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

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

I'm even okay with kender taking shiny things, things that simply catch their attention. But I like your ideas overall. I would also add that kender, at least those with a little experience outside Kendermore, can totally get that the bigs do not like it when kender take their stuff, and work to restrain themselves to some degree. I agree the kender lore needs tweaking, not outright being tossed in the rubbish.

I'm not the one comparing them to Romani.

No, but it's a fair comparison. Kender do have settled villages, but also a major wandering component to their culture. And the real world Romani aren't constantly on the move either. And really, I see kender as embodying negative stereotypes of Travelers altogether, not just the Romani . . . there are several cultures of Travelers throughout the real world, the Romani are simply perhaps the best known.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

Sigh.

There's a difference from allying with an evil person when you have shared goals . . . and allying with a good person who happens to be an orc.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Sigh.

There's a difference from allying with an evil person when you have shared goals . . . and allying with a good person who happens to be an orc.

how so?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

how so?

The same difference between allying with an evil person when you have shared goals, and allying with a good person who happens to be a halfling.

 

[cbwjm]

Sigh.

There's a difference from allying with an evil person when you have shared goals . . . and allying with a good person who happens to be an orc.

What's your point?

 

[Azzy]

how so?

Because allying with an evil person tends to be slimy with a good chance of treachery. OTOH, allying with a good person (who happens to be an orc) isn't morally questionable and tends not to end in treachery.

 

[Dire Bare]

There's a difference from allying with an evil person when you have shared goals . . . and allying with a good person who happens to be an orc.

What's your point?

That removing alignment has changed things.

Two problems, as I see it, with alignment in the game.

1. Associating alignment with specific races (mortal, sentient races) like orcs or drow. Orcs are always evil is problematic ethically, and shoddy world-building.
2. Using alignment as a personality type for creatures, and to put them in boxes of stereotyped reactions. Even a chaotic evil halfling, played traditionally, is problematic as people are deeper and more complicated than good or evil (and the whole law vs. chaos thing only exists in fiction). Not that evil doesn't exist, but it shouldn't define most beings, with the possible exception of extraplanar spirits (demons, devils).

Removing alignment from the game opens up your characters (PCs and NPCs) to a wider range of possibility, personality, and how they react to the adventure at hand. As D&D has distanced itself from alignment, the game has improved and become more deep and interesting . . . both the official products and at the game table.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Got it. Then to clarify, my statement was not about that. My statement was simply about story / plot not problematic elements of settings.

 

[Faolyn]

how so?

Because there's a difference between evil people and good people (even without alignments).

Because there's no reason to make it so some race of people are always or even mostly the bad guys.

Because it's more logical, more realistic, more engaging, and more inclusive to decide who your bad guys are based on their ideology or actions rather than their race or appearance.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Remember the good old days when this thread was actually about Fizban's Treasury of Dragons? Good times!