Bad Books?

[carrdrivesyou]

So with the announcement of the next book being another MtG book...I realize that none of the MtG material released so far has any interest for me. In fact, when I hear it, it's a major turn off. When I look for games on Roll20, I also skip over anything that references or even allows MtG material.

Am I weird or do other people have this issue?

[Mordaedil]

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to buy sourcebooks for material you are not interested in. Same as not buying Forgotten Realms books, Eberron books, or anything else that is setting specific. Just get what interests you specifically, and maybe look online to see if there's anything in the books that you might be interested and buy that separate on D&D Beyond or whatever.

Like having Swordcoast thing for access to spells like Booming Blade and Greenflame Blade.

[Segev]

I think part of it is that the M:tG books seem to be a different power level and different expected mix of character features than we get from "standard" D&D settings. But I also think Eberron faced this when it first came out in 3.5, so I suspect they'll gain traction slowly.

I actually think it's really smart marketing on WotC's part, and wonder why they didn't do this waaaay back in 3.0, when they first bought D&D. Their M:tG macrosetting is on the same scale of varied and developed as D&D's macrosetting, and detailing it in one place helps broaden the audience for the fiction side of their game. Moreover, D&D is a perfect vehicle for breathing life into the settings in the minds of players, because now they can play a character in Theros, Ravnica, Innistrad... and build decks around the same themes.

A setting book is going to have both D&D and M:tG audience, and will draw players from one into the other.

I wonder how long until planeswalkers are detailed in a more D&D fashion. Are they "just" powerful mages (with plane shift and gate), or are they a class of being all their own?


I say this as somebody less than interested in the M:tG settingbooks, myself. But I still think they're going to have a broad appeal and be good for cross-marketing.

[HappyDaze]

There are a lot of books that I consider "bad books" for various reasons. I don't allow them at the table I run. These include:

Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (I don't care how much fans of the cantrips within weep)
Acquisitions Incorporated
Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica

Soon I'll be adding the Theros and Wildemount (or however those are spelled) setting books.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Setting books can be fun and interesting to flip through, but they don't really have enough for a player that isn't particularly enamored with that world. I've got players that adore Eberron that won't read that book, yet bought this big, expensive hardback just to look at a booklet's worth of options. If you do this, of course you're going to feel like you wasted money. You certainly did.

But as far as being useful or inspirational, I feel like only SCAG was lacking so far. It's not the worst thing, but I can get much better info off the FR Wiki, and the prose is too dry to work as Cliff Notes. People buying it to use the sword cantrips are making a financial mistake.

Though, I do get why players are like this these days. If you limited yourself to books with substantial player options, you own exactly two. Seeing new stuff come out that's not really for you has got to be getting annoying.

[SunderedWorldDM]

There are a lot of books that I consider "bad books" for various reasons. I don't allow them at the table I run. These include:

Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (I don't care how much fans of the cantrips within weep)
Acquisitions Incorporated
Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica

Soon I'll be adding the Theros and Wildemount (or however those are spelled) setting books.
I'm curious as to why you choose these in particular. Is it because you perceive them to be too setting-specific? If so, why not Eberron?

[NecroDancer]

Not a huge fan of Sword Coast, however the Ravnica book was pretty awesome, lots of new monsters that are extremely easy to refluff for any setting and 2 cool subclasses (spore Druid circle and law Cleric domain).

[HappyDaze]

I'm curious as to why you choose these in particular. Is it because you perceive them to be too setting-specific? If so, why not Eberron?

Because my game is set in Eberron.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are a lot of books that I consider "bad books" for various reasons. I don't allow them at the table I run. These include:

Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (I don't care how much fans of the cantrips within weep)
Acquisitions Incorporated
Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica

Soon I'll be adding the Theros and Wildemount (or however those are spelled) setting books. I am with you on 2/3. AI and GGR do not exist in my DM multiverse.
I can live with or without the SCAG cantrips, but I do like the blade singer wizard and cleric Arcana domain choices.

[Tawmis]

So with the announcement of the next book being another MtG book...I realize that none of the MtG material released so far has any interest for me. In fact, when I hear it, it's a major turn off. When I look for games on Roll20, I also skip over anything that references or even allows MtG material.

Am I weird or do other people have this issue?

As someone who has only played ONE game of MtG, the MtG D&D books are of no interest to me (over all). There may be things that they're releasing (in terms of classes, races) that might be interesting; but it's not enough I'd purchased the books, and do not plan to purchase the next book either.

But for the company, it makes sense. Wizards of the Coast is essentially the folks who made MtG - so why wouldn't they basically try to get their D&D people to learn about (and possibly invest in) MtG, and the reverse of MtG people hearing that D&D now has MtG type stuff that they'd be familiar with (and begin potentially begin playing D&D).

[Sigreid]

I dont know why you'd feel bad about not wanting a book or obliged to get it. I've been playing since I was a kid and through 5 editions I've never picked up a dark sun book for example, because I looked at it and the setting didn't appeal to me so it was a hard pass. They are trying, as they should, to have something for everyone. That doesn't mean everything is for everyone.

[TIPOT]

There are a lot of books that I consider "bad books" for various reasons. I don't allow them at the table I run. These include:

Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (I don't care how much fans of the cantrips within weep)
Acquisitions Incorporated
Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica

Soon I'll be adding the Theros and Wildemount (or however those are spelled) setting books.

I mean it's down to you in the end, but shouldn't you like actually read or at least look through the new books before blanket banning them? Some of the sub-classes sound interesting at least.

[Segev]

As much as people griped about it in 3.5, there is something to be said for books having a fair bit of player- and DM-useful mechanics in them. Fluff is nice, but is always going to be less appreciated than something useful at ANY table. If you're not playing in Theros or Eberron, the only parts of those books you'll be able to use will be the mechanics.

It may behoove WotC to come out with a "Players' Options" book that is mostly just reprintings of player-useful mechanics from earlier books - especially setting books - in much the way Spell Compendium just gathered a lot of 3.5 splatbooks' spells and compiled them in one place. It would likely sell quite well, especially to those who have avoided the settingbooks because they're so sparse on mechanical content.

Setting books that are JUST fluff are very useful...to DMs...who are running those settings. This narrows their audience considerably. They're of interest to players in games taking place in them, but the focus will need to be more on "here's interesting ideas to base characters around." Which is going to at a minimum, in 5e, demand at least some mechanics for backgrounds.

Organizations invite unique feats, subclasses, and spells as material to hang a build around their fluff. And organizations are going to be more interesting to players than the ecology of a setting. Whereas DMs will like both, because they need to flesh out their worlds. Or at least their games.

That said, I have a player of a Fey Patron Warlock in my ToA game who has read the hag sections of Volo's Guide backwards and forwards and knows them better than I do, because he was interested in how his Patron influenced his character's life. It's pushed me to flesh out one of the Sewn Sisters a lot.

[SunderedWorldDM]

Because my game is set in Eberron.

Ah. Makes sense, then! Thanks for enlightening me.

[DarknessEternal]

Yes, it makes you a bad person to instantly dislike something when you don't even know the content. As does making a thread such as one that says "I hate a thing and I dare you tell me I'm wrong."

[ZerohFG]

TC: You are not weird, if you are DM, you set the rules. As a player you decide how to spend your free time and are free to avoid games that use MtG. My TL:DR would be however I don't agree with the books being put out, but I use ideas from almost all of them in my dm'd games. However I agree with a lot of people that several of the books have been lacking and I simply do not understand the business model of wizards currently.

Basic thought on this. Players don't buy settings books, DM's do. Players may get them sure, but if you only ever play as a player, more likely you want it for art or some stories.

So how does Wizards counter this? Spreading subclasses and race options to the setting books, and not putting out corebooks. (xanathar's released in 2017) in hopes to sell more books because people want them classes.

