Ravnica - impressed?

[Waazraath]

I am! And I was curious how other folks see it.

For me, the more I read the book, the better it gets.

The artwork is splendid. The organization of the world (the 10 guilds) is very interesting, and very different from conventional D&D settings. Here the crossbreed with MtG works very well, I think: those guilds are designed around all different combinations of two (of the five) colours MtG is based on, and the less obvious combinations give interesting results. I don't think without it, things like the Simic Combine or Golgari Swarm would have been conjured up easily. The races section is very good: playable minotaurs & centaurs, and pretty interesting new things like the Loxodon and Simic Hybrid, that also offer new mechanical (crunch) options, without being overpowered. The monsters and NPC's are also a great addition.

Backgrounds a a bit of a mixed bag. In general, I'm pretty positive. They are interesting, and giving each their own visual effects when using magic is an interesting twist. They aren't really usable outside the setting though (unlike most other player options). And having each background hand a bunch of spells to the spell lists is very good fluff, but terrible for balance.

The same goes for items: some of them are very good and usable, but the Radkos Riteknife and (especially) Illusionist Bracelets are bloody overpowered. Another cantrip as a bonus action, what the hell were they thinking, doubling the at will damage output of all casters? Especially for Warlocks this is a terrible idea, but for others its still very, very bad for game balance.

In general though, I think the book and the setting is a breath of fresh air for D&D. Much more inspiring than the 5th revision of the blood war.

[Keeganwilson]

It's actually my favorite book next to XGTE, so much good inspiration for characters

[Spriteless]

The section in back, about creating adventure plots, is very good for teaching creativity.

[Dr. Cliché]

One thing that disappointed me was that they only included statlines for what are (presumably) the current guild leaders.

e.g. with Golgari, I'd have liked to see statlines for Savra, Queen of the Golgari and the Sisters of Stone Death, not just Jarad. With Dimir, I wanted to see the stats of Szadek, Lord of Secrets, not just Lazev. etc.

[Damon_Tor]

I loved the perks you get for advancing with each guild. Boros in particular: the sheer quantity of men under your command as your progress through the ranks. They aren't summons: if they die, they're dead, and presumably they'll eventually be replaced by new recruits in the training pipeline, but still. I wish more setting had explicit troop numbers and such for advancing within a military organization. Hopefully Eberron will follow suit.

[Mikaleus]

I was hoping to see more new guild centric spells.
Especially for the Simic.

[Spiritchaser]

One thing that has bothered me, even alarmed me about this supplement is my understanding (hopefully mistaken) that the guild spell lists, which can strongly enhance spell casters, are not mirrored by a similar benefit for martials.

Is that the case, or are there also potent options for them?

[noob]

One thing that has bothered me, even alarmed me about this supplement is my understanding (hopefully mistaken) that the guild spell lists, which can strongly enhance spell casters, are not mirrored by a similar benefit for martials.

Is that the case, or are there also potent options for them?

was not the brute fighter that can use all the weapons potently added?

[Vogie]

was not the brute fighter that can use all the weapons potently added?

No, it was scrapped.

However, the Orzhov Giant NPC does have a Focus ability that looks a lot like the Brute Fighter's ability.

[Waazraath]

Glad to see the mostly postive replies; earlier, I think I saw some cynical "mixing D&D and MtG is just a cash grab to get players involved in more games and earn more money" comments. And this might have played a role, of course, but the end product is much more than that, and very good as well.


One thing that has bothered me, even alarmed me about this supplement is my understanding (hopefully mistaken) that the guild spell lists, which can strongly enhance spell casters, are not mirrored by a similar benefit for martials.

Is that the case, or are there also potent options for them?

Yes, you are correct, unfortunately. This is what I mentioned in my OP about backgrounds: good for flavor, terrible for balance. If I ever allow them, I'll use alternative rules in the DMG that empower martials, like cleave.

But even then, it's terrible for balance. Spell lists are selective and thematic. Having the opportunity to add a number of powerful spells at will, without any drawback, is crazy. Azorius would give Druids the possiblity to Counterspel, and a bunch of divination and mind controll abilities - making them absurdly all round casters. Or take Bards, that can do everything except damage - except now, with the right background, they can do also that, without having to spend Magical secrets. Further, quite some spells from the pally list are included, making it much more easier to get access to spells much earlier than they would be earlier (bar specific bard builds and other rare exceptions.

[Man_Over_Game]

Glad to see the mostly postive replies; earlier, I think I saw some cynical "mixing D&D and MtG is just a cash grab to get players involved in more games and earn more money" comments. And this might have played a role, of course, but the end product is much more than that, and very good as well.



Yes, you are correct, unfortunately. This is what I mentioned in my OP about backgrounds: good for flavor, terrible for balance. If I ever allow them, I'll use alternative rules in the DMG that empower martials, like cleave.

