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

 

[Voadam]

I mean, at least they still sell the PDFs of the the older editions of Ravenloft. So if anybody really wants to keep the same stuff, ya can.

Of course I don't know which of the older Ravenloft material would be the best to get without going "too overboard" with buying every single thing. I completely missed out on the early editions of DND/Ravenloft and opinions, from what I heard, seem to be mixed about 3.0/3.5 Ravenloft stuff.

Quality and tone of Ravenloft stuff has varied wildly throughout its entire lifecycle IMO. 3.0 core book and the 3.0 and 3.5 Monster Books, and the Van Richten's were all great. I thought the short Secrets of the Dread Lords was good too. There were other products 3e/3.5 products I did not care for (the hero and villain splat books come to mind).

Same for 2e ravenloft. Some great stuff like the Van Richten Guides and some fantastic sourcebooks and modules, but also atrocious ones with horrendous railroading and messing around with PCs in ways I felt were pretty terrible (surprise! you actually died offscreen an hour ago and were replaced by an impostur you've been playing since then) or that significantly went against core aspects of the setting (hey this entire low magic high skilled professional army is actually individually alchemically powered by a formula involving ground up Books of Vile Darkness!, yes the entire nation's army, each of them, and the formulae is a secret of the nation's wizard hating fighter leader).

 

[darjr]

A lot of the arguments against the changes aren't based around the specific elements being changed but the general concept of change. I'm reminded of grandma Simpson's quote:

IT never changes.

 

[Faolyn]

What your creature type technically counts as is a minor detail compared to that, IMO.

Well, not really because your creature type also alters how a lot of spells affect you. If you're undead, then you can't be healed by cure wounds, but you can be turned by a cleric. So it's not quite as minor as you might think. (Cool image with the rats, BTW.)

 

[Faolyn]

I mean, at least they still sell the PDFs of the the older editions of Ravenloft. So if anybody really wants to keep the same stuff, ya can.

Of course I don't know which of the older Ravenloft material would be the best to get without going "too overboard" with buying every single thing. I completely missed out on the early editions of DND/Ravenloft and opinions, from what I heard, seem to be mixed about 3.0/3.5 Ravenloft stuff.

The Van Richten's Guides are excellent, including the three they produced for S&S. For the record, the third of the S&S VR Guides, the Guide to the Mists, wasn't formally published--they lost the license just before they could, so they released the mostly-formatted but no-art text of the book for free. You can't go wrong with these, since you can just update them to your edition of choice and even use the information in non-Ravenloft settings.

Domains of Dread can be considered an updated Black Box, and it includes (most of?) the domains that were introduced in Islands of Terror and Darklords, so if you want to get a "basic" RL book, this one would be it.

I like the Gazetteers personally, but you can probably ignore most of the other stuff from the S&S line (including the Core books), unless you're planning on running in 3x. The Gazetters update a lot of the lore from Domains of Dread, but only for the Core domains.

I don't buy adventures, so I can't help you there. But Carnival and the Nightmare Lands boxed sets have some interesting features, since those two places are quite unusual.

And, of course, the monster books. There were three MC appendices. The first and third are normal MCs chock fulla monsters (some of which are dumb), while the second is a collection of unique creatures, each with a full personality and writeup. They're excellent. You probably don't need to S&S Denizens of Dread.

And then, if you go to the Fraternity of Shadow's library, you can get all their netzines.

 

[Kurotowa]

Well, not really because your creature type also alters how a lot of spells affect you. If you're undead, then you can't be healed by cure wounds, but you can be turned by a cleric. So it's not quite as minor as you might think. (Cool image with the rats, BTW.)

Avoiding those alterations falls under my mention of "making concessions to game balance and ease of play" and is, I highly suspect, considered a feature and not a bug by the game devs. Especially when they tested a dual-type in the UA version and pulled back from it. Really, there was no shortage of people here bringing up examples of weird rules interactions it would create, and they ranged from "annoying" to "unbalanced".

What I'm getting at is, decide what's really important about the character concept, and ask if "Can't be healed or Raised" is a complication you genuinely need to introduce to the game.

 

[Remathilis]

The Van Richten's Guides are excellent, including the three they produced for S&S. For the record, the third of the S&S VR Guides, the Guide to the Mists, wasn't formally published--they lost the license just before they could, so they released the mostly-formatted but no-art text of the book for free. You can't go wrong with these, since you can just update them to your edition of choice and even use the information in non-Ravenloft settings.

