Plane Shift: Zendikar

A lot of the stuff there is copied out of the core rules, though merfolk, kor, and vampires are all new.

5e wouldn't really capture the "feel" of Magic lore perfectly, but it could simulate the worlds well enough.

Maybe bringing back planar portals or Weatherlight-like ships for occasional hard earned plane shift could work.
Of course you could go full Weatherlight crew, but limiting yourself to one plane is fine I would say.

Spelljammers.

Currently, the only thing actually differentiating a planeswalker from anyone else is the ability to planeswalk. It's just that basically everyone we've got currently is also decently experienced (either prior to or after ignition)

Not exactly. There's one other key difference.

Most mages in MTG only know a handful of different spells or effects. A typical pyromancer might know maybe 5 different ways to shoot fire at people. A Planeswalker doesn't have that restriction. They can know dozens upon dozens of spells for any given situation, and pick up new ones rather easily.

Going by that in an MTG setting, you'd be looking at capping non-planeswalkers at maybe level 5 or so.

I think you're right, but I don't think that's representative of an inherent power difference between walkers and nonwalkers, but more that people who are planebound will usually only know their plane's spells, whereas planeswalkers can learn spells from any plane and combine them.

That's less 'planeswalkers are more inherently powerful' and more 'planeswalkers are all PCs', honestly.

I've skimmed the pdf. It's alright, but it has no information that you couldn't easily gather from looking at the cards to begin with.

Eh. I don't think I'd have figured out Kor were Lucky. Don't know why they specifically have that Brave ability either.

the PC race stats are the real meat of it, honestly - at least for the ones that aren't normally D&D races.
The monsters section was really phoned in, though. Especially the Eldrazi themselves.

I recall reading an article that went into it in more depth titled 'The Mana Bond' but it's since been removed. Maybe that means they retconned it?

Either way, it's very plain to see. Planeswalkers can go to any number of planes to learn spells, normal casters can't. Planeswalkers can draw mana from any number of planes, normal casters are limited. Planeswalker cards tend to have different spells every set, non-planeswalker cards usually have 4 abilities/spells at the upper end, and most have one or two. You are a planeswalker with 40+ spells in your library, normal casters just have their handful of effects.

It makes perfect sense as a distinction, I just wish I could remember where I found the source for it.

In other words, going adventuring and earning levels. It's not something technically bound to being a planeswalker - if, somehow, a planebound mage found a way to move between planes without being a planeswalker, they'd have the exact same advantage (though of course, the Mending fucked over all such things, making that rather hypothetical at the moment). It's an advantage, yes, but not one inherent on planeswalkerhood.

I think he was saying there was an article actually saying it was a capacity only planeswalkers had even though the reasons for why are something that makes sense regardless of some special snowflake powers. But yeah. Manabonds are how mana is made from lands so I assume he may be misremembering something as I'd assume it was about how planeswalkers have access to more lands and kinds of lands than planebound so would naturally have a more powerful skillset.

I managed to find the article again, though it was unrelated to what I was remembering.

I don't see how it's unusual to think that non-planeswalkers might be more limited outside of the natural advantages though. Legendary creatures on various planes could certainly be considered PCs, but even of those you don't get many that have the wide array of spells a high level wizard would have.

Could be cool, surprised WotC didn't do something like this earlier. I know nothing about Zendikar, but I might actually consider playing D&D again if they put out official books for Ravnica or Kamigawa(those being the two sets I played most when I still played). Maybe if they did one for Ice Age.

They're the only ones that have the ability...only because it's currently impossible for nonplaneswalkers to go to other planes.
They're more limited only due to lack of knowledge and lack of ability to easily form mana bonds (due to easy travel) - it'd be like comparing a block deck to a standard deck.

Like I said, I think you're right, I just don't think it's a trait inherent to the spark and more just a natural result of a character/player's ability to travel to an infinite number of planes, bond with an infinite number of lands, and learn from an infinite pool of spells.

