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!

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding the divine power source.

I hope the 50th Anniversary core books updates the Cleric class to be strictly about "cosmic forces". What is called a "domain" is the same thing as a cosmic force.

Then.

Let each setting define what a "cosmic force" is and how it works within this particular setting.

Heh, I critique and mock the polytheology of Forgotten Realms. But I respect the polytheology of Theros − its iconoclast option is notable, and there is a jungian archetype vibe for each divinity. I feel Forgotten Realms does well to borrow ideas from the Theros setting.

5e Eberron (unfortunately) canonized the Forgotten Realms gods. But Baker in one of the Enworld threads, offered that even tho Forgotten Realms gods factually exist, perhaps these creatures arent really "gods" and dont merit worship. This approach is similar to the iconoclasm of Theros. I would say, in the Eberron setting, the divine power source is explicitly the cosmic forces, where each culture attunes different forces.

In Dark Sun, the cosmic forces are four elements plus the life of Athas as a kind of fifth element.

DMs who like to worldbuild can define "cosmic forces" however they want.

5e formulated the mechanic of a "cosmic force". I find this mechanic extremely useful, and able to accommodate every D&D tradition in every edition. The 5e cosmic force Cleric is more helpful than the 3e "philosophical" Cleric or existentially "faith" based Cleric, which feels too solipsistic, because the worldbuilding results of the cosmic force approach feel more plausibly "sacred", and allows various settings to define it in their own ways.

Some settings can leave the divine power source vague, leaving "cosmic force" undefined, similar to how the arcane power source remains vague. Other settings can define it precisely. Whatever makes sense for a setting concept.



I hope the 50th Anniversary core books take advantage of the mechanic of "cosmic forces". It is elegant. It is what the Cleric class of any kind of sacred tradition can utilize well for any kind of character concept and cosmological concept.

 

[dave2008]

Even Ao isnt the cosmic forces themselves.

Thus even Ao lacks divinity.

I think you have a very particular definition of divinity (specifically in a fantast context like D&D). Do you care to share what your definition is?

 

[dave2008]

Regarding the divine power source.

I hope the 50th Anniversary core books updates the Cleric class to be strictly about "cosmic forces". What is called a "domain" is the same thing as a cosmic force.

Then.

Let each setting define what a "cosmic force" is and how it works within this particular setting.

Heh, I critique and mock the polytheology of Forgotten Realms. But I respect the polytheology of Theros − its iconoclast option is notable, and there is a jungian archetype vibe for each divinity. I feel Forgotten Realms does well to borrow ideas from the Theros setting.

5e Eberron (unfortunately) canonized the Forgotten Realms gods. But Baker in one of the Enworld threads, offered that even tho Forgotten Realms gods factually exist, perhaps these creatures arent really "gods" and dont merit worship. This approach is similar to the iconoclasm of Theros. I would say, in the Eberron setting, the divine power source is explicitly the cosmic forces, where each culture attunes different forces.

In Dark Sun, the cosmic forces are four elements plus the life of Athas as a kind of fifth element.

DMs who like to worldbuild can define "cosmic forces" however they want.

5e formulated the mechanic of a "cosmic force". I find this mechanic extremely useful, and able to accommodate every D&D tradition in every edition. The 5e cosmic force Cleric is more helpful than the 3e "philosophical" Cleric or existentially "faith" based Cleric, which feels too solipsistic, because the worldbuilding results of the cosmic force approach feel more plausibly "sacred", and allows various settings to define it in their own ways.

Some settings can leave the divine power source vague, leaving "cosmic force" undefined, similar to how the arcane power source remains vague. Other settings can define it precisely. Whatever makes sense for a setting concept.



I hope the 50th Anniversary core books take advantage of the mechanic of "cosmic forces". It is elegant. It is what the Cleric class of any kind of sacred tradition can utilize well for any kind of character concept and cosmological concept.

I hope they don't. I hate the idea of cosmic forces.

 

[Kurotowa]

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.

And really, how much does "canon" even matter? It's been... gosh, decades since I played in a campaign that tried to hold strictly to the game world as presented in the books. Every DM wants to put their own twist on the cosmology or factions, or just rewrite the setting to suit the campaign concept they intend to run with. And that's when they don't homebrew an entire setting.