Problems from this

#1 - DnDbeyond and other resources exist, so players STILL don't buy those books at full price, and instead pay pennies for a subclass that Wizards tried to sell for $50 (theros has 2)

#2 - AL PHB +1 rule.

So we go back to people not buying the enough of the books with the spread out classes, and WotC won't release a corebook out of what has to be spite at this point. Enter Magic the Gathering. If it has those words on it, it will be impulsed purchased. I know many D&D or other TTrpg players that used to play in gameshops or comic book stores that were effectively forced out by the MtG fanbase. We will buy a book, maybe some minis, while they will impulse buy booster pack after booster pack after booster pack, not realizing they spent far more than they should in pursuit of an uncommon or rare card. They are our IRL lootbox addicts. Gamestores love them, and most game/comicbook/hobby stores effectively kicked out anyone not playing those card games. It helped drum up sales for those stores and I can't fault them for that.

I think a lot of annoyance at the MtG community kinda swelled up in me with the Theros book announcement lol. Getting forced out of game stores before was kinda sucky, but long run worked out well because a house game is better for people to roleplay at then in public. But once again, that community is taking over again and we are once again being pushed out for a community with less than stellar reputation. I also don't like the strings attached to the MtG's worlds. My house game is a world that has extra planar travels all the time to allow for the new races/classes/spells to enter in. If it is officially licensed I will allow it. As a treat when ravnica came out for my MtG player at the table, they side quested to ravnica. What a disaster. Nothing was as his head canon should be, X shouldn't be working with y (even though the book said so, because I don't play MtG) and he made what should have been a silly trip to get some magic items, probably the worst 3 hours of my time DM'ing.

The other thing that soured me on the Theros book, and more of these crossover setting books, was Crawford saying in defense of Wildermont, that fans of the old settings or wanting a corebook would be happy, then they put out Theros. So of the 3 a year rule (not counting wildermont) I really don't see us getting an old setting or a core book, since they tend to double up on adventure books. That said I always grab the books ( I am part of the problem ) because I 100% snipe ideas from the books. Plus getting my party to kill off some of my least favorite AI characters with their proper block stats was fun.

[Belac93]

Guildmaster's guide is an awesome book, even as someone who has no interest in playing in Ravnica.

The races are great, subclasses are balanced and fun, monsters are well-designed... I ignore the expanded guild spell lists, but that's because I don't have guilds in my game. Otherwise, it's basically just 'intrigue D&D.' The hate around it is kinda dumb, and I feel like only people who didn't read the book will say it's 'bad.' Disappointing maybe, but not bad.

I'm quite excited for Theros and Wildmont.

If you want to know what the 'bad' books are, SCAG is badly designed (although not broken, and I still allow it), and every adventure book wizards has come out with absolutely sucks. Curse of Strahd is decent, but only compared to the others.

[Christew]

So with the announcement of the next book being another MtG book...I realize that none of the MtG material released so far has any interest for me. In fact, when I hear it, it's a major turn off. When I look for games on Roll20, I also skip over anything that references or even allows MtG material.

Am I weird or do other people have this issue?
I agree that the MtG stuff holds minimal appeal (even as someone who has played off and on since Beta). D&D and MtG are just two different games to me. That said, I don't begrudge those who are interested in it and I totally get it as a business decision by WoTC.

Design-wise, I think vanilla D&D is restricted to the FR material (which can be set in Greyhawk or Dragonlance or what have you, but is coherently balanced against itself). The MtG material (like Ravnica and Eberron) uses a different power curve to reflect the high magic nature of the settings, just as a (fingers crossed upcoming) Dark Sun setting would have for low magic.

Cherry picking things from these settings and dropping them into an FR game will result in uneven power dynamics, but playing a contained campaign using a given setting should be fine.

You are more than welcome to be turned off by anything you like, but I would refrain from throwing around blanket assessments like "bad."

I think part of it is that the M:tG books seem to be a different power level and different expected mix of character features than we get from "standard" D&D settings.

I say this as somebody less than interested in the M:tG settingbooks, myself. But I still think they're going to have a broad appeal and be good for cross-marketing.
This. 100% agree.


Yes, it makes you a bad person to instantly dislike something when you don't even know the content. As does making a thread such as one that says "I hate a thing and I dare you tell me I'm wrong."
Wow, a bit much. I hope this is sarcasm, but it doesn't read that way. Everything outside of the PHB/DMG/MM is essentially supplementary material and people are welcome to use or disregard such at their leisure.

Also, "Am I weird or do other people have this issue?" can hardly be interpreted as "I hate a thing and I dare you tell me I'm wrong." Not sure who shat in your cereal, but you need to chill. This is a forum for discussion about 5e, OP has done nothing to deserve such a vitriolic response.

Also a shout out for the SCAG. Certainly a bit disappointing as a setting guide (especially compared to the FR book from 3E), but the cantrips and subclasses are legit player options that open up a number of cool new build options.

[ZorroGames]

Yes, it makes you a bad person to instantly dislike something when you don't even know the content. As does making a thread such as one that says "I hate a thing and I dare you tell me I'm wrong."

Not really. I disliked anything Gw from day 1 and when I was coerced to “try it, you’ll like it,” I felt like I had lost brain cells and regretted it. Ditto these books I suspect.

Played war games since 1969 (not counting toy soldiers earlier) plus miniatures games since before Jack Scruby started selling figures and D&D since it came out and I know what clearly does and does not appeal to me. Lots of gray possibility but some things just scream, “Run away!”

[HappyDaze]

I mean it's down to you in the end, but shouldn't you like actually read or at least look through the new books before blanket banning them? Some of the sub-classes sound interesting at least.

There's no point; I'm not going to buy them, and I don't allow anything into my game that I don't own. If somebody else wants to buy me a copy, I might read them, but I'd be under no obligation to include them even after they drop money on it.

[Yakmala]

I've spent a lot of time over the years getting to know some of the core D&D universes: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron...

I've little interest in Hardcovers based on other gaming system's worlds, especially ones that have so few new mechanics in them.

Now, if they were to put out a new XGtE style book with a selection of the best, most balanced new sub-classes and races from UA, I'll be there with my wallet open Day 1.

[Christew]

Now, if they were to put out a new XGtE style book with a selection of the best, most balanced new sub-classes and races from UA, I'll be there with my wallet open Day 1.
Seconded with enthusiasm. The volume and class distribution of the recent UAs would seem to imply that this may not be that far off. Fingers crossed.

[Segev]

Guildmaster's guide is an awesome book, even as someone who has no interest in playing in Ravnica.

The races are great, subclasses are balanced and fun, monsters are well-designed... I ignore the expanded guild spell lists, but that's because I don't have guilds in my game. Otherwise, it's basically just 'intrigue D&D.' The hate around it is kinda dumb, and I feel like only people who didn't read the book will say it's 'bad.' Disappointing maybe, but not bad.

I'm quite excited for Theros and Wildmont.Are any of them useful in games set in Forgotten Realms, or are they something you should keep in their own sandboxes? Ravnica sounds like it has potential, but I am not sure how well the M:tG setting meshes with D&D.

...really, the big question is this: how would you reconcile Planescape with M:tG's macrosetting? I know Planescape hasn't been published en toto since 2e, but it is a backbone default assumption in the cosmology of almost every D&D setting. Can M:tG be integrated with it relatively seamlessly, or are we looking at Ravnica, Theros, et al being things that, like Eberron, have to be in their own, separate cosmology?


If you want to know what the 'bad' books are, SCAG is badly designed (although not broken, and I still allow it), and every adventure book wizards has come out with absolutely sucks. Curse of Strahd is decent, but only compared to the others.I've actually been quite impressed with Tomb of Annihilation. Storm King's Thunder, which I own but am not running, looks to be somewhat similar in scope, but not quite as well-designed in flow (making a LOT of assumptions about player choices). What makes SCAG badly designed, in particular?


