D&D 5E Everything We Know About The Ravenloft Book

Here is a list of everything we know so far about the upcoming Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft.

Art by Paul Scott Canavan​

• May 18th, 256 pages
• 30 domains (with 30 villainous darklords)
• Barovia (Strahd), Dementlieu (twisted fairly tales), Lamordia (flesh golem), Falkovnia (zombies), Kalakeri (Indian folklore, dark rainforests), Valachan (hunting PCs for sport), Lamordia (mad science)
• NPCs include Esmerelda de’Avenir, Weathermay-Foxgrove twins, traveling detective Alanik Ray.
• Large section on setting safe boundaries.
• Dark Gifts are character traits with a cost.
• College of Spirits (bard storytellers who manipulate spirits of folklore) and Undead Patron (warlock) subclasses.
• Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood lineages.
• Cultural consultants used.
• Fresh take on Vistani.
• 40 pages of monsters. Also nautical monsters in Sea of Sorrows.
• 20 page adventure called The House of Lament - haunted house, spirits, seances.

​

D&D 5E - Full Wraparound Cover Art For Ravenloft

We've seen the cover already, but here's a look at the full wraparound art by Anna Podedworna. https://www.enworld.org/threads/updated-with-cover-the-d-d-book-is-van-richtens-guide-to-ravenloft.678411/ https://www.enworld.org/threads/heres-the-ravenloft-alternate-cover.678414/...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - Here's the Ravenloft Alternate Cover!

As usual, there is an alternate hobby-store exclusive cover for the upcoming Ravenloft book. Here's a look at it! And here's the full wraparound art. https://www.enworld.org/threads/updated-with-cover-the-d-d-book-is-van-richtens-guide-to-ravenloft.678411/...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - [Updated with cover!] The D&D Book Is.... Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft!

Yesterday's hints that a new D&D book would be announced today have born fruit -- we now have a product description and a title! It's a Ravenloft setting book, with tools and new rules for horror-themed games, and new horror-themed character options. I'll update this post with a product image as...

www.enworld.org

 

[Bedrockgames]

No.

Well we just disagree on this then. Which is fine. You don't have agree with me

 

[tetrasodium]

Well we just disagree on this then. Which is fine. You don't have agree with me

The problem with that whole aspect tacked onto him is that it was set out in a very lgbtq-phobic manner. There's nothing wrong with NPCs fitting into the LGBTQ spectrum somewhere but Haslik was written in a way that made it a negative set of traits. We keep seeing an eberron crossover to sigil NPC called Vi as an artificer example coming up from wotc, but so far very little has been said about her & it would be no big deal if she happens to have a wife & one of those 'cursed' girdle things in a ring or something.... Rhime of the frostmaiden has an NPC you rescue after his husband hires you to save him from a mountain climb gone wrong, it's not even spotlighted as a thing of note just save my husband, Haslik was not that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My point was that same critique could be applied (their villainy comes from similar sources arguably----but it is also the thing that makes them interesting). Or imagine a movie like Silence of the Lambs without Buffalo Bill, since that was brought up (or with a Buffalo Bill with a backstory that works around the issues raised). Buffalo Bill is one of the most memorable characters in horror movies (and the performance was outstanding). It isn't as interesting of a movie if you remove him. You are removing a very powerful aspect of the film. And in the case of Psycho that was based on a real killing by a real person (who used to wear human skin because he wanted to be a woman: specifically his mom most likely). You can read these things uncharitably. But they are horror. Whatever materials or things from real life they take and explore are going to be presented in strange, gruesome and alarming lights. Why should a queer character be any less interesting, alarming or shocking than other characters?

You really should watch that YouTube video you got linked mate, it's literally about what you're discussing, it's witty and I think you'll find it entertaining and not a polemic.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You really should watch that YouTube video you got linked mate, it's literally about what you're discussing, it's witty and I think you'll find it entertaining and not a polemic.

I have seen the video (seen before, but will happily watch it again). I just don't agree with its media assessment

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just don't agree with its media assessment

I mean, I'm wondering what you disagree about, but even beyond that, it should point up some of the problems with what you were saying previously, stuff you appeared to not be aware of - for example the the fact that both movies you mention have a specific scene that explains that they villain isn't evil because they're trans, and in fact, isn't trans (literally a scene in both Psycho and Lambs), whereas my understanding of Hazlik was that there was no such explanation, and it was sort of implied that he was evil because he was queer/queer because he was evil.

