log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Fizban Is In The Wild -- With the Table of Contents!

Some people have received their copies of Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, and have posted photos (including the table of contents!) online!

8BFC444C-5615-4B7D-8BB7-F5D32D4F4C49.jpeg

E9ABFDE2-7C70-4917-8A3B-8C08CC5818DF.jpeg

E8DE898D-6851-408A-BC24-7010CEF5FF14.jpeg


 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

RavinRay

Explorer
Watching more of Fry's page-through, and on the page about dragon turtles, there's a comment from Fizban, who says he didn't create them, and Tiamat swears she didn't either, so where did they come from and why. Gave me a bit of a chuckle.
Zeboim spawned them on Krynn ("If Mom can create dragons, so can I!") and then let them loose on the other worlds?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Also, it looks like the Steel/Song dragon sidebar essentially says "There are lots of rumors of creatures called steel, song, or weredragon, but these are probably just other one of the main dragon types." So the book kind of says that steel/song dragons don't actually exist, they're folklore.
That's just what the steel and song dragons want you to think!

But on a more serious note, I did mention up thread on how to fudge the stat blocks if you want to have them around...
 

I'll need to read more closely when it comes to Sardior - is he so shattered that he cannot manifest in any way, or is he still somewhat coherent and is able to appear in some form or other, even temporarily? (Or is this even addressed? It might be left up to the DM.) Granted, Sardior has had minimal lore previously (I think mainly from Dragon magazine articles and a web enhancement with the 3e Draconomicon), so whatever the case may be there's precious little canon to adjust here if need be.

As for the rest of the draconic pantheon - powerful great wyrm or deity, are there any significant differences for a worshiper? Semantics likely means nothing to those at the ground level.
 

Zeromaru X

Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover
I only wonder if Io is mentioned at all in the book. But I guess that the lore from the SCAG is still true for them. It would explain why Bahamut and Tiamat are that important now.
 

RavinRay

Explorer
I'll need to read more closely when it comes to Sardior - is he so shattered that he cannot manifest in any way, or is he still somewhat coherent and is able to appear in some form or other, even temporarily? (Or is this even addressed? It might be left up to the DM.) Granted, Sardior has had minimal lore previously (I think mainly from Dragon magazine articles and a web enhancement with the 3e Draconomicon), so whatever the case may be there's precious little canon to adjust here if need be.
Scott Brocius and Mark A. Jindra did a whole series of 3.0 Sardior lore in the Mind's Eye psionics column of WotC D&D beginning with The Legend of Sardior. They gave Sardior and his six thanes (including a deceased obsidian dragon ex-thane) full stats, prestige classes for Sardior devotees, details on his church, and new powers.
 


Even then, the whole thing about Eberron's lore is that it has intentional gaps. Not only in in-world knowledge. Not even Keith Baker has the answer for this things. Having the progenitors be real, even if nobody in world knows it, sets a standard, and answer one of the biggest questions of the setting (Are gods real?), and every single table that answers that question with "no" will be deviating form canon (a lot of people don't care about that, I know, but a lot do). To do that in a book that isn't focused on Eberron, and doesn't have the care and intent of tailoring sotries to Eberron, would be a big mistake IMHO.

I like Patmandur's idea, just add a phrase... "Dragons in argonessen believe that...."
No setting is sacrosanct anymore, and WotC has said publically that canon doesnt matter if if interferes with their plans. However, I sincerely doubt there's going to be anything definitive lore-wise in the new book. The only way to avoid potential offense is to not provide definitive answers. I expect vague suggestions with a healthy dose of, "you can do whatever you want".
 

Scott Brocius and Mark A. Jindra did a whole series of 3.0 Sardior lore in the Mind's Eye psionics column of WotC D&D beginning with The Legend of Sardior. They gave Sardior and his six thanes (including a deceased obsidian dragon ex-thane) full stats, prestige classes for Sardior devotees, details on his church, and new powers.
That's what I meant, just thought it was for the Draconomicon and not the psionics in general.
 



