and the fact that the name was used by an angelic race prior. And while elves explicitly hang out in the Prime, eladrin primarily come from the Feywild and come with a lot of extra fluff that doesn't bear all that much resemblance to what existed for high elves prior.

That's because the elf archetype was overloaded to the point of obnoxiousness. How many subtypes did elves have?

When the change was originally made I thought it might be interesting. Separating drow, high elves, and wood elves does make a certain amount of sense. But really, it mostly ended up causing (at least within the FR fandom) a lot of grief and arguments for very little reason.

In play it takes about 30 seconds to sort out. I have no argument with the idea that The Spellplague was a bad thing. I prefer the post-Spellplague Realms. But I prefer Eberron, Sigil, Athas, and the Nentir Vale to the post-Spellplague Realms. Meanwhile you get the Realms you like nuked. It was a bad decision all round.

 

[Vic Ferrari]

1) I don't understand your use of the word "justify". WotC doesn't have to "justify" it's use of a name to label a game element.


As for whether level titles are comparable, that's in the eye of the beholder.

1) I am talking about you justifying, reaching, being disingenuous about the class level title and monster name deal.

2) Not really, a class and subclass sharing the same level title is not even the same thing as stealing the name from a monster with 3 editions of legacy for some new fangled monster, also shows a lack of integrity.

 

[Shemeska]

Come on. I asked for three examples from 3e regarding the planes and its denizens that isn't tied to Planescape lore. Obviously, since I'm mistaken about the special treatment, it should be easy to find. I know that Dungeon isn't one of the places to find this, because [MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION] actually flat out said that nothing Paizo published in 3e related to the planes could contradict any Planescape lore.

Citation needed for me stating that please.

My own 3.x work for Paizo heavily references prior source material mind you. I find that being aware of prior references and taking continuity as a goal is part of being professional when you're getting paid. This goes for how I approach things for Pathfinder as well. Paizo mandated nothing to me on the matter, but everything they did in Dragon and Dungeon was subject to WoTC review prior to print.

 

[Remathilis]

Can you name three sourcebooks published by WOTC in the past, say, ten years prior to the release of 4e, dealing with the planes that don't reference Planescape?

Because if you can, I'd love to hear it. I'd be all over that like a fat man on M&M's.

[sblock]


Eberron Campaign Setting, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Deities & Demigods, Oriental Adventures.[/sblock]

Enjoy your M&Ms.

 

[Vic Ferrari]

[sblock]
View attachment 64331View attachment 64332View attachment 64333View attachment 64334

Eberron Campaign Setting, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Deities & Demigods, Oriental Adventures.[/sblock]

Enjoy your M&Ms.

Nice, the 3rd Ed MotP very much encouraged non-Great Wheel/Planescape action; also the variant planes (Faerie, Mirror, etc).

 

[I'm A Banana]

[sblock]
View attachment 64331View attachment 64332View attachment 64333View attachment 64334

Eberron Campaign Setting, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Deities & Demigods, Oriental Adventures.[/sblock]

Enjoy your M&Ms.

CANNOT XP HARD ENOUGH.

And but also, the 3e Manual of the Planes? There were multiple sidebars on how to envision cosmologies without given planes (example: "Option: without the Outer Planes"), alternate planes like the Dreams, Mirrors, the Spirit Workd, elemental planes of Cold and Wood and Time, Faerie, and the Far Realm. Variant cosmologies include...

1. The Myriad Planes, aka "bubble cosmology," where the planes boil and froth against each other
2. The Doppel Cosmology, which is an "evil twin" cosmology where everyone who saves orphans on one side of the Shadow murders them on the other. Or just has a nefarious moustache.
3. The Orrey, which became expressed to the best in Eberron.
4. The Winding Road, which posits a universe where travelers encounter different planes as they travel along.
5. The Omniverse, the book's "Sample Cosmology", with a simple Good Place, Bad Place, and Elemental Place, and even a reference to the Astral Plane as a sea.

I mean, the very book that would truck in the Planescapeisms the hardest out of most any book in 3e does the most out of any D&D book ever to remind you that the cosmology presented in the core books is not The Truth, but merely one possibility, to the extent of showing you step-by-step how you make your own multiverse, and even giving you ideas on how to change them mid-campaign.

The book referenced PS, but it sure as heck was not bound by One True Cosmology.