Domains of Dread can be considered an updated Black Box, and it includes (most of?) the domains that were introduced in Islands of Terror and Darklords, so if you want to get a "basic" RL book, this one would be it.

I like the Gazetteers personally, but you can probably ignore most of the other stuff from the S&S line (including the Core books), unless you're planning on running in 3x. The Gazetters update a lot of the lore from Domains of Dread, but only for the Core domains.

I don't buy adventures, so I can't help you there. But Carnival and the Nightmare Lands boxed sets have some interesting features, since those two places are quite unusual.

And, of course, the monster books. There were three MC appendices. The first and third are normal MCs chock fulla monsters (some of which are dumb), while the second is a collection of unique creatures, each with a full personality and writeup. They're excellent. You probably don't need to S&S Denizens of Dread.

And then, if you go to the Fraternity of Shadow's library, you can get all their netzines.

Addendum: Darkon is fully detailed in Requiem: the Grim Harvest boxset. The adventure ok, mostly a railroad get to the main selling point of the box (2e rules for undead PCs) but the gazetteer detailing Darkon/Necropolis is very good. A little of it is reprinted in Domains of Dread and most of it was in the 3e Gazetteer with Darkon in it. You also got a great poster map of the domain pre-Nocturnal Sea.

 

[Faolyn]

Avoiding those alterations falls under my mention of "making concessions to game balance and ease of play" and is, I highly suspect, considered a feature and not a bug by the game devs. Especially when they tested a dual-type in the UA version and pulled back from it. Really, there was no shortage of people here bringing up examples of weird rules interactions it would create, and they ranged from "annoying" to "unbalanced".

What I'm getting at is, decide what's really important about the character concept, and ask if "Can't be healed or Raised" is a complication you genuinely need to introduce to the game.

You're correct. I'm just saying it's not a minor issue. If someone really wants to play an undead, they they should have the drawbacks in addition to the perks. if they just want to invoke the feeling of being undead, then plain ol' humanoid is good enough.

 

[JEB]

Problematic changes like Valachan, I Cath or Souragne needed to happen for WotC to sell the book in 2021.

This is the part that keeps me scratching my head, though. If Valachan, I'Cath, Souragne, etc. were deemed too problematic to keep in their original form, what was the value of reviving those particular domains at all? (Especially I'Cath, which is not exactly one of the better-known lands.) If someone really loved the old version of the domain, and never had a problem with it to start with, you're just going to upset them. If someone new comes in, they won't care that the new domain has an old name, so applying it is a waste of time... or worse, they will like the fact that it has "history", only to be turned off when they actually dig into older versions.

If Wizards thought a domain was trouble, it seems like it would have been much smarter to either focus on other, less difficult domains, or invest more in new ones (which they clearly had ideas for - they just gave most of them old names). Unless, as some suggested, the "fix" is the point. Not sure how well that worked out with I'Cath, though...

So while I feel some changes were made to correct socially yikesy things, a lot seems like them wanting to revitalize the brand and correct design flaws from 30 years ago.

Sure, and honestly, a lot of what's in the new Ravenloft looks great. (Dementlieu 2.0 sounds cool, for example - but again, why is it called "Dementlieu"?) However, they could have had all this great new stuff without erasing what came before. Having to do one or the other is a false choice - the Forgotten Realms has managed to do both in 5E, after all.

This also makes me very curious how the other two classic settings are going to be handled. Are you hardcore Spelljammer fans really sure you want it back? You aren't the demographic they want anymore...

 

[Remathilis]

This is the part that keeps me scratching my head, though. If Valachan, I'Cath, Souragne, etc. were deemed too problematic to keep in their original form, what was the value of reviving those particular domains at all? (Especially I'Cath, which is not exactly one of the better-known lands.) If someone really loved the old version of the domain, and never had a problem with it to start with, you're just going to upset them. If someone new comes in, they won't care that the new domain has an old name, so applying it is a waste of time... or worse, they will like the fact that it has "history", only to be turned off when they actually dig into older versions.

If Wizards thought a domain was trouble, it seems like it would have been much smarter to either focus on other, less difficult domains, or invest more in new ones (which they clearly had ideas for - they just gave most of them old names). Unless, as some suggested, the "fix" is the point. Not sure how well that worked out with I'Cath, though...