There's no point; I'm not going to buy them, and I don't allow anything into my game that I don't own. If somebody else wants to buy me a copy, I might read them, but I'd be under no obligation to include them even after they drop money on it.Interesting but not unreasonable position. Because I am always curious about how to toy with a system, would you read a book somebody let you borrow, and then tell them whether you'd allow it or not if you happened to own a copy? (I mean, if somebody was willing to buy you a book to HOPE you'd allow it, presumably they'd buy you a book if they KNEW you'd allow it.)

[carrdrivesyou]

Thoughts so far:

1. Apologies to anyone whom I may have offended for calling it a "bad" book. I perhaps should have said something in the vein of "not to my liking." I am NOT trying to sh** on something someone else likes.

2. With the growing popularity of DNDBeyond and other such sites selling virtual copies, which are much more in line with current day tech, and despite my love of books, I no longer purchase them.

3. I used to play MtG as a kid, but quit around 2002 or so. The game just got too much to keep up with. While fun, I did get a sour taste from many of the other players at the time for the reasons of being forced out as listed above.

4. I am curious as to the popularity of these books compared to module books by comparison. Does anyone know where to locate that information?

[KorvinStarmast]

What makes SCAG badly designed, in particular?
The maps were near impossible to read.

Some of the sub classes (battle rager, purple dragon knight) were poor.
Arcana Cleric and Swasbuckler and Bladesinger were IMO fine. Storm Sorcerer was OK.

A whole lot of lore but I remember being somewhat disappointed in lack of better detailed maps for various cities and regions.

I never did the Warlock sub class. (Undying)
The radiant monk was OK and is now in XGtE. I have only played the one in XGtE but I don't think it changed much if at all.

[JNAProductions]

1. Apologies to anyone whom I may have offended for calling it a "bad" book. I perhaps should have said something in the vein of "not to my liking." I am NOT trying to sh** on something someone else likes.

Yeah, that's a good way to say it. I've nothing against someone who says "I've read summaries of Ravnica, and doubt I'd use it or like, so I won't get it." I do, however, have a principal against someone who says "Ravnica is a bad book," without ever having read it.

[sithlordnergal]

There's no point; I'm not going to buy them, and I don't allow anything into my game that I don't own. If somebody else wants to buy me a copy, I might read them, but I'd be under no obligation to include them even after they drop money on it.

I mean...that is fair, I'd take a look at some of the subclasses, cause they are fun and not setting specific. Specifically the Bladesinger is pretty fun for Wizards.

[HappyDaze]

Interesting but not unreasonable position. Because I am always curious about how to toy with a system, would you read a book somebody let you borrow, and then tell them whether you'd allow it or not if you happened to own a copy? (I mean, if somebody was willing to buy you a book to HOPE you'd allow it, presumably they'd buy you a book if they KNEW you'd allow it.)

I wouldn't borrow it anytime soon as I already have plenty of reading material backed-up, both for work and for fun.

[Nagog]

I agree. The only MtG book I own is Rising from the Last War, purchased specifically for the Artificer Class.
Frankly, I'm not a fan of MtG. a great deal of my friends are huge fans of it, going to new releases and the like at midnight despite having work the next day, actively playing the game whenever a free moment arises, playing competitively in local tournaments, etc., but I don't see the appeal. The worldbuilding feels rushed and overall one-note for each of their worlds, and their characters are more often then not powerscaled so high that the issues they face need to be massive for them to even take notice. These flaws would make any book or story a bust for me, but beyond that, it's ruined these friends of mine for D&D because they take the same mindset with their characters that these demigod level protagonists for MtG take: If the world/multiverse isn't in danger, why should I care? If it takes more than one session to deal with a dire rat infestation in the town, the DM is going too hard on the party, and Dire Rats shouldn't survive more than a round or two before the might of (Insert God Complex Character #4 here).

My personal beef with MtG aside, I still agree with you. MtG worlds and settings are often so flavor-specific (back to that one-note worldbuilding), that much of the included content is non-transferable to the classic D&D setting. For example, I'd like to play a Barbarian, but we're in Ravnica, so my Barbarian needs to be heavily reflavored to not be He-Man in Space. Similarly, bringing a high-tech character from Ravnica to the Sword Coast, they'd stick out like a sore thumb and their high tech flavor would conflict so heavily with the setting that the DM would be hard-pressed to use their world without their technology requiring them to revamp their world to compensate.
The worlds themselves feel very lightly expressed, as there's one, maybe two, books showcasing the entire world. For the D&D worlds, there are all of the core books, Volo's, Mordenkeinen's Tome, Xanathar's Guide, every adventure module thus far released, and a plethora of D&D official content mentioned all over to bring in to flesh out the details of this world. Heck, I have a custom world of my own that I could write more content than is presently released for a MtG setting.

Overall, the MtG books feel like they're stripping 5e down to the core system and slapping it into a half-formed idea of a world. If I had a say in the matter, I'd just release a MtG Roleplaying game, similarly to the difference between Pathfinder and Starfinder. That way there wouldn't be need for reflavoring, DM adjustment, and the like, and they'd have twice the product to sell. Win/Win.

[Nagog]

The maps were near impossible to read.

Some of the sub classes (battle rager, purple dragon knight) were poor.
Arcana Cleric and Swasbuckler and Bladesinger were IMO fine. Storm Sorcerer was OK.

A whole lot of lore but I remember being somewhat disappointed in lack of better detailed maps for various cities and regions.

I never did the Warlock sub class. (Undying)
The radiant monk was OK and is now in XGtE. I have only played the one in XGtE but I don't think it changed much if at all.

I have never read SCAG, nor do I plan to, but
honestly I'd seen Battle Rager and Purple Dragon Knight on other D&D sites (like the Wikidot and others) and honestly thought they were homebrew they were so terrible until you'd mentioned them here. And I've been on this forum for nearly a year and playing 5e for a year and a half. XD

[JNAProductions]

I agree. The only MtG book I own is Rising from the Last War, purchased specifically for the Artificer Class.
Frankly, I'm not a fan of MtG. a great deal of my friends are huge fans of it, going to new releases and the like at midnight despite having work the next day, actively playing the game whenever a free moment arises, playing competitively in local tournaments, etc., but I don't see the appeal. The worldbuilding feels rushed and overall one-note for each of their worlds, and their characters are more often then not powerscaled so high that the issues they face need to be massive for them to even take notice. These flaws would make any book or story a bust for me, but beyond that, it's ruined these friends of mine for D&D because they take the same mindset with their characters that these demigod level protagonists for MtG take: If the world/multiverse isn't in danger, why should I care? If it takes more than one session to deal with a dire rat infestation in the town, the DM is going too hard on the party, and Dire Rats shouldn't survive more than a round or two before the might of (Insert God Complex Character #4 here).

My personal beef with MtG aside, I still agree with you. MtG worlds and settings are often so flavor-specific (back to that one-note worldbuilding), that much of the included content is non-transferable to the classic D&D setting. For example, I'd like to play a Barbarian, but we're in Ravnica, so my Barbarian needs to be heavily reflavored to not be He-Man in Space. Similarly, bringing a high-tech character from Ravnica to the Sword Coast, they'd stick out like a sore thumb and their high tech flavor would conflict so heavily with the setting that the DM would be hard-pressed to use their world without their technology requiring them to revamp their world to compensate.
The worlds themselves feel very lightly expressed, as there's one, maybe two, books showcasing the entire world. For the D&D worlds, there are all of the core books, Volo's, Mordenkeinen's Tome, Xanathar's Guide, every adventure module thus far released, and a plethora of D&D official content mentioned all over to bring in to flesh out the details of this world. Heck, I have a custom world of my own that I could write more content than is presently released for a MtG setting.

