log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Do you like or dislike Song & Steeal Dragons being demoted to Folklore?

Do you like or dislike Song & Steeal Dragons being demoted to Folklore?

  • I hate or Dislike the removal of Steel and Song Dragons as type of Dragon

    Votes: 14 19.4%
  • I like or love the removal of Steel and Song Dragons as a type of Dragon

    Votes: 9 12.5%
  • Neutral as a Gem Dragon

    Votes: 49 68.1%

  • Total voters
    72

Uni-the-Unicorn!

Adventurer
Because it is pretty hard to reconcile the history of Rise of Tiamat and the dragon cult when part of the cannon surrounding the first uprising and the reason for its failure is tied closely around the actions of a Song Dragon (and a Vampire Red Dragon) ....... or maybe that is not cannon any more
If it is not in the PHB, DMG, or MM, then it is not canon in 5e. I don’t know why people have such a hard time understanding that. They specifically addressed this recently.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



ECMO3

Adventurer
If it is not in the PHB, DMG, or MM, then it is not canon in 5e. I don’t know why people have such a hard time understanding that. They specifically addressed this recently.
According to Crawford any published 5E game book is cannon.

"If you're looking for what's official in the D&D roleplaying game, it's what appears in the products for the roleplaying game. Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don't consider it canonical for the games."

That would imply that things from DOMM and HOD/ROT are in fact canon, unless there is other verbiage that excludes these products (and the others published).

Now I am not sure that HOD/ROT mentions Song Dragons, but it does mention the previous Dragon Cult uprising.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
According to Crawford any published 5E game book is cannon.

"If you're looking for what's official in the D&D roleplaying game, it's what appears in the products for the roleplaying game. Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don't consider it canonical for the games."

That would imply that things from DOMM and HOD/ROT are in fact canon, unless there is other verbiage that excludes these products (and the others published).

Now I am not sure that HOD/ROT mentions Song Dragons, but it does mention the previous Dragon Cult uprising.
You're missing an important part of that statement by him. The part where he explicitly says that only the core three books are public facing canon. The rest are official, but not canon.
 

dave2008

Legend
According to Crawford any published 5E game book is cannon.

"If you're looking for what's official in the D&D roleplaying game, it's what appears in the products for the roleplaying game. Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don't consider it canonical for the games."

That would imply that things from DOMM and HOD/ROT are in fact canon, unless there is other verbiage that excludes these products (and the others published).

Now I am not sure that HOD/ROT mentions Song Dragons, but it does mention the previous Dragon Cult uprising.
That is only part of the story. They later clarified that only the PHB, DMG, and MM are canon for all of 5e D&D.

From the comment you quoted above, you can reasonably consider each setting its own canon, but things like MToF are as specifically not canon for all of D&D. Any one working with the D&D team only needs to consider the PHB, DMG, and MM as canon.
 


dave2008

Legend
According to Crawford any published 5E game book is cannon.

"If you're looking for what's official in the D&D roleplaying game, it's what appears in the products for the roleplaying game. Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don't consider it canonical for the games."

That would imply that things from DOMM and HOD/ROT are in fact canon, unless there is other verbiage that excludes these products (and the others published).

Now I am not sure that HOD/ROT mentions Song Dragons, but it does mention the previous Dragon Cult uprising.
What you quote was a tweat or a transcription from a stream or something like that. The official stance to what is canon was given by Perkins on the D&D website: D&D Canon

Here is the quote @Maxperson and I where talking about:

"Fifth edition’s canon includes every bit of lore that appears in the most up-to-date printings of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide. Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners."

Though I suggest you read the whole article.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
What you quote was a tweat or a transcription from a stream or something like that. The official stance to what is canon was given by Perkins on the D&D website: D&D Canon

Here is the quote @Maxperson and I where talking about:

"Fifth edition’s canon includes every bit of lore that appears in the most up-to-date printings of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide. Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners."

Though I suggest you read the whole article.
It's really a good approach for keeping the game and tie-ins light and flexible.
 

Scribe

Hero
From the comment you quoted above, you can reasonably consider each setting its own canon, but things like MToF are as specifically not canon for all of D&D. Any one working with the D&D team only needs to consider the PHB, DMG, and MM as canon.
I was looking through MToF today actually and I thought to myself "I bet they have disavowed this."

And look at that. :cry:

Expressing how I really feel about this would be counter productive to a good mental state, but yeah, I just hate it so much.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I was looking through MToF today actually and I thought to myself "I bet they have disavowed this."

And look at that. :cry:

Expressing how I really feel about this would be counter productive to a good mental state, but yeah, I just hate it so much.
I will point out that they very specifically said, "...we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition..."

The only reason I can think of for saying they don't have a public-facing account of what is canonical, is that they also have a private one. I'll bet that they are leaving it to the core three for most third party producers of content, but the stuff they put out probably has more than the core three that it has to account for.
 

JEB

Hero
I will point out that they very specifically said, "...we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition..."

The only reason I can think of for saying they don't have a public-facing account of what is canonical, is that they also have a private one. I'll bet that they are leaving it to the core three for most third party producers of content, but the stuff they put out probably has more than the core three that it has to account for.
Of course, since we don't know what's in this "private" canon, it could change at any time; the public simply wouldn't be aware that the private canon no longer includes, say, SCAG or Volo's anymore. And if anyone complains, the designers can just point to "only the core books are canon" as a defense. Very efficient.

For folks who care about an official canon, the best approach to take for 5E might be to basically treat each non-core product as a unique entity, not bound by anything established in any other work. Dungeon of the Mad Mage disagrees with Fizban's on steel dragons because they aren't in the same canon...
 

Scribe

Hero
For folks who care about an official canon, the best approach to take for 5E might be to basically treat each non-core product as a unique entity, not bound by anything established in any other work. Dungeon of the Mad Mage disagrees with Fizban's on steel dragons because they aren't in the same canon..
This is such a non-starter.

The only answer if you care about canon?

Stop, or write your own.
 


JEB

Hero
The only answer if you care about canon?

Stop, or write your own.
This has pretty much been my own response, yeah. (My head-canon is a 5E that still includes all the previous editions' lore, as previously implied, with the contradictions just being competing myths and/or interesting puzzles to sort out.)
 




Just a reminder, none of the novels are canon for the game.

Just a reminder, the Novels functional ARE setting, and separating the novels from TTRPG canon into there own canon is worse then the Spellplague, completely poorly thought out none sense, and not how the setting was designed or how it evovled over years. As said I disregard what Chris and Jeremy said, which btw contradicted each other.

Sometimes I wish Ed would sue WotC for voiding the contract and take FR back, they aren't being good Stewards of the setting. They learn NOTHING from the back lash to the Spellplague.
 

I feel it's a step in the right direction. Now if we can just get the various gods described as folklore instead of Really Powerful But Also Really Existing Monsters (tm), we will be on to something.

I mean seriously, Al-Qadim did it, Eberron did it, why can't everyone else catch up?

No, the Gods do exist AL Qadim were very much real, it's just they didn't materialize in the material plane.

I got to say, not a fan of all the Antitheism being pushed into every setting.

Not every setting has to be atheistic, it's a huge retcon in FR, you have Eberron and Darksun for deities are folklore or don't exist or are gone.

The Gods are a huge part of the Forgotten Realms setting.

You don't have to homogenize every setting, destroying what is special about them.

Heck I don't care what you do in your home game version of FR, but don't wreck the official lore of the Forgotten Realms.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top