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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Or I don't have to deal with it because it made a player uncomfortable.

You can say the same about spiders. It's meaningless.

ding ding ding

What's your point? It's okay for adults monsters to have an alignment, but not children? What about white dragon wymlings (also in RotFM)?

 

[Reynard]

You can say the same about spiders. It's meaningless.

I'm not sure what you are saying. If one of my players was arachniphobic I certainly wouldn't force spider encounters on them.

What's your point? It's okay for adults monsters to have an alignment, but not children? What about white dragon wymlings (also in RotFM)?

As a policy, I don't put PCs in the position of having to kill anything that could be reasonably called children. You won't find mewling goblin babies in my games, and I would leave a table where the GM would present them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As a policy, I don't put PCs in the position of having to kill anything that could be reasonably called children.

Including white dragon wymlings?

Also, just because you encounter something, doesn't mean the party have to kill it. That's up to them.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

so it is just do not trust the evil one and the good one is work with them as normal?

Assuming you aren't planning to double-cross the good one yourself, yes. The evil person might share the same goals as you, but you have to keep in mind that they might betray you once they get what they want; or maybe they'll stay loyal to you but cause way too much collateral damage and have a general disregard for bystanders' well-being. With a person you can safely call "good", you usually don't have to worry about these things. Whether that person is an orc, a halfling, a centaur, or whatever shouldn't have a material effect on whether the above holds.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Assuming you aren't planning to double-cross the good one yourself, yes. The evil person might share the same goals as you, but you have to keep in mind that they might betray you once they get what they want; or maybe they'll stay loyal to you but cause way too much collateral damage and have a general disregard for bystanders' well-being. With a person you can safely call "good", you usually don't have to worry about these things. Whether that person is an orc, a halfling, a centaur, or whatever shouldn't have a material effect on whether the above holds.

There is no point in an "evil" traitor, since no one trusts them anyway, they will be prepared for any betrayal. In fact, evil is predictable - it will always act in it's own best interests.

You need your traitor to be "good" so everyone trusts them*. Even "good" people can be subverted by deception or blackmail. And this can make them unpredictable. Present them with a moral dilemma with no good choices and who knows which way they will jump?


*This is a major plot point in Dune.

 

[hopeless]

I wonder what kind of skill challenge would result from trying to adopt a pack of white wyrmlings in an effort to avoid getting them killed and recruit them into a neophyte dragon cavalry?

 

[Maxperson]

That seems a fairly minor thing to be the deciding factor. I would prefer to see alignment in the stat blocks as well (maybe with the old 2e modifiers like "often" or "usually"), but the lack of them is hardly going eclipse all the other expected goodness in the book, in my opinion.

Even if it's there as an optional rule I will buy it. I will not be spending money on something that requires me to do their work for them by adding alignment back in. They've thrown the baby out with the bath water by removing it entirely from the Candle Keep book and I expect they have done the same with this one.

 

[Reynard]

Including white dragon wymlings?

I did say "reasonably." But really in this case it depends on how I have defined dragons in the campaign. Are they cunning beasts or intelligent beings? Is there a continuum, based on age and/or type? It's potentially complicated. But in general in most D&D campaigns, evil dragons are EVIL, even when they are little, and they are not in any way "children" even if they are "young."

Also, just because you encounter something, doesn't mean the party have to kill it. That's up to them.

I am pretty sure I know my players and their predilections better than you do, so I am going to stick with the answer that I wouldn't bother putting them in that situation. What good would come of it? I don't think "moral quandaries" in D&D are interesting, or even healthy. They are usually traps set by the GM, in my experience. "Remember those baby goblin you didn't kill last year? They burned down you home village! Ha!" No thanks.

 

[Maxperson]

Out of curiosity, why would that be the hard line for you?

Because it's an invaluable aid to me in running monsters and I don't want to do their work for them. Simply describing behaviors in a simple few sentences will help, but not nearly as much as alignment does. They are even less likely to give me an in depth view of each dragon in the way that 2e did than they are to put alignment in as an optional rule, which means that I'm going to have to do the work of determining each dragon's alignment myself, and I have a thing about doing the work of a corporation for them. I refuse to use self-checkout at grocery stores as well.

 

[Reynard]

Because it's an invaluable aid to me in running monsters and I don't want to do their work for them. Simply describing behaviors in a simple few sentences will help, but not nearly as much as alignment does. They are even less likely to give me an in depth view of each dragon in the way that 2e did than they are to put alignment in as an optional rule, which means that I'm going to have to do the work of determining each dragon's alignment myself, and I have a thing about doing the work of a corporation for them. I refuse to use self-checkout at grocery stores as well.

Interesting. I don't think alignment is that helpful becasue it is inherently imprecise and broad. There are LOTS of ways to play any alignment. I would rather have a couple tags -- greedy, impatient, violent, helpful, resolute, etc... -- especially when talking about complex and nuanced creatures such as dragons.