Overall, the MtG books feel like they're stripping 5e down to the core system and slapping it into a half-formed idea of a world. If I had a say in the matter, I'd just release a MtG Roleplaying game, similarly to the difference between Pathfinder and Starfinder. That way there wouldn't be need for reflavoring, DM adjustment, and the like, and they'd have twice the product to sell. Win/Win.

Rising From The Last War is Eberron, not MtG.

[Christew]

I agree. The only MtG book I own is Rising from the Last War, purchased specifically for the Artificer Class.
Frankly, I'm not a fan of MtG. a great deal of my friends are huge fans of it, going to new releases and the like at midnight despite having work the next day, actively playing the game whenever a free moment arises, playing competitively in local tournaments, etc., but I don't see the appeal. The worldbuilding feels rushed and overall one-note for each of their worlds, and their characters are more often then not powerscaled so high that the issues they face need to be massive for them to even take notice. These flaws would make any book or story a bust for me, but beyond that, it's ruined these friends of mine for D&D because they take the same mindset with their characters that these demigod level protagonists for MtG take: If the world/multiverse isn't in danger, why should I care? If it takes more than one session to deal with a dire rat infestation in the town, the DM is going too hard on the party, and Dire Rats shouldn't survive more than a round or two before the might of (Insert God Complex Character #4 here).

My personal beef with MtG aside, I still agree with you. MtG worlds and settings are often so flavor-specific (back to that one-note worldbuilding), that much of the included content is non-transferable to the classic D&D setting. For example, I'd like to play a Barbarian, but we're in Ravnica, so my Barbarian needs to be heavily reflavored to not be He-Man in Space. Similarly, bringing a high-tech character from Ravnica to the Sword Coast, they'd stick out like a sore thumb and their high tech flavor would conflict so heavily with the setting that the DM would be hard-pressed to use their world without their technology requiring them to revamp their world to compensate.
The worlds themselves feel very lightly expressed, as there's one, maybe two, books showcasing the entire world. For the D&D worlds, there are all of the core books, Volo's, Mordenkeinen's Tome, Xanathar's Guide, every adventure module thus far released, and a plethora of D&D official content mentioned all over to bring in to flesh out the details of this world. Heck, I have a custom world of my own that I could write more content than is presently released for a MtG setting.

Overall, the MtG books feel like they're stripping 5e down to the core system and slapping it into a half-formed idea of a world. If I had a say in the matter, I'd just release a MtG Roleplaying game, similarly to the difference between Pathfinder and Starfinder. That way there wouldn't be need for reflavoring, DM adjustment, and the like, and they'd have twice the product to sell. Win/Win.

Rising from the Last War is Eberron (a D&D campaign setting designed in 2004 for 3.5E), not an MtG property.

I do agree that most of the MtG settings are not very fleshed out (since cards don't require much beyond flavor text). That said, Pathfinder v Starfinder is Fantasy v SciFi. MtG v D&D would be Fantasy v Fantasy and would require significant design while creating direct competition between WotC properties.

[Nagog]

Rising From The Last War is Eberron, not MtG.


Rising from the Last War is Eberron (a D&D campaign setting designed in 2004 for 3.5E), not an MtG property.

I do agree that most of the MtG settings are not very fleshed out (since cards don't require much beyond flavor text). That said, Pathfinder v Starfinder is Fantasy v SciFi. MtG v D&D would be Fantasy v Fantasy and would require significant design while creating direct competition between WotC properties.

Eberron is D&D? My bad XD So I guess MTG doesn't have a world with more than 1 book to it, and I do not own any of the MTG books. To be fair, I migrated to 5e from Pathfinder in 2018, so I'm a bit late to this party.

And Christew, are you telling me Ravnica doesn't have a heavy Scifi feel? Point being, the settings are drastically different enough that a new system could be created to house them separately. Even if they aren't specifically different genre, it's similar to adapting Harry Potter into Call of Cthulu. CoC is pretty distinctly a very low magic setting, a character who's defining role as a Chosen One Wizard would not fit in at all, despite both being set in similar time periods and both being fantasy.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm, uh, scratching my head here. Not liking Magic is fine, but sci-fi? Buh?

Izzet and the Simic Combine are pretty heavy on the gaslamp fantasy, but that's it. Gruul, Golgori, and Selesyna are all different flavors of primitive, even by D&D standards. The other five are more standard fantasy, tech-wise.

And few of the other Magic worlds are more advanced, tech-wise. Most are the usual medieval fantasy-levels you'd expect. Excluding Mirrodin, but that's one I'd like to see since it really goes whole hog with the magitech. And yet it STILL isn't Starfinder sci-fantasy, not even close.

Theros itself is very obviously lower tech than usual, too. I think you just hate Eberron- that's fine, but it's a whole different discussion.

[Silly Name]

I agree. The only MtG book I own is Rising from the Last War, purchased specifically for the Artificer Class.


For precision's sake, Rising from the Last War has nothing to do with MtG. It's based on Eberron, and that was an original setting made for 3.5. I honestly suggest you read up on it - it's high-powered, but it's one of D&D's most original settings and with great worldbuilding. And you don't necessarily have to use it to run high-powered games, there is plenty of opportunities for low level characters in Eberron.


Overall, the MtG books feel like they're stripping 5e down to the core system and slapping it into a half-formed idea of a world. If I had a say in the matter, I'd just release a MtG Roleplaying game, similarly to the difference between Pathfinder and Starfinder. That way there wouldn't be need for reflavoring, DM adjustment, and the like, and they'd have twice the product to sell. Win/Win.

As an MtG player, while an actual MtG roleplaying game could sound interesting, it would have to be exceptional to convince me to buy it. MtG's game side is the card game, which is honestly pretty solid. The 5e books are nice to have at least as inspiration when they offer interesting mechanical options or ways to handle stuff different from the base assumption of FG-like worlds, but in general I have been very disappointed with 5e's splatbooks apart from Xanathar's. Maybe it's because I am primarily a 3.5 player, but I want my game books to have a lot of actual game material along with the fluff. Fluff is nice, but crunch is where the fun comes in.

A really solid book that they could make with MtG material is a monster manual/spell compendium. That's basically the majority of the cards, and would draw the interest of a wider audience. Sure, theoretically a specific kind of ooze is native to Ravnica, but nothing would strop from using its statblock in any other setting. It doesn't matter that a spell appeared only in Theros, if it's well-written there's no reason to not use it in your homebrew setting.

Regarding your legitimate complaints at MtG worldbuilding, that's really a side-effect of the game's design: each plane is designed as the backdrop for the current set/story arc, and will only get revisited if it proves popular (which is why Ravnica is one of the most detailed ones). This doesn't really allow for deep or intricate worldbuilding, since you can't justify spending a lot of resources developing a setting which may be "active" for only three months. It also tends to create very monothematic worlds, rather than large and diverse settings.

On the other hand, classical D&D settings have had years or decades worth of development backing them up: Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance have piles of splatbooks, novels and other material to draw from. They're incredibly more fleshed out because of this.

MtG has one setting which could conceivably compete with the likes of Greyhawk and Dragonlance, and that is Dominaria. For years it was MtG's "base plane", with lots of novels set in Dominaria and detailing its history, many sets using Dominaria as the backdrop and being the native plane for the largest amount of important characters. It actually has continents and different cultures, and there exists maps of this world. It's an actual setting in which you could conceivably set a campaign.

But WotC decided to use Dominaria as one of the Planeshift books, criminally underusing all that material. The more time passes, the more it feels like 5e's initial explosion in popularity was a lucky blunder and the people at WotC are completely unable to capitalise on it.

