D&D 5E Everything We Know About The Ravenloft Book

Here is a list of everything we know so far about the upcoming Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft.

Art by Paul Scott Canavan​

• May 18th, 256 pages
• 30 domains (with 30 villainous darklords)
• Barovia (Strahd), Dementlieu (twisted fairly tales), Lamordia (flesh golem), Falkovnia (zombies), Kalakeri (Indian folklore, dark rainforests), Valachan (hunting PCs for sport), Lamordia (mad science)
• NPCs include Esmerelda de’Avenir, Weathermay-Foxgrove twins, traveling detective Alanik Ray.
• Large section on setting safe boundaries.
• Dark Gifts are character traits with a cost.
• College of Spirits (bard storytellers who manipulate spirits of folklore) and Undead Patron (warlock) subclasses.
• Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood lineages.
• Cultural consultants used.
• Fresh take on Vistani.
• 40 pages of monsters. Also nautical monsters in Sea of Sorrows.
• 20 page adventure called The House of Lament - haunted house, spirits, seances.

​

D&D 5E - Full Wraparound Cover Art For Ravenloft

We've seen the cover already, but here's a look at the full wraparound art by Anna Podedworna. https://www.enworld.org/threads/updated-with-cover-the-d-d-book-is-van-richtens-guide-to-ravenloft.678411/ https://www.enworld.org/threads/heres-the-ravenloft-alternate-cover.678414/...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - Here's the Ravenloft Alternate Cover!

As usual, there is an alternate hobby-store exclusive cover for the upcoming Ravenloft book. Here's a look at it! And here's the full wraparound art. https://www.enworld.org/threads/updated-with-cover-the-d-d-book-is-van-richtens-guide-to-ravenloft.678411/...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - [Updated with cover!] The D&D Book Is.... Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft!

Yesterday's hints that a new D&D book would be announced today have born fruit -- we now have a product description and a title! It's a Ravenloft setting book, with tools and new rules for horror-themed games, and new horror-themed character options. I'll update this post with a product image as...

www.enworld.org

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It isn't a lie. If I have a man hitting a woman in a movie, that isn't an endorsement of domestic abuse or abuse of women. What I am saying when I say this is the message isn't often simple. Sometimes things are there for story reasons, sometimes they are there to reflect reality, sometimes it is just done with a sense of irony or dark humor. Characters behaving in bad ways doesn't mean writers or filmmakers are saying bad things or that you are meant to take that into the world in do bad things (often it is the opposite). But the way people hash over content now, it feels more like a children's book reading of media to me.

It is impossible to consume any sort of media without being influenced by it. And the thing with influence is you are not aware that it is happening. If you are aware of it you are not influenced my it. You might watch a film about someone hitting a woman and not go out and hit a woman, but you might well go out and buy a can of coke without realising there was a can of coke in the background of the shot. It is subtext, not text.

That fact that you clearly believe a lie, spread by people who want to justify their hateful messages, without being aware that it is a lie, clearly proves that you have been influenced.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That fact that you clearly believe a lie, spread by people who want to justify their hateful messages, without being aware that it is a lie, clearly proves that you have been influenced.

Dear lord this is hyperbole. "I reject your hypothesis". Believing people can be smart enough to grasp irony, believing that movies can have nuanced and complex messages, and believing media isn't this magical nefarious thing that will undermine our morality in subtle ways, isn't spreading lies to enable hateful people. You are projecting so much onto me here. What I am getting from you is just a new brand puritanism. Sorry I like violent movies. I like movies with interesting content. Doesn't mean I take that out into the world with me. You can watch a movie like Mean Streets or Taxi Driver, that reflect gritty realities of the world, that explore interesting characters and compelling places, without feeling you need to bring that stuff into the world. In fact I would argue it offers an important catharsis for people. Same with things like humor. And I would argue further, what you are advocating is a type of creative repression that stifles that kind of catharsis.

You can disagree with me all you want. That's fair. Attributing things to me that aren't true, isn't.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What I am getting from you is just a new brand puritanism.

What is your objection to puritanism? They where just people who read the media (the bible) and where influenced by it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is impossible to consume any sort of media without being influenced by it. And the thing with influence is you are not aware that it is happening. If you are aware of it you are not influenced my it. You might watch a film about someone hitting a woman and not go out and hit a woman, but you might well go out and buy a can of coke without realising there was a can of coke in the background of the shot. It is subtext, not text.

