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!

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

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

It's a D&D book.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

It's a D&D book.

Not all D&D books are so lore fluid, most are more lore canon consistent.

 

[Parmandur]

Not all D&D books are so lore fluid, most are more lore canon consistent.

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

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.