D&D 5E WotC Explains 'Canon' In More Detail

Recently, WotC's Jeremy Crawford indicated that only the D&D 5th Edition books were canonical for the roleplaying game. In a new blog article, Chris Perkins goes into more detail about how that works, and why.

This boils down to a few points:

• Each edition of D&D has its own canon, as does each video game, novel series, or comic book line.
• The goal is to ensure players don't feel they have to do research of 50 years of canon in order to play.
• It's about remaining consistent.

If you’re not sure what else is canonical in fifth edition, let me give you a quick primer. Strahd von Zarovich canonically sleeps in a coffin (as vampires do), Menzoberranzan is canonically a subterranean drow city under Lolth’s sway (as it has always been), and Zariel is canonically the archduke of Avernus (at least for now). Conversely, anything that transpires during an Acquisitions Incorporated live game is not canonical in fifth edition because we treat it the same as any other home game (even when members of the D&D Studio are involved).

D&D Canon | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

In this D&D Studio Blog, Chris Perkins describes the D&D Studio's position on canonicity.

dnd.wizards.com

D&D General - WotC: Novels & Non-5E Lore Are Officially Not Canon

At a media press briefing last week, WotC's Jeremey Crawford clarified what is and is not canon for D&D. "For many years, we in the Dungeons & Dragons RPG studio have considered things like D&D novels, D&D video games, D&D comic books, as wonderful expressions of D&D storytelling and D&D lore...

www.enworld.org

 

[lingual]

Sure they are. IF they affect the game world. If they do, then they alter and have a lore impact on the setting. Bladedancers being a subclass, have such a lore impact. Before Tasha's they could not use a cantrip and attack as part of their attack action. After, they could and that ability impacts the story of the setting. That mechanic is ALSO lore.

If we follow that logic, however, then there can be no such thing as optional rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Eh...

Why couldn't dwarves be magic users prior to 3e? Any answer you give beyond "mechanical balance concerns" would be lore-based.

Different critter all together. The dwarf thing was lore being supported by mechanics, and they changed the lore along with the mechanics.

The lore of the Bladesinger isn’t different because they can turn on Bladesong proficiency bonus per day rather than twice per short rest.

 

[Maxperson]

Could we say "mechanics aren't lore, but sure do influence lore"?

However you want to put it, they do sometimes end up being a part of canon. I'm not tied to "are lore" or "influence lore."

 

[Yaarel]

Sorry, but this seems kinda tin-foil hatty to me

You read the article by Perkins. He says plainly, WotC products will adhere to the core-three rule books as the canon.

 

[Bolares]

However you want to put it, they do sometimes end up being a part of canon. I'm not tied to "are lore" or "influence lore."

Yeah, the difference is almost purelly semantic for me. But well... we are on enworld.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course, that means every edition of D&D is either an AU or a retcon of every campaigns world published. 1e Realms is not the same canon as 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, etc...

To that extent, sure, but mechanics change so that part of it also has to change. Some changes to canon are necessary, especially when going from one edition to another. I accept that necessity. Changing it within a single edition like Tasha's did? No. That's not a necessity.

 

[Azzy]

Actually that is incorrect. The only WotC canon on Eberron is what is in the PHB, MM, & DMG. According to Crawford, no other books are canon.

I think the intent for specific settings is more like the Adventurer's League Core +1 rules. That is to say, if you are playing in Eberron what's canon for Eberron is Rising from the Last War (plus the core three). If you're playing in Theros, what's in Rising from the Last war is non-canonical (and irrelevant).

 

[Bolares]

You read the article by Perkins.

I did, didn't see that there at all.

 

[Maxperson]

If we follow that logic, however, then there can be no such thing as optional rules.

No. If you TWIST my logic you get there, but my logic doesn't result in that.

 

[Faolyn]

All they have to do is put one sentence at the beginning of any alignment section. "Alignment is an optional rule that you may choose to use, and the alignment listed for monsters does not apply to all of them." That one sentence puts your entire argument to rest.

That would be helpful, yes.