D&D 5E Is Paladine Bahamut? Is Takhisis Tiamat? Fizban's Treasury Might Reveal The Answer!

According to WotC's James Wyatt, Fizban's Treasury of Dragons introduces a new cosmology for dragon gods, where the same beings, including Fizban, echo across various D&D campaign settings with alternate versions of themselves (presumably like Paladine/Bahamut, or Takhisis/Tiamat). Also... the various version can merge into one single form.

Takhisis is the five-headed dragon god of evil from the Dragonlance setting. Paladine is the platinum dragon god of good (and also Fizban's alter-ego).

Additionally, the book will contain psychic gem dragons, with stats for all four age categories of the five varieties (traditionally there are Amethyst, Crystal, Emerald, Sapphire, and Topaz), plus Dragonborn characters based on metallic, chromatic, and gem dragons.

D&D 5E - Check out Fizban's Alternate Cover!

WotC's James Wyatt talked to Polygon about Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, which also revealed the alternate cover, which you can only get from hobby stores. https://www.enworld.org/threads/fizbans-treasury-the-dragon-book-now-has-a-description-and-a-feat.681399/

www.enworld.org

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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why do thinks this? Where has this been verified? Like I said before I haven't seen anything to suggest that this is absolute fact. There are lots of rumors if you will, but I haven't seen it emphatically spelled out.

The Eberron book specifically states that it is cut off with its own cosmology. It gives you some wiggle room to integrate it into the wheel if you want, but not required if you don't.

I feel like it is.

I think that remains to be seen. I think my cosmos still works with the "official" 5e, but I have a different perspective on the validity of official lore.

I feel for you. I don't think I could play D&D if I had to respect what was "official" lore.

Since I’m working today I can’t really go through the books and Twitter and sage advice and DDB interviews to find all the statements that build up to what I’m talking about here, so I guess I’ll just have to drop it for now. (I’m very confident that there is a statement by wotc staff in an official context stating that the only thing stopping you getting into Eberron from the Great Wheel’s planes is a sealed crystal sphere, and that without that you could teleport there if you knew a Sigil sequence there.

I do know that Rising explicitly states that Eberron’s cosmology exists within the Great Wheel. I don’t really see the difference whether the Great Wheel is an accurate cosmological model or not, that doesn’t change that all worlds are within the wheel now.

 

[Mirtek]

Being sealed off means nobody gets in or out. So no teleporting there, no knowledge that gods are real, no nothing other than Eberron as it was in 3e.

Except of course that no seal is truly perfect. Especially for such small and unimportant particles like the usual mortal. Athas is also sealed away and hard to get to, except for now and then when someone somhow manages to get there

 

[Maxperson]

Except of course that no seal is truly perfect. Especially for such small and unimportant particles like the usual mortal. Athas is also sealed away and hard to get to, except for now and then when someone somhow manages to get there

That's entirely within the DM's control, though. It's either possible or it's not, depending on what the DM wants.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Since I’m working today I can’t really go through the books and Twitter and sage advice and DDB interviews to find all the statements that build up to what I’m talking about here, so I guess I’ll just have to drop it for now. (I’m very confident that there is a statement by wotc staff in an official context stating that the only thing stopping you getting into Eberron from the Great Wheel’s planes is a sealed crystal sphere, and that without that you could teleport there if you knew a Sigil sequence there.

I do know that Rising explicitly states that Eberron’s cosmology exists within the Great Wheel. I don’t really see the difference whether the Great Wheel is an accurate cosmological model or not, that doesn’t change that all worlds are within the wheel now.

Yeah, there is a Sage Advice on Dragon Talk where Jeremy Crawford talks about how Eberron fits into the cosmology.

 

[Dire Bare]

I was under the assumption there could still be multiple alternate prime planes.

Official canon has gone back and forth on this . . . it's one of those things that REALLY matters to some folks, but doesn't have much of a practical impact at the table unless you are playing a Spelljammer campaign.