Yeah, Yawgmoth wasn't a Planeswalker, and he did pretty well for himself.

Fair enough. It just seems like it may be the exception rather than the rule, though I suppose that is why they are PCs

Anyone made any characters with the stats given?

I haven't given it a shot yet, though I will say a lot of the benefits seem rather strong in comparison to the typical races.

Honestly I'm surprised it took them this long. I was running D&D games set in Zendikar way back when the original block came out.

Actually the mana bonds in inherent to planeswalkers since Ob Nixilis only got his ancient bonds back once he reignited his spark.

No, normal mages use it too

magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/mana-bond-2008-02-06

I hope this does well enough that they do an Innistrad one too. In fact, I wish they'd gone straight there, but at least it will have the benefit of getting the kinks worked out.

this is supposed to be stat blocks for the Zendikar art and story book. Innistrad just got an art book of its own, and is supposed to release on July fifth. We can pretty safely assume that if this goes over well (which its looking like it is) we'll get something similar for the innistrad book, and every book that comes out afterwards.

>5e is a surprisingly mutable system, so it's pretty easy to get things to 'work' under the current rules.

5e is a hell of a lot more rigid and limited in class options than 3.X (hint: ban the core rulebook) or 4e.

I'm happy for it if only because I now have access to official stats for playable Merfolk and Goblins, plus a few new monsters.

I play MTG but I don't really care about Zendikar, so I hope they continue this for other settings. I think Mirrodin would make for a particularly interesting one. Wouldn't mind seeing Theros or Llorwyn either.

While I love Innistrad, it doesn't do a whole lot as a setting that you can't do with Ravenloft. Ravnica, Dominaria, and Mirrodin would be planes I'd really want to see guides for, since they are fairly different from existing D&D settings (though it would not surprise me if Sigil were part of the inspiration for Ravnica).

A setting where even the angels are trying to kill you would be pretty damn interesting, especially when most of the humans are mad as well. Innistrad would be hostile as a mother fucker.

Just because they change a class to say 'Knight' instead of 'Fighter' doesn't immediately mean there's more class options.

Having several years worth of splat books certainly gives the others an edge as well.

That's why I said 'surprisingly', because even compared to the other two there's plenty of flexibility to be had

>Just because they change a class to say 'Knight' instead of 'Fighter' doesn't immediately mean there's more class options.

Yyyyyyyyyes there are?

4e and tier 3-only 3.X both have tons more options than 5e right now.

Except that 'Knight' in 3.5 is literally just Fighter with 1 or 2 changed.

In 5e, it'd be on-par with a subclass.

Of course they have a longer class list when you count non-classes like that and ignore the fact that both have been out for much much longer than 5e.

You're technically correct, but you're ignoring a lot of factors to reach your conclusion.

Ob losing access was probably due less to not being a planeswalker and more due to how he stopped being a planeswalker

>Except that 'Knight' in 3.5 is literally just Fighter with 1 or 2 changed.

You're conveniently discounting the entire Tome of Battle, which kicks the shit out of everything martials could ever have in 5e.

And that's just 3 classes out of 3.X's tier 3.

Hint: The 3.5 knight isn't tier 3.

Let's not even go into 4e's wide list of options.

I'm not 'conveniently discounting' anything.

Fact of the matter is, those massive class lists in 3.5 are full of redundancy and classes that are almost the exact same.

The Warblade is a better version of the Fighter, the Knight, the Warrior, and whatever else, so is counting those all really indicative of variety when anyone with a brain will just pick Warblade? There's no reason to play a Knight or a Fighter when it exists.

Also, how many years into 3.5 was Tome of Battle? We're about 2 years in to 5e so far. Do you really think it's fair to compare a game with 10 years worth of content to 20% of that?

5e has plenty of options to build various concepts. It doesn't need a Knight class to make a Knight.

I really just don't get what your point is here.

>I really just don't get what your point is here.

