Dungeons & Dragons: Ravenloft: Heir of Strahd Review

Like many Ravenloft tabletop adventures, five adventurers are plucked from the realms by the mists to find themselves in Barovia. As usual, Strahd sends one of his minions to invite the newcomers to his castle to enjoy his hospitality, a.k.a. for Strahd to mess with their minds and tempt them.

The characters are:

• Rotrog: An arrogant Orc wizard apprentice
• Kah: A shy Kenku cleric from Waterdeep
• Fielle: A cheerful human artificer from Baldur’s Gate
• Alishai: A moody, hot-tempered Tiefling paladin to Selune
• Chivarion: A good-natured Drow barbarian with a hairless tressym named “Murder” as his pet.

Over the course of the novel, you discover that each one was taken when they were faced with a terrible choice or were poised to take an awful action. That sets the stage for the crux of the novel—which character(s) will succumb to either Strahd’s temptations and/or the malevolent energy of Barovia, embracing their darkest impulses.

Should You Buy It?​

I found Heir to Strahd interesting because while it presented elements of Barovia that Ravenloft players and DMs will be very familiar with, not everything was what I had expected, even though I’ve GM’d Ravenloft adventures. The spirit of Tatyana most notably was presented in a way I did not expect based on the prior information I had read.

I don’t want to explain too much about Tatyana, and how she factors into the plot because it could ruin the mystery of who falls prey to the darkness to become the titular character. I will say that I suspected the doomed character at first, then talked myself out of it, assuming it was a feint to distract from another option. A later character reveal reinforced my original suspicion, but I still thought there might be a twist to go in the another direction. There wasn’t but instead of being unsatisfying, the ending makes me eager for a sequel.

Regardless of how one feels about the mystery and certain aspects of the ending, this Ravenloft novel can be very useful for anyone thinking of DMing an adventure set in Barovia. Dawson, the author of a few Star Wars novels and several fantasy novels, not only sets the tone very well for Barovia but also shows how Strahd could be played by a DM. The audiobook in particular showcased how even a simple conversation with Strahd can be equal parts charming and sinister.

For those who like or prefer audiobooks, the narration by Ellie Gossage was very good. It’s also available in hardcover and ebook editions.

Dungeons & Dragons: Ravenloft: Heir of Strahd: B+.

 

[Dire Bare]

Cheers, valid points all around! Still I’d be in favour of reigning in the proliferation of races on a per-setting basis, just for verisimilitude. The Tolkien races are a well-established genre trope in gaming, but I think we could step back and be critical of it more often too: why must every D&D setting include elves, dwarves, and orcs? The main answer is “because we’ve always done so”, which isn’t a very strong reason. D&D has been rocketing away from being strictly Euro-inspired for decades anyway, so why not put other stuff in core? What really makes dwarf different from a human anyway? A dragonman is clearly different biology, but these days elves and dwarves aren’t so clear.

Anyway, I’m mostly thinking that D&D could skip a lot of these issues by reassessing its reasoning around races even more than it has already.

Some third party publishers do just that, but . . . most don't. And the reason is obvious, folks like options instead of restrictions. Folks like the classics being available, perhaps with a twist, but also enjoy new options.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I must disagree: Try to change a band of human bandits in an adventure with a band of (mad) derros or a band of drow [And since drow as described in 1e trough 5e (2014) are a controversial topic: You can absolutely reject them, but if you (would) use them as written] - that's a huge difference. A band of chaotic orcs uses other tactics than disciplined lawful Hobgoblins. A flock of (sneaky) Kenkus is a completely different encounter than a pack of gnolls.

And yet whenever the players faqce them, the reaction is pretty much the same regardless what they're facing - it's in my way and I kill it. As I've said, unless an individual group did something unusual to distinguish itself, they were treated the same because tactics themselves do not give enemies enough personality to step beyond being a simple obstacle.

PS: What you describe (and I don't want to critizise you, I assume you're a great DM) is the nightmare that seized me after reading the new Monster Manual with the conversions (Orc -> Tough, Duergar -> Spy etc.) and the new DnD or Tales of the Valiant (Kobold Press) Player Manuals with the cut Attribute Modifiers for the species: The manice of Whateverism.