[stoutstien]

I agree. The only MtG book I own is Rising from the Last War, purchased specifically for the Artificer Class.
Frankly, I'm not a fan of MtG. a great deal of my friends are huge fans of it, going to new releases and the like at midnight despite having work the next day, actively playing the game whenever a free moment arises, playing competitively in local tournaments, etc., but I don't see the appeal. The worldbuilding feels rushed and overall one-note for each of their worlds, and their characters are more often then not powerscaled so high that the issues they face need to be massive for them to even take notice. These flaws would make any book or story a bust for me, but beyond that, it's ruined these friends of mine for D&D because they take the same mindset with their characters that these demigod level protagonists for MtG take: If the world/multiverse isn't in danger, why should I care? If it takes more than one session to deal with a dire rat infestation in the town, the DM is going too hard on the party, and Dire Rats shouldn't survive more than a round or two before the might of (Insert God Complex Character #4 here).

My personal beef with MtG aside, I still agree with you. MtG worlds and settings are often so flavor-specific (back to that one-note worldbuilding), that much of the included content is non-transferable to the classic D&D setting. For example, I'd like to play a Barbarian, but we're in Ravnica, so my Barbarian needs to be heavily reflavored to not be He-Man in Space. Similarly, bringing a high-tech character from Ravnica to the Sword Coast, they'd stick out like a sore thumb and their high tech flavor would conflict so heavily with the setting that the DM would be hard-pressed to use their world without their technology requiring them to revamp their world to compensate.
The worlds themselves feel very lightly expressed, as there's one, maybe two, books showcasing the entire world. For the D&D worlds, there are all of the core books, Volo's, Mordenkeinen's Tome, Xanathar's Guide, every adventure module thus far released, and a plethora of D&D official content mentioned all over to bring in to flesh out the details of this world. Heck, I have a custom world of my own that I could write more content than is presently released for a MtG setting.

Overall, the MtG books feel like they're stripping 5e down to the core system and slapping it into a half-formed idea of a world. If I had a say in the matter, I'd just release a MtG Roleplaying game, similarly to the difference between Pathfinder and Starfinder. That way there wouldn't be need for reflavoring, DM adjustment, and the like, and they'd have twice the product to sell. Win/Win.

Eberron is not from MtG sources? I could see some parallels but they are not related.

[MrStabby]

Ravnica is not quite right for d&d, but it forms a great foundation for a game. Forcing the guilds into one for every colour combination is cool for MtG but isn't needed for d&D.

That said... the city of guilds thing is a cool setting. A lot of the guilds themselves are cool. A lot of the content is cool.

If you treat the book as a source of inspiration for a campaign in a single large city it is awesome.

I think some of the guilds seem a bit out of place - and the nature of the guilds seems to push PvP a bit, or just conflict.

Certainly I would prefer more MtG content than a lot of the D&D settings. I have no desire for Eberron or Dark Sun, they hold no interest for me and content from them is unlikely to make it to my table.

[Luccan]

Ravnica isn't a bad book. It's got a lot of helpful info and while the backgrounds are hilariously unbalanced compared to others, they are purposefully intended for Ravnica and not other settings. Other than that, it's perfectly in line with other books and contains fun ideas for factions. That being said, I absolutely would have preferred a D&D setting (new or updated) rather than what I doubt is a pure creative decision and is at least partly a corporately determined cross promotion of brands. So I understand why someone might skip over it.

That said, the subclasses are definitely usable outside Ravnica and most of the races aren't hard to refluff to fit elsewhere. So long as it isn't a non-Ravnica game using the backgrounds, I wouldn't object to using material from the book.

[Nagog]

I'm, uh, scratching my head here. Not liking Magic is fine, but sci-fi? Buh?

Izzet and the Simic Combine are pretty heavy on the gaslamp fantasy, but that's it. Gruul, Golgori, and Selesyna are all different flavors of primitive, even by D&D standards. The other five are more standard fantasy, tech-wise.

And few of the other Magic worlds are more advanced, tech-wise. Most are the usual medieval fantasy-levels you'd expect. Excluding Mirrodin, but that's one I'd like to see since it really goes whole hog with the magitech. And yet it STILL isn't Starfinder sci-fantasy, not even close.

Theros itself is very obviously lower tech than usual, too. I think you just hate Eberron- that's fine, but it's a whole different discussion.

And yet we don't have books for any of those worlds.


For precision's sake, Rising from the Last War has nothing to do with MtG. It's based on Eberron, and that was an original setting made for 3.5. I honestly suggest you read up on it - it's high-powered, but it's one of D&D's most original settings and with great worldbuilding. And you don't necessarily have to use it to run high-powered games, there is plenty of opportunities for low level characters in Eberron.


Yes, I have been corrected on that point, it was my mistake.



A really solid book that they could make with MtG material is a monster manual/spell compendium. That's basically the majority of the cards, and would draw the interest of a wider audience. Sure, theoretically a specific kind of ooze is native to Ravnica, but nothing would strop from using its statblock in any other setting. It doesn't matter that a spell appeared only in Theros, if it's well-written there's no reason to not use it in your homebrew setting.

This, this I would support wholeheartedly. Content that may be based elsewhere but is generalized enough to fit into any world I can work with, and could easily be incorporated into long-winded campaigns without issue. A whole new setting would likely require a whole new campaign, and with as shallow settings as we've seen, would not last long as a campaign unless the DM had done research on the world outside of the book.


Regarding your legitimate complaints at MtG worldbuilding, that's really a side-effect of the game's design: each plane is designed as the backdrop for the current set/story arc, and will only get revisited if it proves popular (which is why Ravnica is one of the most detailed ones). This doesn't really allow for deep or intricate worldbuilding, since you can't justify spending a lot of resources developing a setting which may be "active" for only three months. It also tends to create very monothematic worlds, rather than large and diverse settings.

On the other hand, classical D&D settings have had years or decades worth of development backing them up: Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance have piles of splatbooks, novels and other material to draw from. They're incredibly more fleshed out because of this.

MtG has one setting which could conceivably compete with the likes of Greyhawk and Dragonlance, and that is Dominaria. For years it was MtG's "base plane", with lots of novels set in Dominaria and detailing its history, many sets using Dominaria as the backdrop and being the native plane for the largest amount of important characters. It actually has continents and different cultures, and there exists maps of this world. It's an actual setting in which you could conceivably set a campaign.


Once again, I could get behind this. A world that is fully fleshed out and similar in flavor to baseline D&D would mesh perfectly with the content 5e already has in it, no translation required. But thusfar all we have are shallow dips into other worlds, worlds that aren't deep enough or expansive enough to truly live in.



But WotC decided to use Dominaria as one of the Planeshift books, criminally underusing all that material. The more time passes, the more it feels like 5e's initial explosion in popularity was a lucky blunder and the people at WotC are completely unable to capitalise on it.

I mean, UA has been reliable and fun, but I feel WOTC is falling into the same trap DC Comics is: Giving their fanbase what they think they should want, rather than what the fan base actually wants. WoTC has MtG crossover, DC has Harley Quinn.


Ravnica isn't a bad book. It's got a lot of helpful info and while the backgrounds are hilariously unbalanced compared to others, they are purposefully intended for Ravnica and not other settings.


That's exactly it though, they're all completely intended for Ravnica and not other settings. Take Simic Hybrid for example: Mechanically a great class. Thematically, somebody with extra limbs and animalistic abilities seems really odd for the typical fantasy setting (by typical I mean closer to LOTR fantasy). Simic Hybrids outside of Ravnica would make great Druids thematically, if their stats lined up right and if they weren't so... Strange. Frankly a full demon adventurer would turn less heads than the man with tentacles sprouting from his shoulders and manta fins webbing their arms to their sides.



Other than that, it's perfectly in line with other books and contains fun ideas for factions. That being said, I absolutely would have preferred a D&D setting (new or updated) rather than what I doubt is a pure creative decision and is at least partly a corporately determined cross promotion of brands. So I understand why someone might skip over it.

