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!

 

[dave2008]

It's not liberating, it just ends up none sense that isn't usable. I LIKE PREEXISTING LORE ITS THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING SETTINGS, if I want to home brew I create my own setting, it's that consistent narrative that makes it immersive!

The interconnecting pieces of lore literally IS the setting, without it, it's not a setting anymore.

That is not true. If the preexisting lore is only known by 10% of the D&D population, how relevant is it really?

For many people there is no preexisting lore. I have not played with a lot of people in my 30 yrs of gaming, but not a single one of them (other than me) cared about the prexisting lore of D&D.

A 5e setting is self contained. What the setting is, is in the 5e books. If you want to research older lore to add or modify it, great! But that is not this editions responsibility.

 

[dave2008]

Pros

- Player Options, the return of 3.5e style Dragonborn (in the form of the Draconic Rebirth Gift), the spells and the fact that all of them can be taken by Sorcerers who usually get screwed by new spell lists in favor of wizards. The magic items are cool too.

-Aspect of Bahumut, Dracohydras, the Chosen of Dragonborn, Hoard Mimic, Coin Scarabs, Animated Breath, alternate Regional Effects and Lair Actions, the Mechanics of the Turtle Dragons, Deep Dragons, and Moon Dragons.

-Mentions of Tarkir, Council of Wyrms, and Theros.

-Lair Maps

-Deep Dragons have shape shifting back.

I agree with the above (except the Aspect of Bahamut).
Some addition Pros for me:

• Draconic gifts
• elderbrain dragon
• art for Bahamut
• art in general

Cons


Messed up lore

I don't have the book yet, so I don't know all the lore. However, from what I have heard I am either neutral or positive on the lore. The one exception may be the comment about song and steel dragons possibly being a different types of dragons.

-No Archfey Great Wyrm Moonstone Dragons, no Deep Dragon or Faerie Dragon Great Wyrms.

Neutral.

-They had the awful idea of wrecking the Dragon Pantheon.

Love the changes to the Dragon Pantheon (from what I have seen so far). Look forward to see more. It fits much more in line with my idea of dragons.

-They uglied up the beautiful Purple Dragons. ☹
-

Agree, that is not a good look.

Some cons for me:

• Gemstone / moonstone dragon art. I generally don't like the design of these dragons.
• Mythic dragons. They nerfed the dragons a bit and/or didn't take the opportunity to make them more interesting.
• Aspects of Bahamut. See Mythic dragons
• Aspect of Tiamat. Pretty much straight nerf of the OG Tiamat when it should have been an opportunity to really flex your design muscles. Tiamat is a very unique monster and they made it as about as vanilla as you can get for mythic CR 30 dragon deity. Trust me, I know Tiamat

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I'm not super concerned that there aren't different age categories for the Moonstone/Deep/Brainstealer dragons. There are platforms that take a monster and allow you to adjust their CR (changing their HP, AC, stats, etc) so I can use those to make them myself if an when I need them.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not super concerned that there aren't different age categories for the Moonstone/Deep/Brainstealer dragons. There are platforms that take a monster and allow you to adjust their CR (changing their HP, AC, stats, etc) so I can use those to make them myself if an when I need them.

Deep and Moonstone do get full age categories, similar to Gems and Dragon Turtles.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Deep and Moonstone do get full age categories, similar to Gems and Dragon Turtles.

Sorry, meant the Great Wyrm specifically.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I agree with the above (except the Aspect of Bahamut).
Some addition Pros for me:

• Draconic gifts
• elderbrain dragon
• art for Bahamut
• art in general

I don't have the book yet, so I don't know all the lore. However, from what I have heard I am either neutral or positive on the lore. The one exception may be the comment about song and steel dragons possibly being a different types of dragons.

Neutral.

Love the changes to the Dragon Pantheon (from what I have seen so far). Look forward to see more. It fits much more in line with my idea of dragons.

Agree, that is not a good look.

Some cons for me:

• Gemstone / moonstone dragon art. I generally don't like the design of these dragons.
• Mythic dragons. They nerfed the dragons a bit and/or didn't take the opportunity to make them more interesting.
• Aspects of Bahamut. See Mythic dragons
• Aspect of Tiamat. Pretty much straight nerf of the OG Tiamat when it should have been an opportunity to really flex your design muscles. Tiamat is a very unique monster and they made it as about as vanilla as you can get for mythic CR 30 dragon deity. Trust me, I know Tiamat

One thing that would have been cool for Moonstone Dragons would have been a variant of the Change Shape ability, but for Fey instead of humanoids and Beasts.

Surely you can admit Bahumut's none damage breath weapon is cool, a healing/raise dead breath is really neat, but I would add the optional spellcasting trait from the MM to both Aspects and Great Wyrms.

To be fair an Aspect of Tiamat isn't actually the main Tiamat,that is the nearly unkillable version, this is more like a an Avatar.

My personal suggestion to use the Spellcasting trait from the MM to give Tiamat and Bahumut at will Wish spell.

I agree with you on Elder Brain Dragons, they are the Mindflayer pinnacle that Mindflayers needed.

My big issue with changing the Draconic Pantheon into Great Wyrms, beyond not liking poorly explained retcons, is that folks that want to play a Cleric of their favorite Dragon God that isn't Bahumut or Tiamat get screwed, maybe. The Dragon Blessed, which are basically Dragon worshipping clerics which don't have Dragon themed abilities beyond speaking Draconic and gaining their magic from Dragons instead of Gods btw.

Like Dragon Blessed really should have had a better explanation as to how Dragons can now grant Divine magic spells.

I just find it's some cool ideas, but really poor integration with older lore makes it unusable, worse in some ways then 4e even.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Deep and Moonstone do get full age categories, similar to Gems and Dragon Turtles.

Almost full they don't get Great Wyrms unfornately, given they are the most interesting none deity Dragons in the book.

 

[RavinRay]

If you've got a screenshot of the OG pink dragon or your conversion, I'd love to see it. Quick google searching of D&D pink dragon isn't finding much!

Here's the link to the final conversion itself. This part was my suggestion.

In fact, most chromatic dragons will bully them or worse, attempt to kill them on sight, considering them parodies or mockeries of their own kind. Red dragons particularly despise them, fully aware of the myth of their heritage.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Here's the link to the final conversion itself. This part was my suggestion.

Thanks, I'll give it a read!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Almost full they don't get Great Wyrms unfornately, given they are the most interesting none deity Dragons in the book.

That's subjective. I personally find the Gem Dragons and Dragon Turtles way more interesting than Moonstone and Deep Dragons.