But even then, it's terrible for balance. Spell lists are selective and thematic. Having the opportunity to add a number of powerful spells at will, without any drawback, is crazy. Azorius would give Druids the possiblity to Counterspel, and a bunch of divination and mind controll abilities - making them absurdly all round casters. Or take Bards, that can do everything except damage - except now, with the right background, they can do also that, without having to spend Magical secrets. Further, quite some spells from the pally list are included, making it much more easier to get access to spells much earlier than they would be earlier (bar specific bard builds and other rare exceptions.

I saw the same problem. It's really out of balance if you're not included in a guild.

A while back, I came up with a solution to attempt to balance out the choice between being in a guild and NOT being in a guild, with something like this:

• Characters who train in the guild have limited experience in other backgrounds, having learned to solve their problems with magic. When you pick your background, you pick a single skill, tool, or language it provides you, and gain no other proficiencies from that background.
• Characters who do not practice in the guild have specialized training to help them survive in a world of magic. These characters start with an extra feat.

Or, basically, getting Ravnica spells costs you 3 proficiencies and a feat.

[Waazraath]

I saw the same problem. It's really out of balance if you're not included in a guild.

A while back, I came up with a solution to attempt to balance out the choice between being in a guild and NOT being in a guild, with something like this:

• Characters who train in the guild have limited experience in other backgrounds, having learned to solve their problems with magic. When you pick your background, you pick a single skill, tool, or language it provides you, and gain no other proficiencies from that background.
• Characters who do not practice in the guild have specialized training to help them survive in a world of magic. These characters start with an extra feat.

Or, basically, getting Ravnica spells costs you 3 proficiencies and a feat.

That's a hefty cost, justifyable for the optimizers who pick the best guild to complement their spell list; but too hefty for me when it comes to the casual player who picks a guild for RP reasons on his half caster.

I dunno, if I ever get to DM a Ravnica campaign, I think I'll tailor make it dependend on the specific player / build / party.

[noob]

No, it was scrapped.

However, the Orzhov Giant NPC does have a Focus ability that looks a lot like the Brute Fighter's ability.

why did they not put the brute fighter in?

[qube]

Yes, you are correct, unfortunately. This is what I mentioned in my OP about backgrounds: good for flavor, terrible for balance.yeah - for me, that's the reason I won't allow the book at my table.

I get that 5E wanted to be more loose with the rules, but these background (just like other books introducing races who just get flight at will with the caveat of "not adventure league legal") ... that's in my book no longer "loose with rules", but laisy game development.

[Man_Over_Game]

why did they not put the brute fighter in?

I vaguely remember someone saying Mearls said that the Brute was balanced with its damage, it just didn't have its own identity. It ended up being a Champion with no non-combat features, and anything they DID try to do just ended up being a Champion clone. That, and it was slow in play. The extra dice were cool and all, but they slowed the game down when you're attacking 2-7 times per turn. It ended up being more popular on paper than on the table.

[GreyBlack]

I think the DM tools were excellent and the expanded Renown score was a good add. I'm still concerned that this is 5e's answer to the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or Eberron (i.e. "The 5e Setting") and refuse to buy it.

Also: I kinda wish it went further and completely remade the 5e magic system to be in line with MTG. Maybe create a Spellcasting class that didn't use the Vancian system but instead used a Mana system, and you can only use a certain amount of Mana each round?

[Waazraath]

yeah - for me, that's the reason I won't allow the book at my table.

I get that 5E wanted to be more loose with the rules, but these background (just like other books introducing races who just get flight at will with the caveat of "not adventure league legal") ... that's in my book no longer "loose with rules", but laisy game development.

Just curious, why not just allow everything except the backgrounds?


why did they not put the brute fighter in?

It wouldn't have solved any balance problem (due to spellcasters getting stronger with the background system). At best, you'd have 1 subclass that was balanced against stronger casters - without doing anything about other martial classes / subclasses, and without adressing balance issues between casters. And a brute fighter balanced against stronger casters would have caused issues in other games, where brute was allowed but no casters were present with Ravnica backgrounds.



I think the DM tools were excellent and the expanded Renown score was a good add. I'm still concerned that this is 5e's answer to the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or Eberron (i.e. "The 5e Setting") and refuse to buy it.

Also: I kinda wish it went further and completely remade the 5e magic system to be in line with MTG. Maybe create a Spellcasting class that didn't use the Vancian system but instead used a Mana system, and you can only use a certain amount of Mana each round?

Why would it be bad if this was to be come the main setting? I don't think it will, they've already chosen Forgotten Realms for that. But it's a good setting, creative, and has a lot of options to expand on (other parts of the world, underseas and undercity, history, etc.).

