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

 

[Faolyn]

I guess I'm a little more confused now about how his punishment works, because I thought the idea was he was being punished with the destruction of his home. You can cut down and despoil a forest forever, eventually you run out of forest.

Keep in mind that almost nothing has been written about Farelle--there's a small write-up in the black box, but Jack Karn himself doesn't even get a writeup until the fan-made netbook The Book of Sacrifices (the Book of S series is pretty good). So that being said...

Jack doesn't care about the forest. He's not some sort of eco-warrior. He just hates humans (there are reasons). There may come a time when Farelle is completely deforested, but that hasn't happened yet; the humans are low tech and have simple iron axes, not chainsaws. (Also, there's the chance the Dark Powers would simply cause the trees to regrow quickly, or simply create or steal more forest.)

Jack's curse is threefold: he hates humans but is stuck in human or hybrid form and can't assume his much preferred jackal form for more than a short period of time. If he tries to personally harm a human, he suffers from crippling nausea. And, of course, despite his best efforts, humans breed like tribbles in Farelle and while he sends jackals, wild dogs, and jackalweres (but not wolves or werewolves, whom he also hates) to attack them en masse (which does a lot to keep the number of humans down), the humans are good hunters.

This I think adds to that "evil Terrarium" idea that Bedrock gave me, and a lot of things click together for me from that perspective. The prison isn't the important part, the show is.

This also makes sense in terms of the creation of new darklords, just like people might breed fish to make a more interesting variety to have on display.

Yep; that's a pretty good take on it. Since we still don't know for certain why the DL's are trapping evil humans, "for their amusement" is a perfectly good answer.

It is also making me start to think that the way it has been presented to the community at large is just... I don't know. Maybe the way it was presented was the point, but then you guys find a different interpretation, but this concept works far better than every single version I have ever been told about before.

Well, I'm willing to talk at length about any part of Ravenloft you might wish to know about, if you have more questions.

 

[JEB]

I've often told Dark Sun fans who hated how 4e introduced spellcasting bards and tieflings the same think I'll say now; a setting that cannot adapt to how the game is now is a dead setting for WotC in terms of future support.

While you're not wrong that Wizards needs to make sure Ravenloft works for 5E fans, pointing to 4E's approach of inserting 4E core elements into settings that not only didn't have them, but had good reasons for not having them, isn't the most appealing parallel. Fortunately, the way Wizards treated Ravnica and Theros demonstrates that they don't feel obliged to do that anymore; they're fine with striking a balance between "appeals to 5E fans" and "appeals to existing fans" when they want to. (Note also that they rolled back some of the 4E changes for the Forgotten Realms, while keeping those that kept it 5E-friendly.) As such, I'd like to think that Wizards will do that with Ravenloft as well (and the other classic settings on the way).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I also don't particularly understand the idea put forth that somehow views sandbox play as being directly proportional to landmass size. Blades in the Dark is designed as a sandbox game, but it takes place within the confines of an enclosed city. Likewise Ptolus is a sandbox urban campaign setting for 3e (and soon 5e) where Monte Cook establishes that adventuring in the world of Praemal really only happens in and around the city of Ptolus. By the accounts of several people in this forum, such as @TheSword, Curse of Strahd can be played in the manner of a sandbox campaign. Stars Without Number is a sci-fi sandbox in which players essentially "sail" between "island" planets and systems in space. So how does landmass have any actual bearing on sandbox play? Is my sandbox somehow less of a sandbox if it stays entirely within the bounds of Barovia in Ravenloft or Keoland in Greyhawk or Aundair in Eberron or Karameikos in Mystara or the Nentir Vale in the Nentir Vale?

You can do sandbox at a variety of scales. But I do think when you tell people you are going to run a sandbox, they expect to have full range over a setting (if it turns out to be a more limited sandbox like a city, a region, or a kingdom, that is fine but it isn't the typical expection so you usually have to clarify)

 

[Aldarc]

You can do sandbox at a variety of scales. But I do think when you tell people you are going to run a sandbox, they expect to have full range over a setting (if it turns out to be a more limited sandbox like a city, a region, or a kingdom, that is fine but it isn't the typical expection so you usually have to clarify)

So you can't run a sandbox if the PCs may hypothetically have to hire the Vistani to navigate their way through the Mists to other domains rather than walking as part of a single landmass?

 

[Bedrockgames]

So you can't run a sandbox if the PCs may hypothetically have to hire the Vistani to navigate their way through the Mists to other domains rather than walking as part of a single landmass?

I wasn’t addressing that I was just responding to your question about sandbox and scale

 

[Bedrockgames]

So you can't run a sandbox if the PCs may hypothetically have to hire the Vistani to navigate their way through the Mists to other domains rather than walking as part of a single landmass?

