Two New Settings For D&D This Year

if it comes out this year i would agree with you. Possibly published by a third party company that has a good reputation (Green Ronin etc)

However if it’s coming next year I would stake all the money in my pockets that it will be a Curse of Strahd style book. Campaign with background and new monsters etc. Curse of Strahd was too successful not to repeat!

 

[Zeromaru X]

Or,

Player: Hi, I'm new to the group and saw your Dark Sun advertisement. Sounds neat. Let's play.
DM: OK.


I mean, do people join in a vacuum a lot? Dont they discuss a lot of things (where playing, what level, what setting, whos the DM? etc.)?

Certainly the Dark Sun campaign is just as capable of offering "interesting additions and changes"?

As with all, it depends on the DM.

Dark Sun on its own, can. Just look at 4e Dark Sun. It has some 4e races and mechanics. The setting didn't broke for being allowed to work with 4e's framework. And the designers even brought back some mechanics from 2e (weapons breakage, wild talents, "stronger" races compared to those from earlier books), so it was OK. You can even say that some mechanics from Dark Sun enhanced 4e as a whole (themes, non-magical enhancement bonuses, eventually all races were designed to match the ones from Dark Sun...)

But then came the DMs that only want a Dark Sun as it was in 2e, with no changes at all. That kind of people can ruin the game for anyone, and aren't exclusive to Dark Sun, though Dark Sun have a lot of them to spare...

And yes, I know people that joins a game with an idea of what they want to play from the beginning, alongside those that don't know how even the game works.

 

[Dire Bare]

Anyone who makes a character without talking to the DM first is already starting off on the wrong foot. An enormous percentage of homebrew worlds also have restrictions.

Or maybe the world doesn't have restrictions, but the campaign is one in which all PCs have to be members of the royal court of a human kingdom.

Or maybe the world and the campaign don't have restrictions, but the party of five already has two monks in it, and the DM really doesn't want any more for balance reasons.

The example of "Oh, I didn't expect that, I created a tiefling monk" isn't convincing in the slightest, because it's an example of poor player behavior regardless of setting.

I wouldn't call it "poor player behavior", perhaps "inexperienced player behavior". If you're new to D&D, just bought your PHB, what's the first thing you might do? Roll up a character! And then realize, I need to find a group or convince my friends to start one! If you are new to D&D, you probably aren't used to house rules and how persnickety many DMs are about them. Plus, communication goes both ways. I've started numerous games with new groups and asked the DM, "What should I play? Any restrictions?" and be told, "Nope, do what you want" . . . . only to find when I show up to game that my character does not fit into the group dynamic in all sorts of different ways.

And, IMO, any DM worth their salt says "yes" a lot more than they say "no". If a player wants to play a tiefling monk in a Dark Sun campaign . . . it's not the setting that says "no", its the persnickety or uncreative DM.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I think WotC is probably granting license. I think they're starting to work out where they want to build APs, and are willing to let others play with other areas on a case by case basis.

That was what I'm thinking as well. WotC keeps the core Sword Coast area and maybe a few other regions of interest, and licences other regions for 3rd parties to develop. That's really a win-win-win situation, for WotC, the developers, and the fans.

The question is, is this our "fourth product"? It would explain why WotC employees weren't involved in the editing, and also why it hasn't been discovered in upcoming product catalogues like WotC products and their codenames. And officially licenced 3rd party products covering FR regions would definitely fit as being the exciting July announcement mentioned in the original interview.

 

[Shardstone]

There's no way it isn't Eberron with the finished Artificer.

 

[gyor]

There's no way it isn't Eberron with the finished Artificer.

Why do you say that?

 

[gyor]

That is true... Wayback in 2e. As of 4e, Dark Sun is just another D&D. Darker and grittier, yes. But it is a setting for all players.

And we have to take into account that a 5e Dark Sun will catter to the new players that started playing D&D with 5e, not only those that came from 4e or 2e.

So, its no easy task to please old school fans under these circumstances

I still wouldn't use Darksun or traditional Spelljammer or even Ravenloft or Planescape for newbies. I'd use FR, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Nerath, maybe even Eberron as. Newbie settings. Then work your up to Darksun and Spelljammer.

 

[gyor]

Which honestly, is why its better its own game then. Its already being aimed at a niche market of a niche market (bored, experienced players looking for a S&S setting), you might as well go whole-hog and redo the rulebook to match it. Maybe licence it out to a 3pp who doesn't mind only selling 10,000's of copies. In fact, the worst thing they could do is market it like another Mordenkainens' Tome of Foes or Tomb of Annihilation style supplement.

It's find as being a Campaign Guide, have it give a list of what is allowed and what isn't and then have it offer Tkreen, Muls, and so on. Most of the basic rules remain in place, such as advantage.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I wouldn't call it "poor player behavior", perhaps "inexperienced player behavior".

Okay, that's fair. But IIRC, the PHB also makes a point of saying that campaigns are different, and check with your DM. Players should be allowed to play what they want more often than not, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule, and they need to accept that there will be exceptions.

I've started numerous games with new groups and asked the DM, "What should I play? Any restrictions?" and be told, "Nope, do what you want" . . . . only to find when I show up to game that my character does not fit into the group dynamic in all sorts of different ways.

And that is, indeed, the fault of the DM. But it's also not the situation being discussed.

And, IMO, any DM worth their salt says "yes" a lot more than they say "no". If a player wants to play a tiefling monk in a Dark Sun campaign . . . it's not the setting that says "no", its the persnickety or uncreative DM.