As for remaking the magic system: I don't think they could have done it without a complet overhaul of the 5e chasis. For people who really want that, they could better develop a different RPG (but they won't, if only for commercial reasons).

[TheFryingPen]

Glad to see the mostly postive replies; earlier, I think I saw some cynical "mixing D&D and MtG is just a cash grab to get players involved in more games and earn more money" comments. And this might have played a role, of course, but the end product is much more than that, and very good as well.



Yes, you are correct, unfortunately. This is what I mentioned in my OP about backgrounds: good for flavor, terrible for balance. If I ever allow them, I'll use alternative rules in the DMG that empower martials, like cleave.

But even then, it's terrible for balance. Spell lists are selective and thematic. Having the opportunity to add a number of powerful spells at will, without any drawback, is crazy. Azorius would give Druids the possiblity to Counterspel, and a bunch of divination and mind controll abilities - making them absurdly all round casters. Or take Bards, that can do everything except damage - except now, with the right background, they can do also that, without having to spend Magical secrets. Further, quite some spells from the pally list are included, making it much more easier to get access to spells much earlier than they would be earlier (bar specific bard builds and other rare exceptions.

If the problem for you is balance between caster and non-caster guild PCs I'd make guild backgrounds "Magic Initiate: Guild X" for non casters (the spellcasting ability being the most fitting for the guild or just the highest mental stat). Basically non caster guild members get a thematic free feat. It makes sense that you manage to learn some magic being in a guild practicing it, and it solves the problem of non-caster Dimirs being unavailable to access their magic dead drops.

If the problem's easy access to spells classes wouldn't otherwise have, simply scrap the extended spell list, or modify it to allow for some thematic options but limit broken combinations (e.g. animate dead on a warlock).

If you want non-guild members to have something nice too, I'd just give them an appropriate magic item. It's a high magic setting after all and with no guild to answer to nobody will ask them to hand it to their superiors for save-keeping.



I saw the same problem. It's really out of balance if you're not included in a guild.

A while back, I came up with a solution to attempt to balance out the choice between being in a guild and NOT being in a guild, with something like this:

• Characters who train in the guild have limited experience in other backgrounds, having learned to solve their problems with magic. When you pick your background, you pick a single skill, tool, or language it provides you, and gain no other proficiencies from that background.
• Characters who do not practice in the guild have specialized training to help them survive in a world of magic. These characters start with an extra feat.

Or, basically, getting Ravnica spells costs you 3 proficiencies and a feat.

I get the feat tax to introduce a trade off, but I wouldn't also hand out a free feat of the player's choosing for being guildless. Extended spell lists are not a straight power increase, they still replace other cantrip / spell choices and are only more powerful in certain combinations (which maybe still could have just been achieved if another caster in the group had cast that spell). In contrast, many feats are straight power ups. There are the usual suspects and every half-feat (which would allow PCs starting with 18 in an ability score without rolling stats), which would provide significant boosts from level 1, instead of scaling and replacing choices along the way.
Also, if you want your PC to be a martial but in a guild this approach screws you. Less proficiencies, no benefit from the spell list, no extra feat...

[Man_Over_Game]

I get the feat tax to introduce a trade off, but I wouldn't also hand out a free feat of the player's choosing for being guildless. Extended spell lists are not a straight power increase, they still replace other cantrip / spell choices and are only more powerful in certain combinations (which maybe still could have just been achieved if another caster in the group had cast that spell). In contrast, many feats are straight power ups. There are the usual suspects and every half-feat (which would allow PCs starting with 18 in an ability score without rolling stats), which would provide significant boosts from level 1, instead of scaling and replacing choices along the way.
Also, if you want your PC to be a martial but in a guild this approach screws you. Less proficiencies, no benefit from the spell list, no extra feat...

I don't mean for it to be:
Casters -1 Feat
Martials +1 Feat

But rather:

Casters -3 proficiencies from Background
Martials +1 feat

There wouldn't be much saying you COULDN'T take the "guildless" option and still be in a guild. Orzhov likely has a few merchants, agents and thieves that don't use magic. Gruul definitely would have a few people who don't use magic. It's just a way of balancing the option of being trained in guild magic or NOT being trained in guild magic. You do make a good point, that the spell lists aren't a guaranteed power increase, so maybe it'd be best if they dont' have a proficiency penalty, so it'd go like this:

Casters: Guild Spells
Martials: +1 feat.

[GreyBlack]

Why would it be bad if this was to be come the main setting? I don't think it will, they've already chosen Forgotten Realms for that. But it's a good setting, creative, and has a lot of options to expand on (other parts of the world, underseas and undercity, history, etc.).

As for remaking the magic system: I don't think they could have done it without a complet overhaul of the 5e chasis. For people who really want that, they could better develop a different RPG (but they won't, if only for commercial reasons).