And even with those movies, it's important to note that the elaborate disclaimers didn't work - that people with anti-trans opinions love to cite Lambs, or use imagery from it, even though the movie says "this isn't a trans person". Flying too close to the sun and all that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The problem with that whole aspect tacked onto him is that it was set out in a very lgbtq-phobic manner. There's nothing wrong with NPCs fitting into the LGBTQ spectrum somewhere but Haslik was written in a way that made it a negative set of traits.

My point is it is a mistake and an uncharitable reading to see that as the message (or as the only possible one). I don't think in 1991, when this was written, they were at all thinking about the things people say they were. They were making a character who lived in a society that valued masculinity and was shamed by that society by giving him tattoos only women wore in that culture. To me that sounds more like the experience of a man who grows up in say a culture where football and sports are valued, who isn't physically strong and is bullied and emasculated by his peers (it is just done with a lot more panache and style here). They do storylines like this because people can identify with them, and it gives a sense of justification to the tragic villainy and rage. And that could be read through a lens of gay rights or queer rights too, but I don't think the message was intending to say he was bad because he transgressed some line from masculine or feminine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, I'm wondering what you disagree about, but even beyond that, it should point up some of the problems with what you were saying previously, stuff you appeared to not be aware of - for example the the fact that both movies you mention have a specific scene that explains that they villain isn't evil because they're trans, and in fact, isn't trans (literally a scene in both Psycho and Lambs), whereas my understanding of Hazlik was that there was no such explanation, and it was sort of implied that he was evil because he was queer/queer because he was evil.

I was responding to another posters comments on the Silence of the Lambs and Psycho, not the video's take on them. In terms of Hazlik. Maybe later versions (possibly WW's) he was treated that way. In the Ravenloft 2E line I don't think that was the case. Even so, I think it is very much a mistake to equate content with a message. Sometimes it is. If a movie or book is trying to make a diatribe against a group that is one thing. My impression of Hazlik is that was definitely not the case at all

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My point is it is a mistake and an uncharitable reading to see that as the message (or as the only possible one). I don't think in 1991, when this was written, they were at all thinking about the things people say they were. They were making a character who lived in a society that valued masculinity and was shamed by that society by giving him tattoos only women wore in that culture. To me that sounds more like the experience of a man who grows up in say a culture where football and sports are valued, who isn't physically strong and is bullied and emasculated by his peers (it is just done with a lot more panache and style here). They do storylines like this because people can identify with them, and it gives a sense of justification to the tragic villainy and rage. And that could be read through a lens of gay rights or queer rights too, but I don't think the message was intending to say he was bad because he transgressed some line from masculine or feminine.

I think if your defense is "WELL THAT WASN'T WHAT I MEANT!" even though it's a very obvious understanding of something, and hard to avoid, then maybe consider that you might have screwed up and rather than doubling down, add some nuance or clarity or change things up a bit? And if they're the only queer character in something, and they're even close to appear "evil because queer" or "crazy because queer", then that's on you, as a writer.

There's a ton of stuff from the 1990s and before that wasn't "meant to be" racist, misogynist, or incredibly homophobic, but... it is.

Look at 1986's Soul Man for god's sake. I don't think anyone would suggest it was meant as "racist movie" in a nasty way (unlike, say Birth of a Nation). But brother, it's a pretty damn racist movie.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And even with those movies, it's important to note that the elaborate disclaimers didn't work - that people with anti-trans opinions love to cite Lambs, or use imagery from it, even though the movie says "this isn't a trans person". Flying too close to the sun and all that.

People who hate other people will site art, movies and books all the time, because they often misunderstand them. We shouldn't give into that and join in their misunderstanding. And we certainly should not make art less interesting because of them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

People who hate other people will site art, movies and books all the time, because they often misunderstand them. We shouldn't give into that and join in their misunderstanding. And we certainly should not make art less interesting because of them.

That's not what's happening though.

Criticism isn't hate. It's literally mindless and anti-discussion to suggest it is. And it's not a "misunderstanding" to say Soul Man is a racist film. It would be a misunderstanding to say "Soul Man was written to attack black people". If you can't see the difference, that's on you and it's a big problem.

Do you understand how this applies to the issue we're discussing?