D&D 5E Iggwilv/Tasha To Join Volo, Xanathar, and Mordenkainen? [UPDATED!]

Is WotC teasing a new announcement? There have been a few D&D books named after famous personalities from the game's extensive lore - Vole's Guide to Monsters, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. It looks possible that the next such personality might be Tasha of Tasha's Hideous Laughter fame -- which was an adventuring alias of the Greyhawk villain Iggwilv.

UPDATE -- A page has appeared on Amazon entitled Dungeons & Dragons November Title (Announced August 24). It's a hardcover, $49.95, November 17th release date.

On their Discord channel, WotC posted a short audio clip; it features some female-sounding voices laughing, and it is titled "Feather and Tart". It also has a metadata info which says August 24th, 2020, which is Monday. But in addition to that, a WoTC staff member on Reddit's avatar was changed to an image of Iggwilv.

Iggwilv was an evil magic-user, a villain created by Gary Gygax. When adventuring with the Company of Seven, she used the alias Tasha. The lore has it that the witch Baba Yaga adopted her as a child and named her Natasha, and she soon became Natasha the Dark (Baba Yaga also adopted Elena the Fair).

Iggwilv has two forms, one old and one young. You can read more about the character on Wikipedia.


What does seem clear is that WotC is teasing an impending announcement! I assume that the announcement they are teasing will be the announcement of an upcoming announcement, or I'll be disappointed.

 

[Alzrius]

Think about it- first, why does anyone even care about "canon?"

Because that's how my fanfiction of Yoda wielding the Soul Edge becomes more worthy of people's attention.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Well, looks like I was wrong about Xanathar's 2.0 being a planar book. It does have connections to a planar figure, which I guessed, but that is not a ton that I can take credit for.

Anyone noticing a theme for these books (even though it has only been 2 so far)? The player options books are narrated by a villain (Xanathar, Iggwilv) while the DM lore/monster books are narrated by adventurers (Volo, Mordenkainen).

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Of course not!

All "canon" debates are really about what people like. You know that, right?

Think about it- first, why does anyone even care about "canon?" Other than to show off your nerd prowess (gatekeeping) or because you like deep diving and things that fit together?

Almost all IP the predates the late 90s (and I'm being generous here) doesn't care about "canon" except in the loosest sense. Decisions are made for production reasons (transporters in Star Trek) and consistency is whatever the writers at the time decided was necessary for the story.

Not to mention the IP holder can simply change or get rid of canon at any time (sorry, "retcon" the material). No more expanded universe. Or maybe just add a Kelvin Timeline. Hey, did you know that Spock had a sister? I didn't ... but we are about to learn a lot more about Spock and Pike, aren't we? Etc.

People argue over canon as a way of asserting authority as to the desired direction of an IP, or as a way of invalidating choices made with the IP. Because it's easier to point at "canon" than to argue over artistic merit. ¯\(ツ)/¯

I normally disagree with you (a lot) but totally agree that the word "canon" is really silly when applied to D&D. Because as soon as you sit down and play a game, your table is "non-canon." Unless you're literally acting out a Salvatore novel, but that's not D&D at all.

So "playing a canon D&D game" isn't ever truly possible, so the debate seems kind of pointless to me. Even the developers say that your table is always an "alternate Forgotten Realms," (or whatever setting you use) and it's your version, your parallel world.

The better word to use is probably "standard" or "default assumption." Meaning, these are the defaults, but you are completely free to change them or remove them, much like sliders changing the Avatar's hair color or class in an RPG video game.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I normally disagree with you (a lot) but totally agree that the word "canon" is really silly when applied to D&D. Because as soon as you sit down and play a game, your table is "non-canon." Unless you're literally acting out a Salvatore novel, but that's not D&D at all.

See, now we agree twice!

Salvatore is not D&D at all.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

See, now we agree twice!

Salvatore is not D&D at all.

Yeah I'll agree, Salvatore's books are books, they're not D&D.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So, they're reprinting 5 subclasses from the SCAG, GGR, and MOoT. My guess is one from the SCAG, and both subclasses from each of the M:tG setting books.

The subclass from the SCAG will probably be the Arcana Cleric, IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Speaking of Beyond, they never managed to actually implement the Class Feature Variants UA, which they'd been saying was "weeks away" for about three-four months, and now I'm guessing they never will. Not the best look for them.

They never said it was weeks away, or soon, or anything like that. They always said it was hard to implement and that it would take time and that it was high on their priority list but they couldn’t promise a time.

 

[Demetrios1453]

By the way, my speculation that the book would have a major focus on new/updated spells and magic items appears to have been correct, as it looks like there will be a whole chapter dedicated to those...

 

[Parmandur]

So, they're reprinting 5 subclasses from the SCAG, GGR, and MOoT. My guess is one from the SCAG, and both subclasses from each of the M:tG setting books.

The subclass from the SCAG will probably be the Arcana Cleric, IMO.

Bladesinger, apparently, and all Magic Subclasses. Which makes sense if they wanted each Class to get at least two new Subclasses.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Bladedonger, apparently, and all Magic Subclasses. Which makes sense if they wanted each Class to get at least two new Subclasses.

Yeah. The Bladesinger kind of sucks, though.