But to answer this one: first I don't think pure sandbox is necessarily the best approach to Ravenloft. I ran Ravenloft with a certain amount of freedom of movement, but there were clear adventures to be had, and if there was a sandbox quality it was more contained to the scenario usually (nothing against sandboxes, I love running them, but for Ravenloft it isn't my cup of tea). I do know some people like to run Ravenloft as a sandbox though and I think generally it is probably going to be easier to do if ease of movement between domains is easier, but it certainly wouldn't be impossible to do without a single landmass. Whether it is using islands of terror as a model or an Earthsea version of Ravenloft it would be feasible. However it very much would depend on how they do it. In the classic island of terror model, travel from one island of terror to another was incredibly difficult, and not at all predictable. And how reliably you could count on Vistani would also not be clear. This evolved a lot though over time, so it would depend on how it was handled. Personally I am not saying a lack of sandbox is the reason why I would be wary of having it all be islands of terror.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At this point, I think it's safe to say that their primary concern is for fans of the Curse of Strahd adventure: you know, the people who are actually buying and playing their games rather than those old school gamers who haven't already been convinced to jump on-board with 5e.

Maybe that is true. And if so, it is fine. But I think they are missing an opportunity to get CoS fans and Classic fans. If they at least have a core, and have Islands of terror, I don't see why that wouldn't get you both audiences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Life like? These are Domains of Dread in the Shadowfell curated by mysterious Dark Powers to torment the ruling Dark Lords and their inhabitants. How does having neighbors make them more life like and why is that even important for this setting? I'm not sure why these Domains would or even should be "life like" as part of the gestalt setting or how having them as separate islands somehow makes the intentions of the Dark Powers any less mysterious.

I think based on what I've seen of your posts, we probably have very different tastes here (we seem to like very different systems and settings). So I doubt what I find breathes life into a setting is going to be the same for you. With Ravenloft I think they are trying to do an odd balance of surreal and yet make it feel plausible enough that you connect to it as a real place. For example for a lot of people I think the Nightmare lands pushed the balance too far in the surreal direction, and maybe that is why they removed it from the core.

But to answer this: It is important to me that it feel real enough. It is a balance like I said, and I think the core helps get that balance right. Real world places are not just about what is inside their borders, but the context they exist in. Locations don't exist in a vacuum. And I find it harder to believe in a land where everything is just isolated and surrounded by mists and there isn't some amount of cultural exchange going. Further, this is a setting, like I said before, inspired by classic horror, and I think for that it makes sense to have something that approximates the kinds of places you would see characters in classic horror movies: so having a place that feels like England, a place that feels like eastern europe, etc and having them be connected, helps for me. Also, we don't know for sure why the lords are imprisoned in Ravenloft, but I think if the purpose is to torment the dark lords, then you are going to be much more successful if there is familiar surroundings and a sense of normality to provide hope. If every place is an island like that, it feels all kind of self contained, not connected to other places, and very different from how real world places operate in my mind: so it is lacking an ingredient of familiarity. Also having things like neighbors instantly makes the lives of the residents seem more real (they are not just people trapped in a prison bauble surrounded by mists, they can cross the border and trade with people from a different culture (and this creates interesting back and forth). As I said before it opens up lines of adventure that wouldn't be as easy otherwise in terms of political intrigue. Political intrigue may not be central to horror, but it can certainly be a part of it, and I think it is important for settings to not be so focused that they lose that kind of flexibility and range.

That may not be the case for you. Which is fair. I can just tell you, from years and years of play, I found having the core really helped provide a bed for the campaign. And I found the islands to be a useful part of that geography too (a more perilous, less familiar and harder to navigate place to venture into). I see them as complimenting each other.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The roster of people implied to be among the "people who liked it" in this conversation don't seem particularly interested or invested in playing 5e D&D so I'm not sure why WotC should care about them more than the people who bought and played the Curse of Strahd 5e adventure and made it into a success.

There are all kinds of discussions on this going on all over (on forums, in real life, etc). I have met and interacted with a fair number of people who play 5E, liked old Ravenloft, and want a connected core.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I believe at least people, myself included, have provided a basic overview of the Shadowfell without any real engagement on your part. Furthermore, if you are not familiar with the Shadowfell, a basic Google search is your friend as there are plenty of freely available online resources that provide background on the plane.

My point was I can't comment on its quality. I am not especially interested in it to be honest. It is the sort of thing where if the present treatment of Ravenloft was interesting enough to me to get me into 5E, I'd read about it so I could play Ravenloft in that edition. But I was just making the point that I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether shadowfell is a good idea, as I don't really understand it (maybe I missed posts explaining it, or maybe I just didn't absorb them fully if I read them) and my comments about islands of terror and so forth are all based on my understanding of Ravenloft which is as part of the ethereal plane.