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

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.

The distinction between Clerics getting spells from "cosmic forces" and God's in an illusion, Romans for example concider impersonal cosmic forces a kind of Gods, just ones without consciousness and would pray to stiff like Justice and Piety. Clerics getting magic from faith on the other hand steps on the Monk and Psions toes IMHO.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




They are all grab bags of ideas to use or discard. They are more clear about that reality these days.

Some have consistent interlocking narrative, which you can pillage for you home game and change as you like, but is not the same as just being a grab bag of ideas like Fizban's is. You really can't treat Fizban's as canon to anything as it just don't fit anything and it gets contradicted by 5e products themselves even. That a major difference compared to E: RftLW which has internal and setting coherence, which Fizban lacks.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
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.
Not according to Xanathar's Guide to Everything, which gives an option for playing a cleric without a god (and one for serving a pantheon). Doesn't say that the option doesn't work in the FR, just says that it's more common in certain world (Eberron is the main example).
Personally I don't like the idea of Divine magic not coming from Gods, it makes the separation between Arcane and Divine magic meaningless.
I disagree with the premise. The separation between Divine and Arcane magic in D&D 5e is practically nonexistent. I do like how 4e's Power Sources worked and wish that Primal and Psionic as power sources would return, but that's not how it works in 5e. Divine and Arcane magic are much more fuzzy in 5e, and even if Divine magic doesn't strictly come from gods anymore, it can still come from a different source than Arcane magic. Sorcerers have inherent magic, Warlocks bargain/make pacts for their magic, and Wizards have to study arcane secrets and knowledge about the multiverse's existence. Paladins devote themselves to an oath and its tenets to get their powers, Druids do . . . whatever druids do (hug trees?), and Clerics worship a deity or some aspect of the universe.
 

dave2008

Legend
Not according to Xanathar's Guide to Everything, which gives an option for playing a cleric without a god (and one for serving a pantheon). Doesn't say that the option doesn't work in the FR, just says that it's more common in certain world (Eberron is the main example).

I disagree with the premise. The separation between Divine and Arcane magic in D&D 5e is practically nonexistent. I do like how 4e's Power Sources worked and wish that Primal and Psionic as power sources would return, but that's not how it works in 5e. Divine and Arcane magic are much more fuzzy in 5e, and even if Divine magic doesn't strictly come from gods anymore, it can still come from a different source than Arcane magic. Sorcerers have inherent magic, Warlocks bargain/make pacts for their magic, and Wizards have to study arcane secrets and knowledge about the multiverse's existence. Paladins devote themselves to an oath and its tenets to get their powers, Druids do . . . whatever druids do (hug trees?), and Clerics worship a deity or some aspect of the universe.
In 5e there is no difference between divine and arcane magic (or psionics), there is just magic. It makes sense in a lot of ways, but I too liked the sources from 4e and wouldn't have minded a real divide between divine and arcane and possibly primal magic
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Some have consistent interlocking narrative, which you can pillage for you home game and change as you like, but is not the same as just being a grab bag of ideas like Fizban's is. You really can't treat Fizban's as canon to anything as it just don't fit anything and it gets contradicted by 5e products themselves even. That a major difference compared to E: RftLW which has internal and setting coherence, which Fizban lacks.
I mean, it seems coherent enough from what I've seen. For a grab bag of ideas to use or not use.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
Some have consistent interlocking narrative, which you can pillage for you home game and change as you like, but is not the same as just being a grab bag of ideas like Fizban's is. You really can't treat Fizban's as canon to anything as it just don't fit anything and it gets contradicted by 5e products themselves even. That a major difference compared to E: RftLW which has internal and setting coherence, which Fizban lacks.
Fizban's isn't officially released yet, so even if you have seen the previews and flip-through videos, I'm fairly certain that you can't say this with any near-certainty without actually completely reading through the book. Saying "this book doesn't have internal or setting coherence!" before you've even truly read through it is . . . a strange argument, to say the least.

Also, yes, you can treat Fizban's as canon, because 5e has this wonderful way of treating lore that can be summarized by saying "New lore overrides old lore". It was true for Volo's Guide to Monsters and its changes to Orcs and Yuan-Ti, it was true for Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and its changes to Elven Lore and Duergar Lore, and it is still true for Fizban's Treasury of Dragons and how it treats Dragons of all types and the First World. New lore overrides old lore. That's how 5e works. I treat all of those pieces of information as "D&D canon", even if I don't use it at my table, and even if they contradict earlier lore from previous editions or early 5e.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
In 5e there is no difference between divine and arcane magic (or psionics), there is just magic. It makes sense in a lot of ways, but I too liked the sources from 4e and wouldn't have minded a real divide between divine and arcane and possibly primal magic
There is a side-bar in the PHB's Spellcasting section discussing the differences between Divine and Arcane magic (it's mainly just which classes use which type), but overall you're correct. Magic is just magic in 5e, and almost all magic in 5e is just Spells. There are very few outliers.
 


In 5e there is no difference between divine and arcane magic (or psionics), there is just magic. It makes sense in a lot of ways, but I too liked the sources from 4e and wouldn't have minded a real divide between divine and arcane and possibly primal magic

Druids actually get their magic in FR from the First Circle, a group of nature Gods, but worshipping them is not a requirement for this magic, they are just the source and it doesn't mean you can't primarily worship a God outside of the First Circle.

And it's mentioned else where that clerics magic in FR comes from Gods, but I'll need to look up which book later.

Really even a Paladin gets their Divine magic from the Gods indirectly, the Oath gets its powers from the Gods.
 


when the new core books come out will some of the content introduced in this book be put into the new core books?

Absolutely. I could see Fizban's Dragonborn becoming the new norm for Dragonborn, with addition of a Dragonborn race that is from mixed Dragon ancestors or even from none Gem/Metallic/Chromatic Dragons. Honestly I think Faerie/Moonstone/Deep/Turtle/Mixed Dragonborn subrace would have been cool too.
 


For Tiamat think of it this way: Tyranny of Dragons 2019(or RoT) Tiamat is her in her Deity/Avatar form or close to it, WITH the House Rule of adding in her Mythic Action onto the stat block.


Aspect of Tiamat, as mentioned before, is basically not her closeish fully powered up form, but the weaker Aspect form of her.
 

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.
One's Folklore is another Dragon's Echo.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
Hot take, if your Cleric gets their magic from faith (aka your own mind) directly, your really just a 3.5e Ardent in Cleric cosplay, a psion instead of a divine caster.
Yeah, no. Clerics aren't the same as they were in previous editions. If a class doesn't exist in 5e, then you can't be that class, even if you thematically "fit" that class's theme. Just because Clerics were expanded doesn't mean that certain members of the class aren't actually Clerics anymore because character from one of the expanded parts of the class.
 



Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top