I much prefer the way 2024 and ToV handle species, actually. if you cannot make a species interesting and different without slapping +2 Stat X +1 Stat y -1 Stat z on it, that species should not be in the book.

That's also a aspect I disliked about the book: Ravenloft is (or was?) a human-centric setting. The group meets very few people but nobody even comments about the "monstrous" Humanoids. And yes, someone can reject the racist undertones ("Monsters!") of the setting but now it would make no difference in the story if every protagonist in the book were a human - yes, even the wish of the kenku about flying is very arbitary. The protagonists as written are merely different colored humans, not members of distinctive species.

Every night a procession of ghosts of hundreds adventurers from all worlds, of all possible species, raises from cementary in Barovia and walks to Castle Ravenloft. This implies ungodly amounts of peopel of all species who died fighting Strahd. Why should villagers be surprised by people of all species showing up to fight Strahd?

Also, all fantasy races ARE just different colored humans, humans are not capable to imagine and write a truly alien perspective of a different species, we merely project our idea of one, which is still humanocentric and based in human assumptions, inherently defined by being made to be human idea of nonhuman.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Every night a procession of ghosts of hundreds adventurers from all worlds, of all possible species, raises from cementary in Barovia and walks to Castle Ravenloft. This implies ungodly amounts of peopel of all species who died fighting Strahd. Why should villagers be surprised by people of all species showing up to fight Strahd?

Again, that was not something that existed prior to 5E. Barovia used to feel like an isolated and cut-off backwater, now it doesn't. It's up to you which is your preference, but it is very cclear that the feel of Barovia and Ravenloft as a whole changed significantly.

 

[LazarusKane]

And yet whenever the players faqce them, the reaction is pretty much the same regardless what they're facing - it's in my way and I kill it. As I've said, unless an individual group did something unusual to distinguish itself, they were treated the same because tactics themselves do not give enemies enough personality to step beyond being a simple obstacle.

I should surrender. Your (experience with your) players are so far away from any players I encountered, I can't (and I hope I never will) comprehend it.

I much prefer the way 2024 and ToV handle species, actually. if you cannot make a species interesting and different without slapping +2 Stat X +1 Stat y -1 Stat z on it, that species should not be in the book.

But... you tell me for your players all (humanoid) opponents are the same. And now species should be "interesting and different" for you and your players?!? Why?!? How?!? If they are the same for you without modifiers (only the "fluff") and they are the same with modifiers (adding the "crunch" of slapping +2 Stat X +1 Stat y -1 Stat z on it) then... I don't know.

Every night a procession of ghosts of hundreds adventurers from all worlds, of all possible species, raises from cementary in Barovia and walks to Castle Ravenloft. This implies ungodly amounts of peopel of all species who died fighting Strahd. Why should villagers be surprised by people of all species showing up to fight Strahd?

Also, all fantasy races ARE just different colored humans, humans are not capable to imagine and write a truly alien perspective of a different species, we merely project our idea of one, which is still humanocentric

For me - in this context - it's like saying: It's completely indifferent if I play a character who is a native american or a scot or if he's male or female or if the character is muslim or hindu or atheist - hey, they are all humans! Surely you acknowledge that culture, gender, believes etc. matter.
So: Of course, everybody should play the game how he likes it but IMHO it's very basic when fantasy species are just different colored humans. Maybe I am the outlier but I try to make every species somehow unique - and yes, it's often based in human assumptions, inherently defined by being made to be human idea of nonhuman. I once played a char (Shadowrun, Cat Shaman, bisexual and redheaded) only based on "What would Garfield do?". So: How would a species work that's based on the question "How would humanoid ravens behave?" - I think I found my template for the Kenku! Or Goliaths? I tried to base the Goliaths on my understanding of Inuit culture. And it's really no big problem to write a truly alien perspective of a different species - because it's alien to me as a human. It's simply extrapolation. And species who lives as long as elves by comparsion to the other species scream for an alien edge, although I reserve the very alien elves for non-DnD-Games.

 

[Distracted DM]

Also, all fantasy races ARE just different colored humans, humans are not capable to imagine and write a truly alien perspective of a different species, we merely project our idea of one, which is still humanocentric and based in human assumptions, inherently defined by being made to be human idea of nonhuman.