That said, the subclasses are definitely usable outside Ravnica and most of the races aren't hard to refluff to fit elsewhere. So long as it isn't a non-Ravnica game using the backgrounds, I wouldn't object to using material from the book.

I wouldn't object to a good chunk of the content if and only if the player has a good in-game reason to use it or has a really convincing retexture to not make it stick out like a sore thumb in an adventuring guild (which if you've seen the kind of anime protagonist stuff goes on in adventuring parties, you know standing out there is a feat in and of itself)

[Luccan]

That's exactly it though, they're all completely intended for Ravnica and not other settings. Take Simic Hybrid for example: Mechanically a great class. Thematically, somebody with extra limbs and animalistic abilities seems really odd for the typical fantasy setting (by typical I mean closer to LOTR fantasy). Simic Hybrids outside of Ravnica would make great Druids thematically, if their stats lined up right and if they weren't so... Strange. Frankly a full demon adventurer would turn less heads than the man with tentacles sprouting from his shoulders and manta fins webbing their arms to their sides.



I wouldn't object to a good chunk of the content if and only if the player has a good in-game reason to use it or has a really convincing retexture to not make it stick out like a sore thumb in an adventuring guild (which if you've seen the kind of anime protagonist stuff goes on in adventuring parties, you know standing out there is a feat in and of itself)

I mean, even the Simic Hybrid is easy to explain as a wizard's experiment (gone wrong or right). And while some of its mutations are super obvious, climbing, water breathing, even acid spit or natural armor isn't out of line at all. I'm running a game where that's the idea I gave my players: you can play this, but it's basically just you, there isn't an organization producing more. And if you look like a monster, you get treated like one. Is the Hybrid really out of place when you look at some of the abberations in D&D? But even so, minotaurs and centaurs are already solidly in D&D (though you may feel the need to explain why they're different than the monsters), loxodon aren't any stranger than tabaxi or lizardfolk. Vedalken look different, but not significantly so from, say, a water genasi. Or even that much different from a gith. So that's maybe one race out of five that doesn't appearance-wise. Fluff-wise, the only one that needs a complete shift, IMO, is vedalken. Who I just made into extraplanar scholars.

[Segev]

This seems a reasonable thread to raise this question in:

How does 5e D&D reconcile its mechanics with the concept of the five colors of magic in the various M:tG settings? The colors of magic are known quantities there, right?

[ZerohFG]

This seems a reasonable thread to raise this question in:

How does 5e D&D reconcile its mechanics with the concept of the five colors of magic in the various M:tG settings? The colors of magic are known quantities there, right? it doesn't. plain and simple right? It just pulls things in from Ravnica, and reflavors them to fit in 5e. Monsters, lore, races, locations, but nothing to do with the 5 colors as an overarching mechanic.

[Segev]

it doesn't. plain and simple right? It just pulls things in from Ravnica, and reflavors them to fit in 5e. Monsters, lore, races, locations, but nothing to do with the 5 colors as an overarching mechanic.

Makes sense. A little disappointing in something like Ravnica and Theros, where the color combinations were the core point, but it makes sense.

[ZorroGames]

Well, between this thread and a few youtube reviews I ordered the Eberron book. And it was heavily discounted and the nicer looking alternative cover so we shall see...

[micahaphone]

I've got the ravnica book and I love it! It's been ages since I've played magic, and I didn't know about the ravnica setting before the book's release, but I think they did a good job creating an interesting setting for dnd, and many bits of the book can be lifted into homebrew work.

I don't like the guilds giving spellcasters extra goodies but not martials, and there's not much in the book about what to do with a character that doesn't belong to a guild, but the theme of a tense megacity, the player options, dm tools for generating quests and conflicts, and the monsters are all great!


Sword Coast seems like a flop - I don't care nearly as much about a generic fantasy region, and the player options are mostly lackluster.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So with the announcement of the next book being another MtG book...I realize that none of the MtG material released so far has any interest for me. In fact, when I hear it, it's a major turn off. When I look for games on Roll20, I also skip over anything that references or even allows MtG material.

Am I weird or do other people have this issue?

A vast majority of official 5e anything is pretty bland to me.

Even the PHB isn't well put together and looks like it needed another year.

Good Idea, Meh Execution. Relying on DMs and players to change things only gets you so far.

[Belac93]

Are any of them useful in games set in Forgotten Realms, or are they something you should keep in their own sandboxes? Ravnica sounds like it has potential, but I am not sure how well the M:tG setting meshes with D&D.

...really, the big question is this: how would you reconcile Planescape with M:tG's macrosetting? I know Planescape hasn't been published en toto since 2e, but it is a backbone default assumption in the cosmology of almost every D&D setting. Can M:tG be integrated with it relatively seamlessly, or are we looking at Ravnica, Theros, et al being things that, like Eberron, have to be in their own, separate cosmology?)

Not an issue for me. Forgotten Realms is boring, I run my own worlds. They definitely end up being useful for concepts and mechanics more than anything else.

[JoeJ]

You like what you like. That's neither right nor wrong; it just is.

For me, I was able to read through GGtR, and my impression was that it had a few interesting ideas but nothing that would make it worth shelling out the price to own it. (If Wizards were to release it as a pdf, and price it in the $5 range, I might reconsider.) There isn't enough about the city to either use alone or port to a world of my own - and I've never played MtG, so this book is all I know about Ravnica. Player options revolve almost entirely around the guilds, which struck me as less interesting versions of Planescape factions. That basically leaves the monsters. Some of them are interesting, but not enough to make it worth the price of the book. So I'll pass on this one.

[MrStabby]

I've got the ravnica book and I love it! It's been ages since I've played magic, and I didn't know about the ravnica setting before the book's release, but I think they did a good job creating an interesting setting for dnd, and many bits of the book can be lifted into homebrew work.

I don't like the guilds giving spellcasters extra goodies but not martials, and there's not much in the book about what to do with a character that doesn't belong to a guild, but the theme of a tense megacity, the player options, dm tools for generating quests and conflicts, and the monsters are all great!


Sword Coast seems like a flop - I don't care nearly as much about a generic fantasy region, and the player options are mostly lackluster.

I think it would be nice if there were a few other things tagged to the guild backgrounds - things like fewer spell but maybe stuff like a guild fighting style for each guild: might even make a guild champion fun.

[ZorroGames]

I've got the ravnica book and I love it! It's been ages since I've played magic, and I didn't know about the ravnica setting before the book's release, but I think they did a good job creating an interesting setting for dnd, and many bits of the book can be lifted into homebrew work.

I don't like the guilds giving spellcasters extra goodies but not martials, and there's not much in the book about what to do with a character that doesn't belong to a guild, but the theme of a tense megacity, the player options, dm tools for generating quests and conflicts, and the monsters are all great!


Sword Coast seems like a flop - I don't care nearly as much about a generic fantasy region, and the player options are mostly lackluster.

Ravinica is not appealing presently from what I read online. Rising is in the mail and might be something I would consider if it turns out playable and still “Fantasy” enough for me.

[MrStabby]

Ravinica is not appealing presently from what I read online. Rising is in the mail and might be something I would consider if it turns out playable and still “Fantasy” enough for me.

Yeah, Ravnica might not be that well balanced but I far prefer it to Eberron as a setting. I too prefer my fantasy classic rather than magitech.

[Mr. Crowbar]

Like others have said, I'd gladly buy a book that contained all the mechanical content from the setting guide and put them into one book. I liked the Eberron book because it has a good chunk of player options, but all these other books with like 1-2 subclasses and a handful of races.... yeah no, not buying. I've only ever played in and DM'd homebrew worlds so the fluff/worldbuilding will never interest me.