Also, it looks like the Steel/Song dragon sidebar essentially says "There are lots of rumors of creatures called steel, song, or weredragon, but these are probably just other one of the main dragon types." So the book kind of says that steel/song dragons don't actually exist, they're folklore.

Which contradicts the DotMM. This book feels more like a grab bag of possible ideas then solid lore.
 


When it comes to a "cosmic force", it is less about it itself "granting" a spell, and more about the Cleric of a sacred tradition discerning and attuning it.

It's not a "comic force" granting the spell, it's the Dragon itself, the Dragon Blessed and Dragon Speaker (whose magic is more Bard Like then the Dragon Blessed), draw their magic right from their Dragon master, one seemingly Divine Magic, a straight up NPC Cleric from the stat block, and the other a NPC Arcane casting Bard. The third is even odder, the theme of these creatures are devoted minions so devoted they can draw magic directly from their Dragon master, but the middle one HAS NO MAGIC, it's just a fighter who can speak Draconic.
 

Isnt it how 5e works most of the time? Use/drop/replace what you want, mix and match to your pleasure?

These are tool boxes for people playing a game, not a lore encyclopedia on a specific world from a novel or movie.
This. 5e has no "solid" lore, because solid lore can contradict what DMs and other content creators create.

Source books are sources of ideas for people to use when playing D&D, which they can do whatever they like with.

WotC are trying to empower content creators, not restrict them.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
It's not a "comic force" granting the spell, it's the Dragon itself, the Dragon Blessed and Dragon Speaker (whose magic is more Bard Like then the Dragon Blessed), draw their magic right from their Dragon master, one seemingly Divine Magic, a straight up NPC Cleric from the stat block, and the other a NPC Arcane casting Bard. The third is even odder, the theme of these creatures are devoted minions so devoted they can draw magic directly from their Dragon master, but the middle one HAS NO MAGIC, it's just a fighter who can speak Draconic.
That's not how it works in 5e. Just like how Paladins no longer have to be Lawful Good or worship a deity to get their powers, Clerics don't get their powers from their deity anymore. They get them from their faith. If that's faith in a deity, it appears that their deity is granting them magic. If not, then it's pretty apparent that their magic is coming from something other than their god.
 


So, is Bowser a canon D&D character now? God of the Dragon Turtles?
That's not how it works in 5e. Just like how Paladins no longer have to be Lawful Good or worship a deity to get their powers, Clerics don't get their powers from their deity anymore. They get them from their faith. If that's faith in a deity, it appears that their deity is granting them magic. If not, then it's pretty apparent that their magic is coming from something other than their god.

That depends upon setting, in FR Clerics still get power from a God, in fact all divine magic comes from Gods, it's just only clerics have to have a particular patron.

Personally I don't like the idea of Divine magic not coming from Gods, it makes the separation between Arcane and Divine magic meaningless.
 

RoughCoronet0

Dragon Lover
I'd say don't necessairily get their powers from their deity... 5e is vague enough to make both power by deity and power by faith viable
I agree with this. Clerics getting their powers from their deities directly, getting their powers from faith to their deity/deities, or getting them through tapping into some cosmic force tied to a domain are all viable options that can be determined by each Dm and each table.

My group likes having deities granting powers to their clerics but I’m glad for the different options.
 


dave2008

Legend
Even then, the whole thing about Eberron's lore is that it has intentional gaps. Not only in in-world knowledge. Not even Keith Baker has the answer for this things. Having the progenitors be real, even if nobody in world knows it, sets a standard, and answer one of the biggest questions of the setting (Are gods real?), and every single table that answers that question with "no" will be deviating form canon (a lot of people don't care about that, I know, but a lot do). To do that in a book that isn't focused on Eberron, and doesn't have the care and intent of tailoring sotries to Eberron, would be a big mistake IMHO.

I like Patmandur's idea, just add a phrase... "Dragons in argonessen believe that...."
Gods have always been real in Eberron from the beginning (it has always been a apart of the D&D multiverse, KB even discussed this when Rising came out), the question is really only: are the Eberron gods real?
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top