Each official setting (Dragonlance, Realms, Dark Sun, etc) is a planet within the universe of the same material plane . . . OR, each setting exists within it's own crystal sphere, floating within the phlogiston on the same material plane, OR . . . . each setting is it's own alternate material plane, OR . . . . all of the above can be true, with some settings sharing a material plane and/or crystal sphere, and others exist on different material planes.

And regardless of which model above is currently in vogue . . . does each setting have it's own set of mirror, inner, and outer planes? Is the feywild of Dragonlance the same plane as the feywild of the Realms? Canon has gone back and forth on this as well.

And now with the Magic settings getting into the mix, with the official Magic game having a different cosmology all together . . . can Jace planeswalk from Ravnica to the Realms? Does Dragonlance exist within the Blind Eternities? Can a native of Oerth develop a planeswalkers spark? Is the Forgotten Realms of the new Magic card set the same Realms of the D&D game, or a "variant" that plays by Magic's cosmological rules? Vice versa for Theros and Ravnica.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, there is a Sage Advice on Dragon Talk where Jeremy Crawford talks about how Eberron fits into the cosmology.

Thanks! I’ll do a rewatch later so I have it all straight!

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I think you might want to check out Keith's blog to see what he actually thinks about that. He plays Eberron as essentially isolated. "Mordenkainen" is just an alias for Mordain the Fleshweaver and not a wizard from another planet.

Yes, Keith is also very explicit about HIS Eberron being different vs WotC’s Eberron.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Thanks! I’ll do a rewatch later so I have it all straight!

No problem!

I don't know how useful it actually is today however, as it does keep a lot of stuff deliberately vague... although there is a confirmation that Ravnica is a world on the Material Plane, I think that the only reference to MTG lore at all, and doesn't really do a great job of explaining how Planeswalkers work in D&D worlds or how the Planeshift spell works on MTG worlds.

It does do a better job of explaining how Eberron fits in the greater cosmology, so it's useful for how it, and likely worlds like Dark Sun, fit into everything.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Another example is Bane. Aside from the name, portfolio, and alignment, Points of Light Bane and Forgotten Realms Bane have almost nothing in

Honesty I would have just called PoL Bane Hextor who he clearly takes more after in personality. Heck I think that was originally the plan.

 

[dave2008]

Since I’m working today I can’t really go through the books and Twitter and sage advice and DDB interviews to find all the statements that build up to what I’m talking about here, so I guess I’ll just have to drop it for now. (I’m very confident that there is a statement by wotc staff in an official context stating that the only thing stopping you getting into Eberron from the Great Wheel’s planes is a sealed crystal sphere, and that without that you could teleport there if you knew a Sigil sequence there.

That's just it though. I think it is just statements, not actually printed lore. There was a statement during 3e that Takhisis = Tiamat; however, that doesn't seem to have affected you the same way. Of course maybe you were just ignorant of that statement. But that is also kinda the point. Statements are ephemeral and easy to ignore. Print is a but more concrete (but really on a bit to me).

I do know that Rising explicitly states that Eberron’s cosmology exists within the Great Wheel. I don’t really see the difference whether the Great Wheel is an accurate cosmological model or not, that doesn’t change that all worlds are within the wheel now.

How about this, maybe the Great Wheel is not what you understand it to be. Perhaps you can reframe the Great Wheel to help mold the official lore to your needs. I think you have an idea of the Great Wheel as something that works against what you want. However, it is just a simplified form to represent the real relationships. From the DMG (emphasis mine):

"The Great Wheel
The default cosmological arrangement presented in the Player’s Handbook visualizes the planes as a group of concentric wheels, with the Material Plane and its echoes at the center. "

The great wheel is simply a visualization of the reality of the multiverse. It then goes on the explain the World Tree and World Axis as different visualizations of the same multiverse. The point is, the Great Wheel is abstract and not a concrete thing. Prehaps if you can shift how you think of the great wheel that will easy your mind. For example, you said the way I envision my settings cosmology would work for you. Well, I didn't state explicitly, but I consider my cosmology as part of the Great Wheel (and World Axis and World Tree and...). Free yourself from your conception of the "Great Wheel" and you might be able to accept the printed lore more. Just a thought.