D&D 5E Fizban Is In The Wild -- With the Table of Contents!

Some people have received their copies of Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, and have posted photos (including the table of contents!) online!

 

[Bolares]

I mean, as you point out, that ship has already sailed, it's the assumed base of the "canon" mythos.

Just because the mistake was made once, it's not a good reason to make it again...

 

[Parmandur]

Just because the mistake was made once, it's not a good reason to make it again...

That assumes that it is broadly considered a mistake on WotC's part. I would set my expectations to Mordenkainen's style mythos.

 

[Mercador]

Don't watch the DungeonMasters.com video, it's full of spoilers

 

[Bolares]

That assumes that it is broadly considered a mistake on WotC's part. I would set my expectations to Mordenkainen's style mythos.

Well, it goes into direct contradiction with what Rising says about elves and the isolated cosmology of Eberron. To me it's less of an intentional retcon of Eberron and more of a not thinking about Eberron when talking about the broad stuff.

 

[Bolares]

Don't watch the DungeonMasters.com video, it's full of spoilers

What kind of spoilers? Is there an adventure in it for there to be spoilers?

 

[Zeromaru X]

Don't watch the DungeonMasters.com video, it's full of spoilers

Thanks. I love spoilers!

 

[Scribe]

Don't watch the DungeonMasters.com video, it's full of spoilers

Which one? I'm all about spoilers...

 

[SkidAce]

I disagree. the embodied eberron khyber and syberis are a mith. There is no actual canon proof that they were in fact dragons. If they make Tiamat an Avatar of Khyber that would make it a fact that the progenitor dragons are real, and that goes against basically everything that Eberron stands for. If someone wants to do that in their Eberron great! Each table should be the main source of canon, but WotC should never make that assumption.

Not if nobody in world knows the truth(?).

 

[Bolares]

Not if nobody in world knows the truth(?).

Even then, the whole thing about Eberron's lore is that it has intentional gaps. Not only in in-world knowledge. Not even Keith Baker has the answer for this things. Having the progenitors be real, even if nobody in world knows it, sets a standard, and answer one of the biggest questions of the setting (Are gods real?), and every single table that answers that question with "no" will be deviating form canon (a lot of people don't care about that, I know, but a lot do). To do that in a book that isn't focused on Eberron, and doesn't have the care and intent of tailoring sotries to Eberron, would be a big mistake IMHO.

I like Patmandur's idea, just add a phrase... "Dragons in argonessen believe that...."

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Off-topic, but I am planning on using this material to inspire my view of the "First World." Pre-historic D&D is so fun!

https://atlas-games.com/atlas-cms/resources/ssop-firstlook.pdf