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

 

[Bedrockgames]

Trying to force players to act scared is a bad idea as is forced insanity. Much better to take the player to one side and ask how they want things to manifest. Offer them inspiration if they play it well. However I do like the corruption mechanic from WFRP that carries penalties, which can be reduced in exchange for PCs willingly performing dark deeds.

I think one reason I like the old fear mechanics, is because they can be used to make the players scared. I agree with you, forcing people to act scared, when they are not, isn't very useful (it is one of the reasons why I don't like the "if the players RP their fear, you don't have to roll a fear check" thing). I am not interested in the table playacting being affraid to some imaginary audience. I am interested in mechanics that cause fear. Losing your ability to attack, losing your ability to move, etc these kinds of things, if done well, can add fear to the game. I think the old fear and horror checks should be reworked a bit to focus on the elements that added to it, but I do think they added to it when it came to things like you suddenly can't swing your sword. To me that isn't about whether the character is acting appropriately fearful, it is about the player is now extremely vulnerable in an already dangerous situation (and anyone who has experienced that kind of fear, or even just been in a dream where they can't move and someone is chasing them, understands that). You might want your character to be brave in the fave of a wall of ghouls, but I think it is fair for the system to say "you just aren't as brave as you thought".

 

[MGibster]

Trying to force players to act scared is a bad idea as is forced insanity. Much better to take the player to one side and ask how they want things to manifest.

Trying to scare your players is a fool's errand. Your players are sitting at a comfortable table amongst friends, and if stereotypes are to be believed, filling up on Cheetos and Mountain Dew which is not fertile ground for fear. Unless you're one of those gamers in their 40s who has to worry about their waistline and cholesterol.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Trying to scare your players is a fool's errand. Your players are sitting at a comfortable table amongst friends, and if stereotypes are to be believed, filling up on Cheetos and Mountain Dew which is not fertile ground for fear. Unless you're one of those gamers in their 40s who has to worry about their waistline and cholesterol.

It is definitely possible to scare players. If you expect it all the time, every time, you will probably be disappointed. But I got quite good at finding the opportunities, hinting that something was off, and building a sense of dread. I also got very good at designing monsters who could scare parties. Just to give in an example, in another game and setting I made paper shadow puppets that were supernatural and could attack your shadow (and every limb they hit got paralyzed--obviously took a bit of inspiration from The Created here). But their presence was usually preceded by a suona horn that controlled them. These monsters exploded the table when they first appeared. The players were quite impacted by it. Some of that was the set up and build. Some was I knew when to introduce something supernatural and horrifying (the campaign wasn't all monsters), and take them off guard. But a lot of it boiled down to that paralysis ability. After that, any time they saw oiled paper walls or heard a suona, they got quite nervous.

Now this won't work for everyone. And you have to have the right rapport with the players and buy in for it to work. But my point is, a lot of what I learned running Ravenloft in the 90s (including what doesn't work), has been stuff I can take into other settings and other games and make use of to help create more horror at the table.

I do think it is healthy to not take oneself too seriously though, and to understand something you think might land and horrify or cause fear, might just come off as corny or prompt laughter one night (there are so many variables and it is a social event). For me, I am fine having very little horror in a session, if it ends with something genuinely scary. I am also fine with players munching cheetos and laughing as they explore a setting that feels like a bunch of hammer studio sets filled with strange monsters.

 

[overgeeked]

This is true for every setting, IMHO. The players should buy in to the central concept of the game. Eberron relies on Pulp/noir, Dark Sun on brutal survivalism, Theros on the influence of the Gods, Ravenloft on horror. Making a PC to subvert the theme can work, but a character who ignores it often times ruins the fun for everyone.

Right. And this is what I’ve run into repeatedly. “Please run Ravenloft. Oh, you want to run it as horror. I don’t like horror. My character is never scared of anything ever. Charge!”

So, fear, terror, horror, and madness checks. To force actual roleplaying. Like making a low INT character make an INT check when their high IQ player comes up with a brilliant plan their character never would in a million years. Or having the high CHA character roll Persuasion instead of forcing the painfully shy and socially awkward player to roleplay through the whole social interaction. This isn’t new or revolutionary stuff. There are spells that freeze, charm, or frighten on a failed save. Why are those acceptable but these are not?

 

[Remathilis]

Right. And this is what I’ve run into repeatedly. “Please run Ravenloft. Oh, you want to run it as horror. I don’t like horror. My character is never scared of anything ever. Charge!”

So, fear, terror, horror, and madness checks. To force actual roleplaying. Like making a low INT character make an INT check when their high IQ player comes up with a brilliant plan their character never would in a million years. Or having the high CHA character roll Persuasion instead of forcing the painfully shy and socially awkward player to roleplay through the whole social interaction. This isn’t new or revolutionary stuff. There are spells that freeze, charm, or frighten on a failed save. Why are those acceptable but these are not?

I think part of the backlash comes from overuse. I certainly saw my fair share of DMs who bludgeoned PCs with F/H checks (and Powers checks, but that's a different kettle of fish). Every time a PC encountered supernatural effect or something gross or morbid, dice were called for. Often, it derailed the horror as people got sucked out of the moment in a flurry of rulebooks looking up which penalty they now had (and often times hammily playing up effect to almost comedic effect) and the rest of the session revolved around making the PC playable again.