Sure, and honestly, a lot of what's in the new Ravenloft looks great. (Dementlieu 2.0 sounds cool, for example - but again, why is it called "Dementlieu"?) However, they could have had all this great new stuff without erasing what came before. Having to do one or the other is a false choice - the Forgotten Realms has managed to do both in 5E, after all.

This also makes me very curious how the other two classic settings are going to be handled. Are you hardcore Spelljammer fans really sure you want it back? You aren't the demographic they want anymore...

Because ignoring the problem isn't the same as fixing it.

Take Valachan. There were multiple problems with the domain as presented; it was a weird mix of European temperate forests and jungle cats, headed by the only black darklord who just happened to be a panther turned man turned vampire with a penchant for killing his wives. That existed in the world. So now, WotC decides Valachan is too radioactive to touch, so they decide to design a new domain (Adnakaw) and a new darklord (Chalkuna) to fill its place and puts that in VGR, with no mention of Valachan anywhere in it.

But Valachan still exists. Or specifically, WotC didn't say it doesn't exist. Von Karkov, with all his flaws, is out there. They did nothing to correct the inherent design flaws of the darklord or domain. It just pretends they didn't happen, or that they did but WotC doesn't want to talk about it. What is that serving? Do you NEED WotC's consent to use the old Valachan if you have the books? If you don't and Valachan is regnum-non-grata, you aren't any better off than before WotC put out VGR; you're still converting the old 2e/3e stuff by hand yourself.

And are you going to do this with EVERY domain, because (spoiler) every domain got changed in some way. Lamordia has gained a steampunk/mad science vibe. Kartakass when from wolfweres to werewolves, Richemont has plague issues, Darkon is disintegrating, Tepest is about strange hag-worshippers, Falkovia is a zombie war, etc, etc. Even good old Barovia changed quite a bit between Domains of Dread and Curse of Strahd. The fact that Van Richten is alive to write this book (after the events of Bleak House) shows how far they have strayed from the metaplot.

Ultimately, I can't convince you to like the new stuff. If your heart is set on Black Box/Red Box version of Ravenloft, you're going to be disappointed. Much like how 4e Dark Sun is a reconceptualizing of the setting rather than a strict conversion, so too is Ravenloft.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because ignoring the problem isn't the same as fixing it.

Take Valachan. There were multiple problems with the domain as presented; it was a weird mix of European temperate forests and jungle cats, headed by the only black darklord who just happened to be a panther turned man turned vampire with a penchant for killing his wives. That existed in the world. So now, WotC decides Valachan is too radioactive to touch, so they decide to design a new domain (Adnakaw) and a new darklord (Chalkuna) to fill its place and puts that in VGR, with no mention of Valachan anywhere in it.

But Valachan still exists. Or specifically, WotC didn't say it doesn't exist. Von Karkov, with all his flaws, is out there. They did nothing to correct the inherent design flaws of the darklord or domain. It just pretends they didn't happen, or that they did but WotC doesn't want to talk about it. What is that serving? Do you NEED WotC's consent to use the old Valachan if you have the books? If you don't and Valachan is regnum-non-grata, you aren't any better off than before WotC put out VGR; you're still converting the old 2e/3e stuff by hand yourself.

And are you going to do this with EVERY domain, because (spoiler) every domain got changed in some way. Lamordia has gained a steampunk/mad science vibe. Kartakass when from wolfweres to werewolves, Richemont has plague issues, Darkon is disintegrating, Tepest is about strange hag-worshippers, Falkovia is a zombie war, etc, etc. Even good old Barovia changed quite a bit between Domains of Dread and Curse of Strahd. The fact that Van Richten is alive to write this book (after the events of Bleak House) shows how far they have strayed from the metaplot.

Ultimately, I can't convince you to like the new stuff. If your heart is set on Black Box/Red Box version of Ravenloft, you're going to be disappointed. Much like how 4e Dark Sun is a reconceptualizing of the setting rather than a strict conversion, so too is Ravenloft.

I still don’t understand why a domain of black people, with a black lord, who are culturally European, is considered a problem (it very much goes against notions of blood and soil and ethno nationalism). It treats race and culture as delegate things. Feeling those have yo be reconnected would seem a step backwards