4e and tier 3-only 3.5 are both better games for expressing a wide variety of character concepts than 5e.

ROGUE SCOUT SWASHBUCKLER NINJA
WARRIOR FIGHTER KNIGHT
PALADIN SAMURAI (ha ha)
and that's just in the 3.x books I own and remember offhand
bunches of classes that are all the same shit

4e was a better game, but it doesn't really factor in here; it's a pretty different game from 3.x/5e

None of those classes you named are tier 3 for 3.5.

Okay. And how does that change what I said? 5e still has plenty of variety in its character concepts, and it doesn't require banning 80% of the game to get there.

4e I'm not even going to bother arguing, since while it's an awesome game, it is set up much differently than 5e.

Irrelevant.

If you have to cut out the vast majority of the content to make the game fun for the whole table, you might have a problem

ban core, ToB and MoI only, maybe psionics if you really have a caster boner, now that's how you play 3.5

Alright, so here's your list:

>Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior

>Beguiler, Dread Necromancer

Beguiler is easily done by Wizard, there are at least 3 different classes that can pull off Necromancer in 5e, more if you include half-casters.

>Crusader

4 flavors of Paladin

>Bard

Check

>Swordsage

Monk has actual supernatural and decent options now

>Wildshape Variant Ranger

Druid

>Duskblade

Probably not a 1 for 1, but there's at least 4 arcane gishes if you don't count Bard

>Factotum

Rogue is a great class now

>Warblade

Fighter or Barbarian are both solid. Maybe not as 'strong' as you think they should be, but 5e isn't suffering the same degree of class imbalance that 3.5 had

>Psychic warrior

And there's the one you've got, because 5e doesn't have psionic rules yet. Key word is yet, because they're in development.

And again, every single thing on this list? With the exception of Bard, they're all from Splatbooks. Every single one of them. 5e has had 2 splatbooks, and only one of them even introduced any subclasses.

Your entire argument is just pointless.

>5e has two splatboks

Incorrect. 5e has no splatbooks; it has a bunch of modules, "player's guides" to said modules, and one setting book.

Alright fine. 5e has two 'books that contain extra rules that can easily be converted and used for a multitude of games in a similar manner to a splatbook'

Happy?

I'm trying to help your argument out here, asshole.

5e gets its first splat in a few months. I hope it has that real artificer class they mentioned once.

You know that Tome of Battle has way more options for martials than anything in 5e, right?

And most of them are to get around 3.5's shitty basic rules for Martials

I don't see how not being able to use Tiger's Graceful Leap in order to move AND attack multiple times in 3.5 means you have more character concepts than 5e when everyone can just do that normally.

Again, I'm not arguing sub-options here. I don't care if 3.5 has 50 different fireball spells. It's a matter of character concepts. Is there some character concept that a Warblade in 3.5 can do that a 5e Fighter can't that isn't 'being a 3.5 Warblade'?

>Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior

The tier 3 list is missing:

>Ardent
>Dragonfire Adept
>Totemist
>Wilder
>Wu Jen

Sorry. I'm getting snippy. They came out with a book that had some spells, and they came out with a book that had some subclasses. That's all I was trying to get across.

>3.5's shitty basic rules for Martials
5e's aren't much better, bucko.

Well, I just picked the first list I found off google, so sorry if it's incomplete.

Either way, Ardent and Wilder are psionic (I think?), Dragonfire Adept fits Dragon Sorcerer nicely, Totemist could work as a Druid, though I've never heard of it before, and I have no guess as to what a Wu Jen is

Where has the splat book been talked about?

Right, because martials in 5e have to deal with their extra attacks getting steadily worse, and have to stand completely still to get them at all? Or need 5 feats to be competent with basic combat maneuvers?

You're holding up these Tome of Battle maneuvers as 'options' when all they are is stuff that Fighters should have been doing all along.

And they had years to build up that list as well, a fact that seems to keep being ignored.

