D&D 5E Upcoming D&D Tidbits: Phandelver, Book of Many Things, Venger, & More!

D&D Beyond has shared some more tidbits of information about upcoming products, including this summer's new Phandelver campaign, and information about Vecna, Planescape, and spring's Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants, and more.

​

Here are the highlights:

• In the 2024 Vecna adventure, you will visit various worlds.
• Art by Brian Valezer and Kent Davis from fall 2023's Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants was shared (see below), along with art from the Phandelver campaign by José Manzanedo. There was additional art from Planescape and more which you can see in the video.
• The new Phandelver book will include the existing adventure Lost Mines of Phandelver in the first half and then continue on to higher levels from there.
• They're reimagining Planescape for today's audience--honouring the roots then expanding.
• More cards are being added to the Deck of Many Things in winter 2023's Book of Many Things. A new product type--a deck of cards and an accompanying book. The book digs into the history of the deck and its cosmic place as a force of chaos. It contains player and DM content.
• Venger, the villain from the 1980s D&D cartoon who will be featuring in an upcoming storyline and WotC's Chris Perkins might have hinted he is actually a Red Wizard--'a redder Red Wizard' was the phrase used.
• Many of the various bad guys in the League of Malevolence appeared in the D&D cartoon series -- Kelek, Warduke, etc.

Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants (art by Brian Valezer)

Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants (art by Kent Davis)

Phandelver Campaign (art by José Manzanedo)

Book of Many Things (art by Craig J. Spearing)​

 

[Parmandur]

That's not a well-advised argument, I'd suggest, because you could immunize any adventure, no matter how fundamentally boring, obvious, rigid, and generally weakly-conceived on that basis. So it's kind of a self-negating argument, as applies to all adventures equally.

I would suggest there are 100% absolutely bad, dull, rubbish, boring, poorly-designed, rigid or otherwise crummy adventures out there (not just from WotC or for D&D, either - I can't think of a system I have more than a few adventures for where at least a couple aren't pretty crummy), and blaming the people who are foolish enough to run/play them for them being a bad experience is, imho, both bad form (essentially a form of victim-blaming and author-worship - i.e. authors can do nothing wrong, it's always the players/DM who "brought the wrong energy to the table" or w/e), and just outright wrong! I get you probably don't intend it that way, I'm just pointing out the consequences of arguing that way.

That said I don't think that applies to Phandelver. I wouldn't call it "dull" or "boring" - as you say it's not a bad introduction at all. My personal experience is that there's isn't any requirement for intro adventures to be very "on-brand", but it's absolutely fine if they are.

I agree, I just think in this case it's thar Lost Mines is trying to be an open generic experience, without a lot of out there flavor.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I agree, I just think in this case it's thar Loat Mijes is trying to be an open generic experience, without a lot of out there flavor.

Calling it the "Loat Mijes" would go a long way toward giving it out there flavor, of course.

 

[Parmandur]

Calling it the "Loat Mijes" would go a long way toward giving it out there flavor, of course.

Gosh darn skippy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think it's dull, but generic works in its favour as an introductory adventure.

This is true, but when I encountered it I was not a new player, so it didn't offer anything I hadn't seen before.

And I had stuff like Castle Amber and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks as my introductory adventures....

It's certainly true that most of the fun of D&D comes from the players jamming off each other, so it doesn't much matter how interesting the module is. However, when it comes to reading and prepping, I like stuff a bit more imaginative.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And I had stuff like Castle Amber and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks as my introductory adventures....

I love both of those adventures, but they give a very strange picture of what to expect from Dungeons & Dragons, especially if no one in your group has ever played before.

"Where the hell are all the robots and max-level wizards in this adventure? This is supposed to be D&D!"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I love both of those adventures, but they give a very strange picture of what to expect from Dungeons & Dragons, especially if no one in your group has ever played before.

"Where the hell are all the robots and max-level wizards in this adventure? This is supposed to be D&D!"

I don't have that problem.

There are usually robots and max-level wizards in my games.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't have that problem.

There are usually robots and max-level wizards in my games.

Fair!

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Dragons of Autumn (3E, DL1-4)
Dragons of Winter (3E, DL6-9)
Dragons of Spring (3E, DL10, 12-14)

Nitpick: These were published by Sovereign Press under license from WotC.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I think generic works for a starter adventure like lost mine. Many people are going in expecting a game where a copy and paste 'fellowship of the ring' goes to fight orcs, explore dungeons, and kill a dragon.

Lost Mine does exactly that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think generic works for a starter adventure like lost mine. Many people are going in expecting a game where a copy and paste 'fellowship of the ring' goes to fight orcs, explore dungeons, and kill a dragon.

Lost Mine does exactly that.

On the other hand, one might consider that a starter set that does not suggest to new players the vast potentialities of D&D to be something of a failure.