D&D 5E The October D&D Book is Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons

As revealed by Nerd Immersion by deciphering computer code from D&D Beyond!

Spoiler

Fizban the Fabulous is, of course, the accident-prone, befuddled alter-ego of Dragonlance’s god of good dragons, Paladine, the platinum dragon (Dragonlance’s version of Bahamut).

Which makes my guess earlier this year spot on!

UPDATE -- the book now has a description!

D&D 5E - Fizban's Treasury: The Dragon Book Now Has A Description... And A Feat

Courtesy of Amazon, we now have a description for Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, the October D&D hardcover. The book introduces gem dragons, dragon-themed player options, and plenty of draconic lore! This joins September's The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, and November's Strixhaven: Curriculum of...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - My guess for the other D&D book this year... Draconomicon!

We know the fifth major product this year will be James Wyatt‘s as-yet unannounced project, and we know it will be coming out this year between Witchlight and Strixhaven. Wyatt co-wrote the Draconomicon for 3E. There have been two recent dragon-themed Unearthed Arcanas — dragon-themed...

www.enworld.org

Fizban the Fabulous by Vera Gentinetta

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Nope, they said that it is an Adult Turtle Dragon, retroactively. So there are two Turtle Dragons more powerful than the MM, and two less powerful.

Then that is going to be one powerful Great Wyrm Dragon Turtle. The one possible Great Wyrm Dragon Turtle Would be Nanna Sin, the former God turned Immortal Dragon Turtle that guards Tymanther's cities.

 

[dave2008]

It's part of who they are in-game. Well, I included the sociopath bit but honestly, their description reads like that.

OK, I just realized I have never read a kender stat block / MM entry before!

 

[Faolyn]

So nothing, then?

Seriously that is quite a stretch from "annoying" to "problematic." The former just sucks. It doesn't harm anyone. The latter is real and needs to be looked at and, if present, addressed.

Unless you are seriously suggesting that real world kleptomaniacs and habitual liars, as people suffering from mental illness, are being harmed by the existence of Tasslehoff Burrfoot.

They're "problematic" in the sense that their racial lore is a convoluted, hypocritical, and rather stupid mess. I'm not saying toss kender, since they are a major part of Dragonlance's image. I'm saying maybe rewrite them a bit so they either not a race of kleptomaniacal liars or so that other people in the world realize that they aren't paragons of innocence.

For example, as I've mentioned on other threads, kender have no understanding of personal property, nor do they fear repercussions from "handling" things. But their own entries say that they steal things and then lie about it--which they wouldn't do if they didn't fear getting in trouble--and that they will gladly take anything they see that interests them (which is everything). And that entry I linked says kender often believe their lies, in which case that means they're actually delusional, and they don't like being called thieves because they apparently believe that they have permission to take things from other people. They are written as an entire race of people with some major delusions.

So, change kender in this way: They have no understanding of personal property. If they have a need, they take the thing that they need. Once they no longer need it, they give it back. If they see someone else has a need, they take the thing and give it to the person who needs it, under the (probably very wrong) belief that the person will also return it once it its done. If someone confronts them, they honestly say that they took the item because it was needed.

This, right there, turns kender from annoying little thieves into people who actually don't understand personal property but who take things only when they're needed.

As to the Romani suggestion: that is very thin given nothing else in Kender culture is like unto Romani culture of which I am aware. It's not like Goldman and Riverwind's blatant depiction of noble Savage American Indian stereotypes.

There is quite enough that is dated or outright problematic in DL. We don't need to invent additional issues.

I'm not the one comparing them to Romani.

 

[Faolyn]

I think people are reading WotC backing off from alignment and some colonialist tropes as generally avoiding "edgy stuff." I think they are being very specific, and most of it is based on inclusiveness and treating people equitably rather than some desire to "clean up" D&D. As far as I can tell, bad guys can still bad guy.

Exactly. All that removing alignment does is mean that you can have creatures that used to be always evil become allies, and creatures that used to be always good become enemies.

As an example, in VGR, there's a darklord who's a bronze dragon.

 

[Parmandur]

Exactly. All that removing alignment does is mean that you can have creatures that used to be always evil become allies, and creatures that used to be always good become enemies.

As an example, in VGR, there's a darklord who's a bronze dragon.

Opens up options, really.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I was not and am not a part of that discussion and this idea has nothing to do with that.

The exchange you were jumping into was specifically about Dragonlance's setting elements that haven't aged well, not about the question of how to handle metaplot in general.

 

[cbwjm]

Exactly. All that removing alignment does is mean that you can have creatures that used to be always evil become allies, and creatures that used to be always good become enemies.

As an example, in VGR, there's a darklord who's a bronze dragon.

Seems to me that removing alignment hasn't really changed anything then.

 

[Reynard]

Opens up options, really.

It is also forcing people to rethink "stock enemies" which probably isn't a bad thing. As I have stated many times on these boards, I like having eminently killable fodder who were cooked up in the villain's lab, and I don't mind if they are sentient as long as they aren't free willed. But it is still worth looking at.

 

[Reynard]

They're "problematic" in the sense that their racial lore is a convoluted, hypocritical, and rather stupid mess.

That's not the definition of "problematic" that is generally used in these discussions, which led me to assume you meant something you didn't. Apologies.

 

[Faolyn]

Seems to me that removing alignment hasn't really changed anything then.

You might be surprised by the number of people who take alignment as an absolute ruling.