In the past, they actually had some sort of internal rule about keeping MtG and D&D separate entities IIRC. I was kind of surprised they did this at all.

Shit son, are you seriously claiming that 5e's martials are as good as ToB martials?

Probably has something to do with the switch over with the new CEO.

No, I'm not. I'm saying it doesn't matter.

Give me a character concept that a ToB martial fills that a 5e character can't.

Wu Jen is literally a Wizard alternative class from Oriental Adventures.

Totemist is a class found in Magic of Incarnum and it's pretty cool and original and I personally don't think you could make with available classes found in 5e

This comes from a fan of 5e's design, btw

You could easily make the Magic of Incarnum classes in 5e but it will take a LONG TIME

All editions of D&D can execute most fantasy concepts.

The difference is how WELL they can be executed.

A 5e wizard is pretty much nothing close to a 3.5 beguiler, especially when you compare the kind of spells beguilers got (a shit ton of enchantments and illusions, spontaneously cast) and their massive skill monkey-ness.

New CEO switch has been announced but he's not in until June-ish. Probably related in that they're trying to make a number of money-making internal changes, but not directly related to new CEO.

Okay...so how does that invalidate my initial statement of

>5e is a surprisingly mutable system

Which is to say, 5e is surprisingly mutable, when you account for the fact that it can do all of these character concepts without have 10 years of constant releases?

Don't tell me this entire argument has been someone just not understanding the idea that an old system will have more variety than a new system just because it's had more time to grow?

Hmm...looking at the Totemist, it seems most similar to the Warlock in terms of basics, but I think you're right that it'd need to be it's own thing.

I wouldn't feel like a Totemist would work as a Warlock. I think making the Binder class into a Warlock was pushing it, but Incarnum classes go so beyond of the scope of the Warlock it's wrong.

... And yet the closest class you had in 3.5 to a Totemist was a Binder

Well, I meant basics in the sense of 'uses charisma and casts spells in a weird way from an external source'

MoI was one of my favorite 3.5 books, and 5e is lacking it.

I fail to see the difference between "fucker who spontaneously casts illusion and enchantment spells" and "fucker who spontaneously casts illusion and enchantment spells".

Maybe Beguiler has more skillmonkey stuff built in, but 5e does give everyone a couple free skills of their choice.

The problems with porting MoI to 5e are:

>You'd have to rewrite every single soulmeld to fit new rules conventions
>Due to new rules conventions, most soulmelds would have to have new bonuses for essence investment

and also

>Chakra binds in 3.5 were based on body-location magic item slots, a system which 5e dumped for attunement slots; would chakra binds be separated from magic item slots, or would they eat up attunements?

Honestly, I feel like MTG settings would work much better with 4e than they would have with 5e.

The higher power levels and more freedom for odd character concepts. I mean, 4e managed to make Minotaur a playable character from level 1 for instance.

I agree that 4e would probably work better for MTG.

5e also has a minotaur race, though.

I think 5e has rules for Minotaurs? I might be getting mixed up with Goliaths.

Either way, I think 4e would be a much better system for Planeswalkers, as you'd have that level of raw power right off the bat.

For adventures of Planar subjects, it depends on the Plane, but I think 5e could be a good fit for some of them.

Did they? I didn't think they'd released stuff for Dragonlance yet and that was always the main setting for PC Minotaurs.

But yeah, I just generally think that 4e's system would make it a lot easier to meld 'I want to be X class' with 'I want to use Y magic'.

Especially when Magic and Physical Actions are a lot more interlinked in MTG than they are in 5e. A rallying battle cry is as much drawing on white mana as a healing spell.

>I fail to see the difference between "fucker who spontaneously casts illusion and enchantment spells" and "fucker who spontaneously casts illusion and enchantment spells".

That's like saying that a 3.5 sorcerer with enchantment and illusion and a 3.5 beguiler are alike, and they fucking aren't, not even if you gave the sorcerer Int casting.