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!

 

[Azzy]

I mean, it's already airborne and headed to space, it seems.

No, it doesn't seem. That's just an assumption on your part.

 

[Parmandur]

Doesn't Rising and Wayfinder's point you in the direction of older material? Would that not imply that the older material is canon (exept where contradicted by the newer books)?

I mean, if you feel like it for your game. But that is not the approach which WotC is taking broadly speaking.

 

[Parmandur]

No, it doesn't seem. That's just an assumption on your part.

Seems well grounded, since that's what they have continued to do over the years.

 

[Azzy]

Seems well grounded, since that's what they have continued to do over the years.

We have only one example of it "over the years". So, no, I don't think it's well grounded.

 

[Parmandur]

We have only one example of it "over the years". So, no, I don't think it's well grounded.

The Monster Manual, Volo's Guide to Monsters, Mordenkeinen's Tome of Foes, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything...all have a very consistent take on the core assumed multiverse. I see no reason to suspect they are changing that anytime soon.

 

[Azzy]

I mean, if you feel like it for your game. But that is not the approach which WotC is taking broadly speaking.

I mean, the old books are directly referenced by the new books as source material to look at, so I'm not sure that you are correct here.

 

[Azzy]

The Monster Manual, Volo's Guide to Monsters, Mordenkeinen's Tome of Foes, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything...all have a very consistent take on the core assumed multiverse. I see no reason to suspect they are changing that anytime soon.

Only the Corellon entry directly contradicts Eberron lore.

 

[Parmandur]

Only the Corellon entry directly contradicts Eberron lore.

Well, different perspectives, who knows what is really true (the DM, obviously).

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, the old books are directly referenced by the new books as source material to look at, so I'm not sure that you are correct here.

They remain a possible source for inspiration, but they are not a strictly canonical source, either, for 5E product purposes.

 

[Azzy]

They remain a possible source for inspiration, but they are not a strictly canonical source, either, for 5E product purposes.

So you say.