This isn't the 90s when the "canon metaplot" heavily influenced the game material and adventures that got released. The player options try to be as broadly useful as possible. The adventures are self-contained and at most offer small nods to each other. The lore sections are modular for ease of customization. What's canon or not feels like the wrong question entirely.

 

[Maxperson]

And really, how much does "canon" even matter? It's been... gosh, decades since I played in a campaign that tried to hold strictly to the game world as presented in the books. Every DM wants to put their own twist on the cosmology or factions, or just rewrite the setting to suit the campaign concept they intend to run with. And that's when they don't homebrew an entire setting.

This isn't the 90s when the "canon metaplot" heavily influenced the game material and adventures that got released. The player options try to be as broadly useful as possible. The adventures are self-contained and at most offer small nods to each other. The lore sections are modular for ease of customization. What's canon or not feels like the wrong question entirely.

I feel like it mostly matters when trying to have a discussion about a specific portion of a setting, on a forum like this one. In actual game play I've never met anyone who really cared all that much about it.

 

[darjr]

 

[Aldarc]

The previews of this book have planted a seed in my mind for a campaign setting based around dragons as gods (or at least god-like beings). A world where dragons are front and center. Chris Perkins' old 4e Iomandra setting could be one way to do it. Or maybe WotC could actually publish a full Abeir setting instead of just the bits that got swapped with parts of Toril in 4e.

Or something new.

So like maybe Bahamut and Tiamat are the only real gods, and all the other "gods" in the pantheon are the greatwyrms - and maybe there's only one of each kind. And maybe dragonborn are the main humanoid species instead of humans.

Praise be to Iomandra! Someone on Reddit even put the effort to collect the info that we have on Iomandra into a 32-page pdf.

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).

I don't think this comes up in other none material (Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter) classes otherwise the rest are consistent in their power sources (possible exception being the Bard's magic secrets and the College of Whispers).

I think that in the 5.5e PHB, the Sorcerer won't be explicitly just an Arcane class, like the change in Pathfinder 2e.

One of the big differences, which I will point out, between how 5e and PF2 is structured is that PF2 doesn't so much bother with class-specific spell lists, but instead just throws all spells into four lists: i.e., Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal. So it is easier for PF2 to simply just say, "you now get this spell list" instead. I personally prefer the PF2 method, as that makes book-keeping and such easier.

Notice, in Forgotten Realms, many "gods" are supposed to grant Clerics spells that the gods themselves dont even know, because these gods arent Clerics themselves.

Heh, personally, I find D&D gods ridiculous.

In any case, even each god has a "portfolio" that lists a few specific "cosmic forces". So the gods themselves likewise gain their divine magic from cosmic forces.

For example, Lolth reveres the following cosmic forces: spiders, evil, darkness, chaos, assassins, drow.

Cosmic force Clerics derive their divine power source in the same way, but without the intermediary tyranny, slavery, bureaucracy, or cult of personality.

The gods themselves get their divine power source from cosmic powers.

The fact a cosmic force can transfer from one "portfolio" to an other "portfolio", demonstrates how these cosmic forces exist independently from any gods.

If a god is stripped of its connection to a cosmic power, this former god no longer has divinity.

The Forgotten Realms "gods" are redundant and superfluous.

In the case of 4e, it seemed to me that the gods didn't so much gain their divine magic from cosmic forces, but, rather, they were cosmic forces: i.e, Astral forces. The Astral Sea was depicted almost as the Thought/Concept/Form/Essence counterpart to the Matter/Elements/Stuff of the Elemental Chaos.

 

[Remathilis]

I hope they don't. I hate the idea of cosmic forces.

Cosmic Forces have been granting cleric's spells since Basic (where the clerics power came from their alignment) and has existed in all editions since, even being key in several settings.

 

[dave2008]

Cosmic Forces have been granting cleric's spells since Basic (where the clerics power came from their alignment) and has existed in all editions since, even being key in several settings.

I still don't like them!

 

[darjr]