Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bolares" data-source="post: 8007950" data-attributes="member: 6790082">The concept of colored mana and color identity are completely dropped for the setting books. Ravnica and Theros are not about representing the game of MTG in D&amp;D, but transforming some of the more popular planes in to settings. In 5e every setting book chose to print subclasses that make sense in that book, not general stuff. The priority is for them to make sense in the setting. I don't understand the argument that a subclass not being in the Theros book proves it was dropped. If it does not fit in Theros it should not be in the Theros book.That is to me the biggest difference between a setting book and a&quot;Xanathar 2.0&quot;. The setting book has to be heavilly themed, and it's options must stay on it's sphere of influence, a general crunch book does not have this restrictions. To me that's the main reason setting books should not replace a Xanathar-like book.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bolares, post: 8007950, member: 6790082"] The concept of colored mana and color identity are completely dropped for the setting books. Ravnica and Theros are not about representing the game of MTG in D&D, but transforming some of the more popular planes in to settings. In 5e every setting book chose to print subclasses that make sense in that book, not general stuff. The priority is for them to make sense in the setting. I don't understand the argument that a subclass not being in the Theros book proves it was dropped. If it does not fit in Theros it should not be in the Theros book. That is to me the biggest difference between a setting book and a"Xanathar 2.0". The setting book has to be heavilly themed, and it's options must stay on it's sphere of influence, a general crunch book does not have this restrictions. To me that's the main reason setting books should not replace a Xanathar-like book. [/QUOTE]

Verification