And here I take serious issue. A good DM may say "yes" more than "no," but that doesn't mean they're being "persnickety or uncreative" those times they say "no." The need to compromise and try to ensure the other player has an enjoyable time goes both ways. If the DM has a specific sort of campaign she wants to run, and that campaign eliminates some options, that does not automatically make her a bad DM, and it is partly on the players to ensure that she continues to want to run the game as much as they want to continue to play it.

 

[Parmandur]

I've liked that the Plane Shift articles have mostly avoided creating some new form of magic system or classes in favor of "fudging it" by using the PHB classes to kindasorta replicate various casters of different color(s). The Cleric class, for example, is a decent White representative, with the domain they select determining if they are mono W, Orhoz, Selesnya, Boros, or Azorius. Druids similarly are default Green, but their subclass and spell choices can splash other colors in as well. Its not perfect, but it works well enough for Magic-flavored D&D.

That said, I can't imagine this product is MTG related. Stewart says "We have two surprises that I think hardcore D&D fans are really going to love coming this summer, and then I think we got one surprise that's going to release later this year that we've not told anyone about. We're going to announce it in July." Hardcore D&D fans aren't going to go gaga over MTG. This is tied to D&D and its multiverse. They might be room for Magic's later, but THIS is for D&D fans first.

Technically, he says the two Summer surprises are for hardcore fans, and separately there is another big surprise being announced in July. He doesn't specify that the July announcement is for hardcore fans.

We are all spitting in the dark here, though, we'll see what surprises they have soon enough...

 

[Remathilis]

It's find as being a Campaign Guide, have it give a list of what is allowed and what isn't and then have it offer Tkreen, Muls, and so on. Most of the basic rules remain in place, such as advantage.

So what is or isn't allowed? Lets keep it JUST PHB options (no Volo, SCAG, etc).

Races:
Human (as is)
Elf - Well considering Athasian elves aren't like normal elves, would you make a whole new subrace or limit it to just one subrace (no high or drow)? -2 options.
Dwarf - See Elf. (-1 option)
Halfling - See Elf (-1 option)
Dragonborn - 4e made them Dray. Lets assume we keep that, else -1 option.
Gnome - Don't exist. -2 options.
Half-elf - Fine? Maybe?
Half-orc - Don't exist. -2 options.
Tieflings - Well, they were in 4e DS again. Else, -1 option.
Half-giant - Either refluffed goliaths or thier own race +1 option.
Muls - New race +1 option.
Thri-kreen - New race +1 option.

Losses between -7 and -9, depending on your option of 4e's version. Gains +3.

Classes (note, I count one option lost per subclass, plus an additional if the base class is also not usable as that would stop future subs that might work for the setting to work).
Barbarian - I've heard some DS fans say that unarmored defense breaks the setting's equipment system and shouldn't be allowed. Assuming we do, there is no bears, wolves, or eagles so Totem seems out of the question, though berserker seems to work fine. -1 option (-3 if no class at all).
Bard - Again, 4e allowed spellcasting bards (3.5 Dragon did too) but purists argue they shouldn't and should best be Rogue-assassins. Assuming we allow them, there doesn't seem to be an issue. If not, -3 options.
Cleric - Elemental Priests were present in 2e and 3.5, but not 4e. If allowed, the only domains that make sense are tempest and nature. -5 options, unless you go 4e and -8 options.
Druid - Well, Circle of the land might get a nerf, but its still viable. Not sure about Moon. Play it safe- all options.
Fighter - No eldritch knight. Others fine. -1 options.
Monk - 3e and 4e had them, but see barbarian for UAD and add superior martial arts dice. All the subs seem fine if your allowing them at all. All options OR -4 options.
Paladin - 3e found room for them, nobody else has and they seem to be the posterboy for exclusion. -4 options.
Ranger - Fine? All options.
Rogue - No arcane trickster - 1 options.
Sorcerer - 3e and 4e found them homes, but all arcane classes depend on how you plan on doing defiling. At the very least, dragonblooded isn't an option with the setting changes to dragon. Wild magic possibly? -1 to -3 options.
Warlock - 4e made them templars. Either way, no fiend, GOO and archfey possible? -1 to -4 options.
Wizard - See sorcerer. If preserving/defiling works with the school system, then no changes. Else, -8 options.
Psionics - Mearls last HFH seemed to lean on muliple subs, for wizard, fighter, bard, rogue and monk as well as its own class. Lets assume they do that. +8 options.

Losses Between -14 (most lenient) to -32 (most restrictive) options removed. +8 options minimum. Thats a lot of subclasses that need replacing. At worst, we also lose up to 7 of the 13 classes at most restrictive.

Which goes back to my point; if your cutting that much, you better do more than three new races and psionics. You've cut up to half the PHB! You could, of course, replace cut options with new appropriate options (new races, subraces, subclasses, and even classes) and do the same with equipment (an utterly useless chapter in the PHB for DS) backgrounds (again, some might work, others aren't) and spells (Melf who?). Also, most of the Appendixes are useless, cut them too.

Huh, that's a lot of new material you need to replace; probably a majority of the book. And that doesn't get into rules like weapon breakage or defiling and preserving or desert survival. It starts to look like... wait, we might need, an alternate Player's Handbook to put all these things in one place?

Oh, and lets not bother looking at the Monster Manual. That's going to be fun to go through and decide what does and doesn't exist...