There is some use in both checks, but in my opinion if you are calling on fear checks more then once per session and horror once per character level, you might want to see if you are overdoing it...

 

[overgeeked]

I was playing in a CoS 5e game before it went on hiatus due to DM burnout. At the end I was a 9th level flesh golemized bladesinger Esmerelda who was immune to non magical attacks and had ridiculous stats and skills and attacks. The party paladin had the two big undead smiting artifacts. We were about as high powered as can be expected in the module. I still felt the horror of the setting and figured Strahd had better than 50 50 odds of wrecking us as we drew closer to the culmination. We were all expecting it was probably going to end horrifically poorly, but possibly not and we were working hard through a comedy of errors to try for that possible not horrible ending for our monster hunters.

5e Ravenloft can work for not super low level PCs.

That is . . . an incorrect extrapolation of what I wrote. First, I specifically do not give us even 50/50 odds while being loaded up with two specific anti-this darklord artefacts.

Sorry, the bolded bit looks exactly like you gave 50/50 odds on beating Strahd. You worded it as him wrecking you, but the alternative in that binary is you beating him. Though I did drop the words “better than”.

We have been repeatedly close to TPK with half the party making death saves multiple times against not the darklord. There was the Temple, The Thing in the Water, The not top-tier Witches, a secondary Vampire and his minions that turned very south despite the advantages we had.

At 9th level with all that gear?

Plus there is a difference between terror and horror as the original black box put it. Being in fear of dying is terror. Finding out the bad stuff going on generally is the horror.

I distinguish the three like this. Fear is anticipation of bad things happening. Hearing the sound of something sharp being scraped along the wall outside your room evokes fear. Terror is the sudden reveal of something menacing. Jump scares, basically. Horror is the realization of the implications of the first two. Like when you check the body of the vampire you just killed and realize it’s your friend.

I know I’m using fear in a different way that the Black Box. My use is more in line with how horror writers talk about it and I’ve been using that definition for years.

 

[Remathilis]

(it is one of the reasons why I don't like the "if the players RP their fear, you don't have to roll a fear check" thing).

I tended to treat it as, "if you are using an abundance of caution, you can negate the effect of the shock." For example, the PCs open the door to an old library and a spectral form hovers in the room, that if call for a fear check. But if the PCs approach quietly, open the door a crack to peer in and catch the figure in corner of thier eye, they can open the door fully aware there is a ghost and no fear check if needed. It rewards careful play and investigation rather than kicking in the door.

Then again, I tend to use fear checks mostly as one part morale check, one part surprise roll/negate jumpscare. YMMV.

 

[overgeeked]

I think part of the backlash comes from overuse. I certainly saw my fair share of DMs who bludgeoned PCs with F/H checks (and Powers checks, but that's a different kettle of fish). Every time a PC encountered supernatural effect or something gross or morbid, dice were called for. Often, it derailed the horror as people got sucked out of the moment in a flurry of rulebooks looking up which penalty they now had (and often times hammily playing up effect to almost comedic effect) and the rest of the session revolved around making the PC playable again.

That’s part of the problem. Without those checks no one roleplays the horror...so without those checks, there is no horror.

There is some use in both checks, but in my opinion if you are calling on fear checks more then once per session and horror once per character level, you might want to see if you are overdoing it...

In a two-hour horror movie about how often do the characters scream and run and act horrified by what’s happening around them? That’s about the right amount of times the characters should be reacting that same way.

 

[Remathilis]

That’s part of the problem. Without those checks no one roleplays the horror...so without those checks, there is no horror.

In a two-hour horror movie about how often do the characters scream and run and act horrified by what’s happening around them? That’s about the right amount of times the characters should be reacting that same way.

The difference for me is that Ravenloft PCs aren't scared teenage camp councilors in the woods, they're trained combatants versed in magic and martial skill. They have seen some things you wouldn't believe, and it takes a like more to get them off thier game. They are the heroes, and they get to be heroic. F/H should be used to throw them off thier game, not keep them submissive.

EDIT: how often are the six hunters in Dracula (the Harkers, Steward, Morris, Godalming and Van Helsing) paralyzed from fear or revulsion?

 

[overgeeked]

The difference for me is that Ravenloft PCs aren't scared teenage camp councilors in the woods, they're trained combatants versed in magic and martial skill. They have seen some things you wouldn't believe, and it takes a like more to get them off thier game. They are the heroes, and they get to be heroic. F/H should be used to throw them off thier game, not keep them submissive.

The PCs generally start as 1st-level adventurers. That’s fresh off the farm with granddad’s rusty sword not seasoned combat vets. Besides, even seasoned combat vets freak when faced with something new and truly terrifying. Like say being magically transported into a new land of nightmares. Look at Aliens as an example. Over time they’d get used to the awful, but that’s why you throw new awful things at them.

I think this divide comes down to wanting to play actual horror vs wanting to play horror-themed action heroes. I want Ravenloft to be horror. Not exactly like every other D&D game with gothic monsters instead of orcs and goblins.