Your definition of humanocentric seems to be "a human made it." I won't argue over your definition of it- however, it's quite possible to make non-humans seem inhuman. Give them different priorities. Radically different goals. Consider the idea that they don't think like humans; one easy way is priorities:
We take self-preservation for granted. Survival instinct. Maybe [insertcreature] doesn't care about their own survival, other things have a much priority. An alien way of thinking. Desire for personal gain? Chuck it out the window. Those are two easy dials to change if you want players to say "what the heck, I don't understand this creature I'm talking to."

It helps to throw out what we think of as logic, as well. When the players say "it would've been so much simpler for this creature to achieve their goal via X means, rather than the weird sht they did via Y," shrug. Maybe it wasn't the goal, but the means by which the goal was achieved. Or maybe they could ONLY consider doing it Y way, and would never consider X even if it was suggested.

In short, saying "of course all DnD ancestries are going to be just different colored humans" is really discounting proper worldbuilding and the possibility of thinking outside the box.

 

[Gambit42]

One cannot know, but I would be curious to learn, in the entirety of the D&D realm at this moment in time, so every edition, every offshoot, every clone, what percentage of tables play in a classical style (meaning, 99% of orcs are evil, 99% of drow are evil, tieflings, if they even exist, get the Tanis Half-Elven experience, etc) vs what percentage eschews that.

 

[LazarusKane]

One cannot know, but I would be curious to learn, in the entirety of the D&D realm at this moment in time, so every edition, every offshoot, every clone, what percentage of tables play in a classical style (meaning, 99% of orcs are evil, 99% of drow are evil, tieflings, if they even exist, get the Tanis Half-Elven experience, etc) vs what percentage eschews that.

I think nowadays it's a scale, not a binary choice, but yeah, it would be interesting to know.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We take self-preservation for granted. Survival instinct. Maybe [insertcreature] doesn't care about their own survival, other things have a much priority. An alien way of thinking

It think that's a matter of culture, not species.

Every human is an alien to every other human.

 

[Distracted DM]

It think that's a matter of culture, not species.

Every human is an alien to every other human.

It can be both. But saying the difference is only cultural throws out the possibility of the difference being what a creature is, intrinsically.
It discounts the possibility of genetic memory. Of instincts and knowledge that might be built into a creature like an elf... Depending on how different, how alien, you want said creatures to be. The elves in my setting are quite different... Ofc at this point "our elves are different" is a trope, but hey whatever floats each person's boat!

Or sure, there's little to no difference between each of they're raised in the same culture.

But saying that "ofc they're just differently colored humans because they were all created by humans" was my nitpick

 

[Not a Decepticon]

For me - in this context - it's like saying: It's completely indifferent if I play a character who is a native american or a scot or if he's male or female or if the character is muslim or hindu or atheist - hey, they are all humans! Surely you acknowledge that culture, gender, believes etc. matter.

Those are all real people that exist and you can, I dunno, ASK THEM to understand their perspectives. It's reductive to compare them to made up fictional things that do not exist.

I should surrender. Your (experience with your) players are so far away from any players I encountered, I can't (and I hope I never will) comprehend it.

It's an experience that taught me the players need enemies who are interesting individual people, and even an individual group with weird quirk will be more be memorable than entire "evil" species.

But... you tell me for your players all (humanoid) opponents are the same. And now species should be "interesting and different" for you and your players?!? Why?!? How?!? If they are the same for you without modifiers (only the "fluff") and they are the same with modifiers (adding the "crunch" of slapping +2 Stat X +1 Stat y -1 Stat z on it) then... I don't know.

I mean that each playable species should have abilities that makes them feel different from other playable species. Species with +2 in the same stat will always feel the same. And I prefer the way that I can take simple statblock for generic enemy and add abilities unique for specific species that players may recognize, isntead of having different statblock for Orc Assassin and Hobgoblin Assassin and Bugbear Assassin. Because for the players, at the end of the day, Assassin is an Assassin. Small indicator can be nice, but I don't need a whole "Hobgoblin Assassin has mechancis different from Orc Assassin" because players don't care.