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]

"All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding-learned or intuitive-of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power-gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath."

I was talking more in a mechanical way, but sure, I didn't remember this quote, thank you.

 

[Maxperson]

I was talking more in a mechanical way, but sure, I didn't remember this quote, thank you.

Has it ever been separated in a mechanical way? In 3e a divine dispel magic was functionally the same as an arcane dispel magic.

 

[dave2008]

Also, yes, you can treat Fizban's as canon, because 5e has this wonderful way of treating lore that can be summarized by saying "New lore overrides old lore". It was true for Volo's Guide to Monsters and its changes to Orcs and Yuan-Ti, it was true for Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and its changes to Elven Lore and Duergar Lore, and it is still true for Fizban's Treasury of Dragons and how it treats Dragons of all types and the First World. New lore overrides old lore. That's how 5e works. I treat all of those pieces of information as "D&D canon", even if I don't use it at my table, and even if they contradict earlier lore from previous editions or early 5e.

That is not quite right IMO. 5e lore is true for 5e. It doesn't replace the old lore. The lore is edition dependent.

 

[dave2008]

Druids actually get their magic in FR from the First Circle, a group of nature Gods, but worshipping them is not a requirement for this magic, they are just the source and it doesn't mean you can't primarily worship a God outside of the First Circle.

And it's mentioned else where that clerics magic in FR comes from Gods, but I'll need to look up which book later.

Really even a Paladin gets their Divine magic from the Gods indirectly, the Oath gets its powers from the Gods.

That is great if you believe that (ie have faith in it)

 

[Maxperson]

That is not quite right IMO. 5e lore is true for 5e. It doesn't replace the old lore. The lore is edition dependent.

That and you can't really treat anything in Fizban's as canon, since the designers have expressly said that only the core 3 books are public facing canon.

 

[dave2008]

This Cleric sidebar is more 5e 'just do what you want' type design, I won't even call it World building.

That people feel it needs to be explicitly stated that they can do whatever robs us of deep World building systems/lore, and that's unfortunate.

Truth be told, I prefer that for the core books. But I do wish they (WotC) took the opportunity to push the lore more with setting books. Real robust setting books with mechanical and distinct lore differences would be cool. So it you play in FR, your cleric get its divine magic from deities, but if you play Eberron, it comes from faith, Darksun has no clerics, etc. I think in general the approach to settings as been a bit to timid.

 

[dave2008]

That and you can't really treat anything in Fizban's as canon, since the designers have expressly said that only the core 3 books are public facing canon.

100%

 

[dave2008]

For Tiamat think of it this way: Tyranny of Dragons 2019(or RoT) Tiamat is her in her Deity/Avatar form or close to it, WITH the House Rule of adding in her Mythic Action onto the stat block.


Aspect of Tiamat, as mentioned before, is basically not her closeish fully powered up form, but the weaker Aspect form of her.

You can of course reconcile it however you want. WotC has apparently given no explanation and that is OK. I will point out that Tiamat's stat block in Descent (when she is in Avernus) is exactly the same as it was in RoT and ToD.

For me personally, the true avatar of Tiamat is more like the one I made and posted on these forums. Her true godly self is even more powerful.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The funny part of this is that none Arcane Sorcerers have since come out that explicitly use other power sources, Divine Soul (Divine magic), Shadow Magic (Shadow magic), and Psionic Soul (Psionic magic).

That's not the only interpretation of those subclasses.

It can also be looked at as their arcane magic producing effects normally only available through divine magic, much like how bards can cast healing spells with arcane magic.

You could even say that they are accessing divine or psionic sources through arcane magic, or that they have a blend of types of sources. The aberrant soul, for instance, is basically an arcane sorcerer with psionics as a bonus.

The point is, 5e class design never has a subclass remove or replace a base class feature--they only add. I think it's more consistent to assume that all sorcerers retain the stated arcane power of their base class, regardless of what is added by a subclass, than to assume that a couple subclasses are exceptions to the design paradigm. (There is no hint of Shadow as a power source in 5e.)

 

[Remathilis]

That depends upon setting, in FR Clerics still get power from a God, in fact all divine magic comes from Gods, it's just only clerics have to have a particular patron.

Personally I don't like the idea of Divine magic not coming from Gods, it makes the separation between Arcane and Divine magic meaningless.

So what about Athasian elemental clerics?