I will be banning Wildemount material in my games because I am ssooooo tired of CR and don't want to deal with it. But otherwise like, the other setting books don't interest me, so I wont buy them, that's it.

[HappyDaze]

Yeah, Ravnica might not be that well balanced but I far prefer it to Eberron as a setting. I too prefer my fantasy classic rather than magitech.

Ravnica has magical tech, and it's more overt about it than Eberron. In Ravnica, you have pipes and machines and power cables that are essential to keeping the entire place running. In Eberron you have some large-scale magical devices (e.g., lighting rail, elemental airships, etc.) but they are still discrete magical devices and the world can go on without them.

[JackPhoenix]

Problem with MtG/D&D crossovers is that MtG worlds run on a magic system vastly different from the one used in D&D, and there's no good way to translate that.... I've tried, and I've had more success making Warhammer fantasy magic work with D&D. It doesn't help that whoever designed the crunch parts of GGtR doesn't have any idea about balance in D&D... GGtR has some of the most broken stuff published for the edition, and no errata to fix it.


For precision's sake, Rising from the Last War has nothing to do with MtG. It's based on Eberron, and that was an original setting made for 3.5. I honestly suggest you read up on it - it's high-powered, but it's one of D&D's most original settings and with great worldbuilding. And you don't necessarily have to use it to run high-powered games, there is plenty of opportunities for low level characters in Eberron.

Eberron is anything but high-powered. Unlike, say, Forgotten Realms, there isn't level 20 NPC standing on every corner, not doing anything useful. Back when it was introduced, there were 3 (and half) high-level NPCs on the whole continent, with everyone else being much lower level, up to 10 or so tops: Level 20 druid, who was also a tree, level 16 necromancer "lich queen", insane level 18 transmuter, and a level 3 cleric who turns into level 18 cleric when she's in the seat of her religion. Not counting older dragons, fiends and extraplanar threats which exist so the PCs who make it to high levels have someone equal to fight.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Ravnica has magical tech, and it's more overt about it than Eberron. In Ravnica, you have pipes and machines and power cables that are essential to keeping the entire place running. In Eberron you have some large-scale magical devices (e.g., lighting rail, elemental airships, etc.) but they are still discrete magical devices and the world can go on without them.

Uhh... what?

This made me grab the book out of curiosity, because that's not what I remembered at all. The cover art certainly gives off a tech vibe, and there's everything involving the Izzet League and Simic Enclave, but everything else is pretty standard fantasy. You could've used most of the art in the book in Baldur's Gate and no one would argue with you. There absolutely are not pipes, machines, and power cables going everywhere. There's a functional sewer system, hot water boilers, and paved roads, but that's about as steampunk as the 'normal' Ravnica gets.

It's like calling all of the Forgotten Realms steampunk because of Lantan.

[HappyDaze]

Uhh... what?

This made me grab the book out of curiosity, because that's not what I remembered at all. The cover art certainly gives off a tech vibe, and there's everything involving the Izzet League and Simic Enclave, but everything else is pretty standard fantasy. You could've used most of the art in the book in Baldur's Gate and no one would argue with you. There absolutely are not pipes, machines, and power cables going everywhere. There's a functional sewer system, hot water boilers, and paved roads, but that's about as steampunk as the 'normal' Ravnica gets.

It's like calling all of the Forgotten Realms steampunk because of Lantan.

Did you not read about the works that the Izzet have to maintain? The same ones they use to get their guild access into everywhere? They also have massive magical capacitors ready to blow up sections of town and then lead to blackouts when they fail.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Did you not read about the works that the Izzet have to maintain? The same ones they use to get their guild access into everywhere? They also have massive magical capacitors ready to blow up sections of town and then lead to blackouts when they fail.

I did, and am currently. The primary works are what I specified- sewage, hot water boilers, and paved roads. Underground, there's the transit and pipe tunnels, which are essentially a subway system and utilities. Some of those pipes do transmit raw magic energy like some kind of electrical utility, but since most of the detailed world doesn't seem to be using it, it's probably only in the places that do. Which are almost invariably Izzet or Simic-related.

They also develop the blueprints for most buildings, but since it specifies blueprints, it's likely that they don't do the construction themselves; in the setting, it would be fairly weird if everyone just trusted them to do that. Remember that this is a world of guild intrigue, and that Izzet is one of ten guilds. If they overstep their boundaries, the other nine are liable to attack. Their guild feature is merely knowing secrets from those blueprints, not having access to some ubertech hidden in the walls.

And I just don't see any mention of the magical capacitors at all. Not that they don't exist, but it's not in the Izzet section nor anywhere in the maps that I can find, and it seems weirdly out of character for Niv-Mizzet, even considering his insanity. Was it in some Magic storyline?

[MrStabby]

Ravnica has magical tech, and it's more overt about it than Eberron. In Ravnica, you have pipes and machines and power cables that are essential to keeping the entire place running. In Eberron you have some large-scale magical devices (e.g., lighting rail, elemental airships, etc.) but they are still discrete magical devices and the world can go on without them.

Whilst I think this is somewhat true, I was approaching it from the slightly narrow standpoint of being a DM. I can kind of walk away from that part of the setting if I want and let it fade I to the background. On the other hand if I were to say to my group "hey guys, next adventure is in Eberron", then they would be a little surprised I had chosen the setting if everything was in the wilderness away from technology.

In Ravnica, I would say there are two guilds that really fall into the magitech archetype which leaves 80% of the setting to play with.

[HappyDaze]

Whilst I think this is somewhat true, I was approaching it from the slightly narrow standpoint of being a DM. I can kind of walk away from that part of the setting if I want and let it fade I to the background. On the other hand if I were to say to my group "hey guys, next adventure is in Eberron", then they would be a little surprised I had chosen the setting if everything was in the wilderness away from technology.

In Ravnica, I would say there are two guilds that really fall into the magitech archetype which leaves 80% of the setting to play with.

That's weird, because my Eberron game has taken us from Sharn (hyper-urban with lots of low-power magical items to be found in common use) to Q'barra (wilderness & old ruins) and the next arc is likely to take us to Xen'drik (wilderness & old ruins). There are actually a lot more places in Eberron that are not covered with 'technology' than you would find in Ravnica. IOW, Gruul Clans would be much happier on Eberron than in Ravnica.

[Mackatrin]

I was super stoked about it at first and thought it was just if you wanted to add Greek Themes or do a Greek Type setting. Then I saw it was MTG and was severely disappointed. GGR doesn't exist to me and now theres one more book, that could have added some new stuff, that I have to ignore.

[Silly Name]

I was super stoked about it at first and thought it was just if you wanted to add Greek Themes or do a Greek Type setting. Then I saw it was MTG and was severely disappointed. GGR doesn't exist to me and now theres one more book, that could have added some new stuff, that I have to ignore.

Why, though? I would give the book a chance, at least in the form of reading reviews or skimming it in your LGS, before deciding you "have to" ignore its existence for the crime of being based on MtG.

If you want inspiration for a Greek-styled setting or adventure, Mythic Odyssey may still have content that may be relevant. There's no reason to write it off without actually knowing the quality of the book.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I was super stoked about it at first and thought it was just if you wanted to add Greek Themes or do a Greek Type setting. Then I saw it was MTG and was severely disappointed. GGR doesn't exist to me and now theres one more book, that could have added some new stuff, that I have to ignore.

I think Greek mythology might be my favorite, I'm going to set up some one shots based around them. I think it's more to do with the world being more about Law and Chaos than Good and Evil. Good and Evil are so blended with the gods and people that I'm not sure if you could call anyone either. Maybe Hades is the closest thing to "good" but even that dude is sketchy with the whole Persephone abduction and marrying.

Totally going to have Hades and Kore/Persephone one shot where the players need to bring Kore/Persephone to Hades while dodging Demeter... Gonna make Persephone more like Lore Olympus and less like the original sketchy stuff.