This is absurd. I have seen Raging Bull countless times. I never hit a woman, because I was raised to not hit women. I watched Scarface countless times too. I never went out and shot anyone, never wanted to (I hate guns, and I hate gun violence in real life). Also never became a cocaine dealer, bought a Ferrari (never even wanted one despite the product placement in the film), etc. I don't think the impact is as clear here as people think. And definitely subliminal stuff doesn't appear to be as strong as we once thought. Again, I remember the whole craze about subliminal ads, and subliminal messages in heavy metal. It turned out to be largely bunk, largely moral panic. That said, like anything else, it doesn't have zero impact. That is why people need to be able to watch things with a discerning eye and separate reality from fantasy. But that doesn't mean you have to excise all bad things from media.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is absurd. I have seen Raging Bull countless times. I never hit a woman, because I was raised to not hit women.

That's text, not subtext, and "hitting a woman" is a strawman - no one has accused you of hitting a woman, nor has anyone singled out Raging Bull or Scarface for criticism - another strawman.

Being an apologist for those who spread hateful propaganda - yes, I'm intolerant of that. When did being intolerant of evil become a crime?

 

[Bedrockgames]

What is your objection to puritanism? They where just people who read the media (the bible) and where influenced by it.

They were people who interpreted the text literally like you are doing. Lots of different interpretations of the bible exist. My solution to disliking puritans though wouldn't be to ban or edit the bible. It would be to debate puritans and to tell them I think they are crazy. But my moral objection is they judged people too harshly, they were repressive, they were moralizers, and they did things like kill people in moral panics over witches (among many other negative things). But doesn't have to be puritans, can be victorians too.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They were people who interpreted the text literally like you are doing. Lots of different interpretations of the bible exist. My solution to disliking puritans though wouldn't be to ban or edit the bible. It would be to debate puritans and to tell them I think they are crazy. But my moral objection is they judged people too harshly, they were repressive, they were moralizers, and they did things like kill people in moral panics over witches (among many other negative things). But doesn't have to be puritans, can be victorians too.

The opposite to moralisers are those devoid of morals. The consequence of never hunting witches (in a metaphorical sense) is the witches are free to do whatever they like.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Being an apologist for those who spread hateful propaganda - yes, I'm intolerant of that. When did being intolerant of evil become a crime?

Stop accusing me of things I am not doing. You are literally lying about me right now. Either you are lying or you are misunderstanding what I am saying. If you agree Raging Bull isn't a problem, I don't understand the disagreement. All I am saying is context matters in a media. Something simply being in a film doesn't automatically make it an endorsement of that thing (thus content does not equal message). Now I am against hateful propaganda. But I also probably would guess we disagree on how to combat that (but that is a whole other conversation). I am certainly not an apologist for it (especially when my dad's side of the family fled Russia due to pogroms, and I've met holocaust survivors and survivors of the killing fields). Stop attributing things to me that aren't there. We disagree on media, how it inlfuences people, and whether a game can have, for lack of a better word, edgy content. Why can't you have a basic disagreement with me over this without getting into this kind of hyperbole?

 

[Remathilis]

It isn't a lie. If I have a man hitting a woman in a movie, that isn't an endorsement of domestic abuse or abuse of women. What I am saying when I say this is the message isn't often simple. Sometimes things are there for story reasons, sometimes they are there to reflect reality, sometimes it is just done with a sense of irony or dark humor. Characters behaving in bad ways doesn't mean writers or filmmakers are saying bad things or that you are meant to take that into the world in do bad things (often it is the opposite). But the way people hash over content now, it feels more like a children's book reading of media to me

You are advocating Death of the Author, where the text is divorced from any greater meaning brought to it from knowing the author's reasoning. That is to say that why the author chose to have his character become a domestic abuser is irrelevant to analyzing the role of the abuse in the text. It's a controversial critical analysis; as many people feel it's impossible to separate the author from the work while others feel it's absolutely necessary. Is it possible to analyze the politics of Star Wars without looking a George Lucas's liberal views, or gender in Harry Potter without looking at J.K. Rowling's recent issues with transphobia? Yes, but it's only one way and not always the right way.

Now that being said, Critical Race Theory or Gender Theory isn't the be-all, end all either. Like DotA, it's a lens to look at a work through. It's no more or less valid. Which is why your dismissal of it as "woke propaganda" is so blatantly wrong: you might not like or agree with that lens, but that doesn't make it wrong and yours right.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The opposite to moralisers are those devoid of morals. The consequence of never hunting witches (in a metaphorical sense) is the witches are free to do whatever they like.

It isn't a choice between hunting witches and letting evil roam free. It is about being able to gauge what is a real threat, what isn't, and whatever it is you are dealing with, handling it in a way that is compassionate and good for society and doesn't involve hanging people or crushing them under a giant rock.