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]

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.

They aren't even the same creature type, Tiamat is a fiend, Aspect of Tiamat is a Dragon.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

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

I mean, yes there is a named steel dragon in DotMM, but she herself contradicts steel dragon lore by being evil... she's also just a silver dragon with some duergar abilities and acid breath. So it very much could be that she's just a silver dragon who "went bad" or something.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

This Cleric sidebar is more 5e 'just do what you want' type design, I won't even call it World building.

That people feel it needs to be explicitly stated that they can do whatever robs us of deep World building systems/lore, and that's unfortunate.

Exactly, Divine magic coming from the actual Gods is FR version of no Gnomes in DS, Leonin & Satyrs in Theros, no Halflings or Tieflings, etc..., what do with the setting in one's home game is their business, but the official lore is what it is, Divine magic in FR IS Divine, as in Divinity, as in deities.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

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.

You can't treat any books beyond the core books as canon. The D&D team has already said they aren't going to make any attempt to make everything consistent 100% of the time, so books will absolutely contradict each other.

What is actually true in your game entirely depends on the DM. So for example, in some games, steel dragons are just folklore of folks mis-categorizing silver dragons that went evil. In another, steel dragons are actually real and the wizard community believes they're just folklore.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

You can't treat any books beyond the core books as canon. The D&D team has already said they aren't going to make any attempt to make everything consistent 100% of the time, so books will absolutely contradict each other.

What is actually true in your game entirely depends on the DM. So for example, in some games, steel dragons are just folklore of folks mis-categorizing silver dragons that went evil. In another, steel dragons are actually real and the wizard community believes they're just folklore.

Some of us actually care about setting canon, it effects the Immersion level of the story for us, so this makes the lore in this 90% useless to me, which is fine, after MToF and VGtM, I'm used to that, but I think setting books should be viewed as being canon, the lack of that being mentioned in my view was simply an omission.

Most of the mechanics are still useful.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, there is no separation between divine and arcane magic in 5e... (at least that I can recall of)

"All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding-learned or intuitive-of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power-gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

One's Folklore is another Dragon's Echo.

As a Side Note to this whole "Dragon Echo" business, I now want to play a Dragonborn Echo Knight that is flavored to have awoken the echoes of themselves in other worlds. Probably a Gem Dragonborn, as a Herald of Sardior, or something like that.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

"All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding-learned or intuitive-of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power-gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath."

The funny part of this is that none Arcane Sorcerers have since come out that explicitly use other power sources, Divine Soul (Divine magic), Shadow Magic (Shadow magic), and Psionic Soul (Psionic magic).

I don't think this comes up in other none material (Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter) classes otherwise the rest are consistent in their power sources (possible exception being the Bard's magic secrets and the College of Whispers).

I think that in the 5.5e PHB, the Sorcerer won't be explicitly just an Arcane class, like the change in Pathfinder 2e.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Some of us actually care about setting canon, it effects the Immersion level of the story for us, so this makes the lore in this 90% useless to me, which is fine, after MToF and VGtM, I'm used to that, but I think setting books should be viewed as being canon, the lack of that being mentioned in my view was simply an omission.

Most of the mechanics are still useful.

Well, I'll reiterate that Fizban's isn't more or less canon than Mad Mage. But of course you're meant to use the parts of lore you like and don't like, so if you prefer setting books content than it is your prerogative to use that and disregard Fizban's. That's part if the designs intention, I think.

I actually view that as good lore design, as there are folks on this thread who seem to prefer Fizban's lore generally, or at least will find that lore more useful when integrating it into their own homebrew world. So this "canon doesn't matter much" methodology does seem to work wonders for a very wide playerbase.

 

[Maxperson]

The funny part of this is that none Arcane Sorcerers have since come out that explicitly use other power sources, Divine Soul (Divine magic), Shadow Magic (Shadow magic), and Psionic Soul (Psionic magic).

I don't think this comes up in other none material (Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter) classes otherwise the rest are consistent in their power sources (possible exception being the Bard's magic secrets and the College of Whispers).

I think that in the 5.5e PHB, the Sorcerer won't be explicitly just an Arcane class, like the change in Pathfinder 2e.

I'm not so sure. 3e also did that, with Divine Soul using divine, shadow magic using the shadow weave, etc.