[Christew]

Eberron is anything but high-powered. Unlike, say, Forgotten Realms, there isn't level 20 NPC standing on every corner, not doing anything useful. Back when it was introduced, there were 3 (and half) high-level NPCs on the whole continent, with everyone else being much lower level, up to 10 or so tops: Level 20 druid, who was also a tree, level 16 necromancer "lich queen", insane level 18 transmuter, and a level 3 cleric who turns into level 18 cleric when she's in the seat of her religion. Not counting older dragons, fiends and extraplanar threats which exist so the PCs who make it to high levels have someone equal to fight.
I imagine he was referring less to the number of high powered NPCs than the ubiquity of magic/artifice.

Yes, FR is infamous for its epic level characters and their epic level absenteeism. To be fair though, 5e has been largely free from that infection. If you want to drop Elminster, Khelben, et al into your campaign, go nuts (the lore is definitely available), but 5e has thus far been pretty frugal in releasing that content (presumably the reason we got the SCAG as opposed to 3e's Forgotten Realms CS this go round). Especially to the uninitiated, 5e's Sword Coast is a pretty vanilla fantasy setting to explore vanilla D&D.

Eberron (admittedly a wide magic setting more than a a high magic setting) presents DMs and players with a lot of new options many of which have power. If I grabbed 100 commoners off the streets of Waterdeep and made them fight 100 commoners from Fairhaven, who would you bet on? The fact that a pretty average joe in Eberron likely knows a cantrips or two is powerful. Additionally the player options in the book are certainly scaled up from the core rules. Dragonmark race variants are hands down more powerful than the standards. The lightning rail and the mysterious island of prophesy-reading dragons that may decide to muck with existence at their whim are both quite powerful (in different ways).

Anyway, I totally agree with you that historically FR has many more high powered characters, I think that sticking to 5e presented material and taking a perspective of player options, Eberron can easily be considered high powered.

[micahaphone]

Problem with MtG/D&D crossovers is that MtG worlds run on a magic system vastly different from the one used in D&D, and there's no good way to translate that.... I've tried, and I've had more success making Warhammer fantasy magic work with D&D.

I don't know enough about the lore of MTG, why doesn't the magic system of MTG work for dnd? I guess I didn't notice any weirdness RE: magic usage in GGtR.


I was super stoked about it at first and thought it was just if you wanted to add Greek Themes or do a Greek Type setting. Then I saw it was MTG and was severely disappointed. GGR doesn't exist to me and now theres one more book, that could have added some new stuff, that I have to ignore.

Why do you have to ignore the book? Just because the setting was originally in MTG doesn't mean it can't be good. I got the Ravnica book because I thought the idea of a mega city with interesting political factions sounded cool. I could totally put the Orzhov Syndicate into my own homebrew game - a combination church/bank/debtor's prison that reaches into the afterlife? That's a cool faction! Who cares if it was originally used to sell those oh-so-expensive slips of cardboard?

[HappyDaze]

I don't know enough about the lore of MTG, why doesn't the magic system of MTG work for dnd? I guess I didn't notice any weirdness RE: magic usage in GGtR.


You didn't notice any weirdness because GGtR only uses D&D magic with the loosest trappings of MtG's color system, but it doesn't really try to capture the feel of it. This was intentional as they wanted it to be compatible with other D&D products. A dedicated rewrite of the entire magic system to follow along with MtG would create a different RPG product, not a D&D supplement, so that's why it wasn't done.

I do recall that WotC, through LUG, produced a dedicated magic system for the Wheel of Time, but this was back in the 3e days when they came up with new systems for everything. The closest we have to such innovation in 5e is the Warlock's Pact Magic...and maybe the subsystems for the new Artificer (but not their very vanilla spellcasting). These days, WotC plays everything much more conservatively.

[Segev]

I do recall that WotC, through LUG, produced a dedicated magic system for the Wheel of Time, but this was back in the 3e days when they came up with new systems for everything.

They really didn't. d20 Wheel of Time used the standard slot system with a very weak nod to something that might have inspired psionics "overchanneling" later on. It would have been much better if they'd shown some of the creativity that went into later subsystem design, like Incarnum and even Tome of Magic. I am not even lauding those as great mechanics (though there's good stuff there, in my opinion). It would at least have been an effort at really capturing the flavor of Wheel of Time's channeling, however badly it might've failed. It wouldn't have been shoehorning it into D&D-style pseudo-Vancian casting, which Wheel of Time definitely was not.

[JoeJ]

Why, though? I would give the book a chance, at least in the form of reading reviews or skimming it in your LGS, before deciding you "have to" ignore its existence for the crime of being based on MtG.

If you want inspiration for a Greek-styled setting or adventure, Mythic Odyssey may still have content that may be relevant. There's no reason to write it off without actually knowing the quality of the book.

Arcana Games also has a Greek setting (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/277656/Arkadia--The-Greek-Setting-for-5e) for 5e. I haven't read or played in it so I don't know how good it is, but it's there if you want to look at it.

[samcifer]

I'm really excited for MOoT because I really want to be able to legally play a satyr character again. The Lion race sounds interesting in concept as well.

[ChildofLuthic]

It's so weird to see how the reaction to the Ravnica book is so negative because that was like the only book that I actually read through (instead of just looking at the new classes and spells). I'm not even a fan of MtG; I just liked the flavor text.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Arcana Games also has a Greek setting (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/277656/Arkadia--The-Greek-Setting-for-5e) for 5e. I haven't read or played in it so I don't know how good it is, but it's there if you want to look at it.

Their subclass book is free.

Barbarians (Path of the Hero): Looks amazing! Might seem too strong for some people but as you get to middle levels and high levels this is what martials need! My groups don't touch after level 10 because martials are boring and get left being "low level with numbers" this allows a martial to be useful for more than just "I hit".

Bard: I like! Calming, Healing, and Sleeping abilities? Nice! This subclass is a Bard and not a rogue or some other class.

Cleric: Seal Fate is hilariously amazing and reminds me of the Future Sight Pokemon ability. I would totally want to use this feature and select "years" and walk away.

Druid: I feel like Zues, imma turn creatures into swans.

Fighter: Oh yes, this is very nice... For combat. Fighters already excel at combat but this makes it where you don't need feats and I can appreciate that! This also makes you a defender again and I love that. I have a hoplite in the works that is a bit different

Monk: Is a gladiator... I love that so much, but "Flash of Bronze" is a bit weird. Off the top of my head this makes me think the designers don't know the monk class very well.

Paladin: Ok, so the druid was the pervert side of Zeus, the paladin is the "smiter gonna smite" side. Reminds me of Thor, for good reason, so this gets my seal of awesome.

Ranger: Amazon? Yes.... Some nice things here. Quell is amazingly fun with a bow. Would be taking crossbow expert on this class.

Rogue: Fated is amazingly scary-awesome. Cleverness is the same as a WotC rogue feature so I wonder if this came out first. Cunning Plan is amazing and I would love to see this expanded into a whole slew of class features. Overall a cool subclass, sadly relies a lot on "short or long rest" but the features more than make up for it!


Sorcerer: Demigod... I guess Druid was just the jerk part of Zeus and here is the perv side? Favor of the Gods should be short rest, if only because I want to see how players roleplay this feature.


Warlock: Oh my... Not as powerful as a necromancer but the fluff and abilities are cool and useful. I would play this over a necromancer mainly because it's a lot simpler.

Wizard: ok, ok, ok, hold up. A nerd subclass? Hell yeahhhhhhh. At first this subclass is just ok. Looking a bit strong with extra spells known and being able to regain spell slots, nothing all that cool but... Arcane Symposium is amazingly cool! Useful, yes, but this feature is downright cool as hell.