Without getting too much into the real world issues that it creates, it signals a dearth of creativity and a lack of willingness to explore the actual implications of the baseline game.

Each of those aforementioned editions took the base assumptions of the respective edition with which they've become associated and explored them fairly adequately. For this, I always come back to Eberron, which made the assumption of 3rd edition's rules and extrapolated onto the world; it was this high magic society shaped and nearly destroyed many times over by mages who were more than willing to play God, with the last conflict ending more or less in the Cold War because of mutually assured destruction. Given 3rd edition's many flaws and foibles, this is very much what happens when you take 3rd edition's high magic stuff to it's ultimate extreme.

We see similar explorations of theme and design in Greyhawk from First Edition, Dark Sun in Second, and even Nentir Vale from 4th.

If Ravnica becomes the big, shiny campaign setting for 5e, I see no such exploration of the rules, no real deep dive into the rules implications, and no real creativity from the designers. Ravnica as a setting took no exploration of 5e, and instead was simply slapping an already established brand on some fun new rules.

And _that_ is why you don't want Ravnica to be 5e's Eberron.

[Prince Vine]

I find a lot of issues with the backgrounds are like issues with 5-minute days. Easily fixed with fiat or just a strict approach with book flavor.

Generally I wouldn't allow (outside of an EXTENSIVE talk with the player) anything too off-theme, so no selesnyan wizards or azorious druids to begin with. That said I tend to agree with the position that as long as spells known, prepared or slots don't increase an expanded spell list is really more of a ribbon than a power move.

[Man_Over_Game]

Without getting too much into the real world issues that it creates, it signals a dearth of creativity and a lack of willingness to explore the actual implications of the baseline game.

Each of those aforementioned editions took the base assumptions of the respective edition with which they've become associated and explored them fairly adequately. For this, I always come back to Eberron, which made the assumption of 3rd edition's rules and extrapolated onto the world; it was this high magic society shaped and nearly destroyed many times over by mages who were more than willing to play God, with the last conflict ending more or less in the Cold War because of mutually assured destruction. Given 3rd edition's many flaws and foibles, this is very much what happens when you take 3rd edition's high magic stuff to it's ultimate extreme.

We see similar explorations of theme and design in Greyhawk from First Edition, Dark Sun in Second, and even Nentir Vale from 4th.

If Ravnica becomes the big, shiny campaign setting for 5e, I see no such exploration of the rules, no real deep dive into the rules implications, and no real creativity from the designers. Ravnica as a setting took no exploration of 5e, and instead was simply slapping an already established brand on some fun new rules.

And _that_ is why you don't want Ravnica to be 5e's Eberron.

With that reasoning, 5e' staple world would probably be a world that wages lots of wars, with sheer numbers. With mages as generals and elites within the army, either to use AoE damage against the numbers, or provide Counterspells so their own armies don't get demolished.

All planned around the concept of bounded accuracy, and that 50 level 1s can take on a single level 20. And it'd be a lot easier to round up that many level 1s than it is to get a single level 20. So you just focus on using your masses, countering their masses, or countering the countering of your masses.

Level 20s would be used for when numbers aren't applicable. Clearing out Dens of Evil, assassination missions, stealth missions, or providing a unique benefit that would support an army (like Gate). High level martial characters would act as bodyguards, guides and protectors to the "specialists" of an army. Still equals, but one is supposed to fulfill a mission, and the other is supposed to make sure the specialist fulfills the mission.

[GreyBlack]

With that reasoning, 5e' staple world would probably be a world that wages lots of wars, with shear numbers. With mages as generals and elites within the army, either to use AoE damage against the numbers, or provide Counterspells so their own armies don't get demolished.

All planned around the concept of bounded accuracy, and that 50 level 1s can take on a single level 20. And it'd be a lot easier to round up that many level 1s, than it is to get a single level 20. So you just focus on using the masses.

Oh, absolutely. Seeing a D&D world that took those considerations into play and turned them into a viable campaign setting would be amazing. Like, seeing how cultures adapted to that line of thinking would be awesome.

It's also not Ravnica.

[Prince Vine]

Oh, absolutely. Seeing a D&D world that took those considerations into play and turned them into a viable campaign setting would be amazing. Like, seeing how cultures adapted to that line of thinking would be awesome.

It's also not Ravnica.

Wasn't that Birthright?

[GreyBlack]

Wasn't that Birthright?

To my knowledge, Birthright has not been republished as a 5e campaign setting, unlike Ravnica or Eberron.


Although there are nods to Spelljammer...

[Waazraath]

Oh, absolutely. Seeing a D&D world that took those considerations into play and turned them into a viable campaign setting would be amazing. Like, seeing how cultures adapted to that line of thinking would be awesome.

It's also not Ravnica.

Fair's fair: that does sounds like an interesting setting.