Hell, if I were to do a 5e Planescape, I could leave room for all of these cosmologies and then some.

 

[pemerton]

have you so much as ever read the actual Planescape boxed set? I mean if not I have to take your views of it with a large grain of salt and wonder if it's possible that may be why you feel the way you do about it

I respect the fact that you've actually read the material as opposed to commenting on it from secondary sources like modules or sourcebooks

My knowledge of Planescape is based on a range of sourcebooks (Planewalker's Handbook by Monte Cook is the main one I can think of; I have seen it praised more than once by PS fans on these boards) and modules (Dead Gods is one, the other I can think of is Tales of the Infinite Staircase - both Monte Cook, I think). This is the first I've heard these described as "secondary sources" - Dead Gods is frequently touted as the great Planescape modue, they all ship with the Planescape logo on the cover, and Monte Cook was, I thought, one of the pre-eminent Planescape authors.

The content of Planescape is also ascertainable in other ways eg read the 3E MotP, or an adventure like Bastion of Broken Souls or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, and subtract the 1st ed AD&D MotP and most of the remainder is Planescape - Sigil most obviously, but other elements too like factions, Lower Planer backstory, etc.

Perhaps all this material that shipped under the Planescape banner was actually contradictory in tone and content to the boxed set, but I've never seen anyone assert that.

I honestly thought as a kid it was one of the most imaginative settings TSR had produced

That may well be so. My dislike of Planescape isn't based upon a view of its literary merits.

I have two somewhat petty reasons for disliking it, and one serious reason.

The petty reasons are (i) the cant, which for someone who is familiar with vernacular English as spoken in England and some Commonwealth countries (eg Australia) is just silly - for me "berk" isn't evocative of some Planar otherworld, but rather a term of mild abuse (similar to "idiot" or "d*ckhead") that I used to use as a child; and (ii) the description of the factions as "philosophers with clubs" - I am a philosopher in real life, and am fairly familiar with most European language and some non-European philosophical traditions, and don't find the factions to be very philosophically sophisticated.

My serious reason for disliking Planescape is the one I posted upthread (I think in the post you replied to): its appeal seems to me primarily be to those who want the experience of play to be revelations of the cleverness or quirkiness of Planescape. To me, it's emphasis seems to be overwhelmingly on exploration as the goal of play - exploring the alignment system, enjoying the urban squalor of Sigil, being amusd by wacky portal keys, etc.

That is not what I am looking for in a RPG.

( [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION], on these boards, has set out ideas for play in Planescape that don't fall foul of my serious objection. I'm sure if Quickleaf was GMing a Planescape game I'd enjoy it. Unfortunately Quickleaf is half-way across the Pacific Ocean from me. And I have no independent motivation to turn Planescape to my purposes when there is other D&D material much more readily available that doesn't need turning.)

 

[pemerton]

Not really, a class and subclass sharing the same level title is not even the same thing as stealing the name from a monster with 3 editions of legacy for some new fangled monster, also shows a lack of integrity.

Again with the moralising language.

There is no such thing as "a lack of integrity" when it comes to publishing RPG story elements. WotC decided that Jeff Grubb's archons were not compelling story elements - presumably the designers felt that they added little to angels - and decided that the name "archon" would work well for elemental soldiers. That's their prerogative. You might disagree with their judgement, on aesthetic grounds, or commercial grounds, or both. But that they made such a judgement isn't a sign of a character flaw.

 

[Hussar]

Since you define everything about the planes described in 2nd edition to be "Planescape", you would naturally see it everywhere.

What about "Lords of the Iron Fortress" (which I do not own) references "Planescape" by your definition? If it mentions Sigil, gate towns, spell or gate keys, factions or cant, you're good with that particular example. But if you're just describing references to the Blood War, physical descriptions of the planes, etc., I wouldn't consider it valid.

Well, the PC's are potentially attacked by Mercykillers at one point. Does that count?

 

[Hussar]

Citation needed for me stating that please.

My own 3.x work for Paizo heavily references prior source material mind you. I find that being aware of prior references and taking continuity as a goal is part of being professional when you're getting paid. This goes for how I approach things for Pathfinder as well. Paizo mandated nothing to me on the matter, but everything they did in Dragon and Dungeon was subject to WoTC review prior to print.

Wasn'T it in this thread? Or one of the other ones that you said that all Dragon material needed to be Planescape compliant?