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...

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

rav_art.jpg

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.




 

log in or register to remove this ad

To add to this. I really, really want good rules for fear, terror, horror, and madness checks in the new book. I don't like the ones presented in the DMG. I think those should be scrapped and redone with proper horror gaming in mind. Powers checks as well. There needs to be mechanical weight to sliding down the darker path. Sure, I could come up with them myself (any competent DM could), but that's what I'm shelling out money for...someone else to do the heavy lifting for me.

I always found the powers checks in black box to be quite good. They were flexible, could have mechanical weight depending on the nature of the change, but also left the GM with enough flexibility to tailor things. I think it could have used more examples so people understood how to use powers checks well (I remember it taking me a little bit to get the hang of). But to me, powers checks were one of the big things that set Ravenloft apart.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
To add to this. I really, really want good rules for fear, terror, horror, and madness checks in the new book. I don't like the ones presented in the DMG. I think those should be scrapped and redone with proper horror gaming in mind. Powers checks as well. There needs to be mechanical weight to sliding down the darker path. Sure, I could come up with them myself (any competent DM could), but that's what I'm shelling out money for...someone else to do the heavy lifting for me.
Some tactical combat rules not written by someone that dislikes that pillar of combat too. getting swarmed by wolves or whatever in 5e isn't nearly as frightening as in past editions since they don't really hamper your movement much. That's probably even more needed with them wanting to add a swarming zombie apocalypse type domain now.

edit: The fact that the release is so close(couple weeks?) & we haven't seen any UA mechanics to enable ravenloft's horror elements worries me
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
Some tactical combat rules not written by someone that dislikes that pillar of combat too. getting swarmed by wolves or whatever in 5e isn't nearly as frightening as in past editions since they don't really hamper your movement much. That's probably even more needed with them wanting to add a swarming zombie apocalypse type domain now.

edit: The fact that the release is so close(couple weeks?) & we haven't seen any UA mechanics to enable ravenloft's horror elements worries me
I agree we need some better fear, terror, horror, and madness mechanics. But you can do a lot with what already exists. Take the normal CR guidelines and shoot for more deadly encounters. Players will learn caution. If not, go bigger. Or focus more on horror-based non-combat encounters.

A lot comes down to description as well. Playing with anticipation (fear), reveal (terror), and realization (horror) can go a long, long way. Describing the sound of something sharp being drug across the wall outside the room your PCs are in, have something jump out from somewhere they weren’t expecting, and have the moment of full realization what it is they’re dealing with (or have already dealt with) is the back bone of the horror genre.

I only think you need rules for those rolls because most players will refuse to RP anything like an in-genre response to those things. The majority of the time they’ll just attack, kill, and loot no matter what you present them with. You need rules to back up the genre tropes of jump scares, paralyzed with fear, being shocked by a horrific realization, and going mad from those realizations and the constant stress of living in the genre.
 

MGibster

Legend
Some tactical combat rules not written by someone that dislikes that pillar of combat too. getting swarmed by wolves or whatever in 5e isn't nearly as frightening as in past editions since they don't really hamper your movement much. That's probably even more needed with them wanting to add a swarming zombie apocalypse type domain now.
Are you kidding me? Wolves are absolutely terrifying now that Pack Tactics gives them advantage on attacks if one of their allies is within 5 feet of the target.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Are you kidding me? Wolves are absolutely terrifying now that Pack Tactics gives them advantage on attacks if one of their allies is within 5 feet of the target.
2d4+2 isn't all that scary* & getting away from a bunch of critters or moving to avoid getting surrounded is trivial in 5e compared to past editions. Getting tripped doesn't provoke an AoO to stand in 5e like in the past either
* Especially when you factor in the virtual lack of hp attrition risk & ease of recovering hp in 5e. Less explosive recovery rests are probably another mechanic that needs touching on.
 


MGibster

Legend
2d4+2 isn't all that scary* & getting away from a bunch of critters or moving to avoid getting surrounded is trivial in 5e compared to past editions. Getting tripped doesn't provoke an AoO to stand in 5e like in the past either
It's not trivially easy to get away from a bunch of creatures with a 40 ft. movement and that's especially true if your character is knocked prone. For a creature with a 1/4 CR, wolves are incredibly effective against lower level parties.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
2d4+2 isn't all that scary* & getting away from a bunch of critters or moving to avoid getting surrounded is trivial in 5e compared to past editions. Getting tripped doesn't provoke an AoO to stand in 5e like in the past either
* Especially when you factor in the virtual lack of hp attrition risk & ease of recovering hp in 5e. Less explosive recovery rests are probably another mechanic that needs touching on.
For an easy fight, you’d put four wolves against a party of four 1st-level PCs. With +4 to-hit and advantage from pact tactics and each hit dealing 2d4+2 damage...when, on average, a 1st-level PC has 6-14 hp. A PC goes down in 1-2 hits. Wolves have 40ft move and most PCs have 30ft. With an average of 11 hp, wolves also take 1-2 hits to die. Things turn way, way worse if you just add one or two more wolves. A pack of eight wolves against a party of four PCs? You’re well into a deadly encounter.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top