D&D 5E Fizban's Treasury of Dragons is Up on D&D Beyond!

[Parmandur]

Yeah if I'm ever DMing one of those, it's getting homebrewed to be unique for its type. I'm pretty annoyed at the homogenization of the great wyrms.

They should be more unique than ancient dragons, not less so.

Look at the Draconomicon section: each if the 20 Dragon types there is given flavorful variant Lair Actions, that are designed to help differentiate the Hreatwyrms a bit more.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Yeah if I'm ever DMing one of those, it's getting homebrewed to be unique for its type. I'm pretty annoyed at the homogenization of the great wyrms.

They should be more unique than ancient dragons, not less so.

In the lore that's given, gem greatwyrms get closer to Saridor the more powerful they are, so some homogenization makes sense.

In a meta sense, it answers the question "Why are there no diamond dragons?"

 

[Yaarel]

I find it only pretty strange that all dragonborn in MTG have tails and all dragonborn in D&D have not.
And there are too many MTG pictures so that it can be blamed on a freelancer getting the description wrong (and no one got it right). It really looks like WotC wanted the MTG art to have tails but for some reason doesn't want them in D&D art.
Why?

For me, a dragon without a serpentine tail isnt a dragon. The archetype must appear snakelike.

I appreciate the Wildemount dragonborn that have a tail.

That said. The lore for the dragonborn has the dragons design them to be Humanoid rather than Dragon. This explains their lack of tail too. They are no longer a Dragon despite their Dragon ancestry.

 

[Scribe]

This book like MToF and VGTM before it is great for home brewers and players, but 90% of its lore is of little to no use for fans of settings and may confuse folks.

Working as intended at this point.

 

[Yaarel]

Is it worth even trying to classify gods? They're deities, they should be BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION.

There are epic tier astral creatures, just like there are epic tier fey creatures, and so on.

Whether any of these merit "worship" is a separate question.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Is it worth even trying to classify gods? They're deities, they should be BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION.

Tell that to WotC, it's hard to call Tiamat incomprehensible when you can punch in her 5 faces.

 

[Yaarel]

Read the Gods and Religion section and it becomes clear that even Tiamat and Bahumut aren't "Gods" in the Typical sense, other Gods have their origins in the outer planes, Tiamat and Bahumut have their origins in the Material Plane, the "Gods" of the humanoid races have their origins in the outer planes.

So now we have Primordials that are Elemental Planes Gods, Ester (might have misspelled that term from 4e) the traditional Outer Planes Gods, and now Material Plane Gods, and some Gods that might be Archfey.

For D&D, the Norse aesir make more sense as creatures in the Material Plane.

The aesir and jotnar are somewhat like the 5e chwanga, being an Elemental creature type that can merge with a natural feature in the Material Plane.

If the natural feature is destroyed, the chwanga survives separately.

A difference is, if one destroyed the natural feature in the Material Plane, the aspect of the aesir or jotnar that survives would be a ghostlike mind in the Ethereal Plane. But later, this roaming mind could find a new natural feature to merge with, or else materialize into a human or animal form.

Where Óðinn is the mind of the celestial cycle, including solstices and equinoxes, to destroy its natural feature would be something like knocking the planet out of orbit.

The aesir and jotnar stat reasonably well as Elementals in the Material Plane, as do most nature beings.



In any case, every D&D plane can have epic level creatures. Whether a culture chooses to worship such creatures is a cultural feature.

 

[Weiley31]

Tell that to WotC, it's hard to call Tiamat incomprehensible when you can punch in her 5 faces.

Or when all five are munching down hard on all your pc's juicy bits.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Working as intended at this point.

So it's supposed to be confusing?

 

[Scribe]

So it's supposed to be confusing?

Its supposed to be non-definitive, non-binding, non-authoritative, non-committal, optional.

That much is clear. If its not a setting book (and even setting books can just get stealth errata changed) then dont count it as if its any kind of canon or lore beyond options/hints/plot hooks.

Thats all.