log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Fizban's Treasury Dragons Ranked By Challenge Rating

WotC has been sending out previews of Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, due out next month, to folks on Twitter. Amongst those are art pieces and other items.

fbtod.png


By Challenge Rating the dragons in the book are:
  • Ancient crystal (19)
  • Ancient topaz (20)
  • Ancient emerald (21)
  • Ancient moonstone (21)
  • Ancient sapphire (22)
  • Elder brain dragon (22)
  • Ancient amethyst (23)
  • Ancient dragon turtle (24)
  • Gem greatwyrm (26)
  • Chromatic greatwyrm (27)
  • Metallic greatwyrm (28)
  • Apects of Bahamut and Tiamat (30)
Interestingly, it appears that the great wyrm category is divided into three -- gem, chromatic, metallic -- rather than by each dragon type.

There's also an alphabetical list of all 20 dragon types in the book:
  • Amethyst
  • Black
  • Blue
  • Brass
  • Bronze
  • Copper
  • Crystal
  • Deep
  • Dragon turtle
  • Emerald
  • Faerie
  • Gold
  • Green
  • Moonstone
  • Red
  • Sapphire
  • Shadow
  • Silver
  • Topaz
  • White
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

dave2008

Legend
What's the problem with 4e tieflings?
I can't answer for others, but what I have heard before was that fact that 4e codified them into a particular origin / look. Previously they were much more varied in their origin and look ( I believe).

Personally I have no issue with 4e tieflings, though that was the first time I was introduced to them (I skipped 3e and 4e).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
One of the great tragedies of 4E was that a lot of truly fantastic worldbuilding got hooked up to a system that treated worldbuilding as mere decoration for a tactical skirmish game. And when the player base rejected the system, the worldbuilding was discarded along with it. I'd lay down a lot of money to get a full 5E treatment of the 4E cosmology.
While I don't fully agree with the beginning portion of this statement, I do wish they would open up the World Axis / Nentir Vale / Points-of-Light to the DMs Guild. I think the setting could use a cohesive 5e style campaign book (which it never really had in 4e even).
 

I can't answer for others, but what I have heard before was that fact that 4e codified them into a particular origin / look. Previously they were much more varied in their origin and look ( I believe).

Personally I have no issue with 4e tieflings, though that was the first time I was introduced to them (I skipped 3e and 4e).
What burns me about the 4e tieflings is that they were reimagined clearly for commercial purposes, essentially to add to the brand. A terrible reason to worldbuild.
 

What burns me about the 4e tieflings is that they were reimagined clearly for commercial purposes, essentially to add to the brand. A terrible reason to worldbuild.

The same is likely true of Dragonborn too, BUT Erin M. Evans turned both Infernal Tieflings and Dragonborn into something awesome via her Forgotten Realms novels, with others adding their own cool stuff to it as well. She wrote the book as it were on the 5e Infernal Tieflings and Dragonborn (although they have since added new stuff to both).
 

Scribe

Hero
The same is likely true of Dragonborn too, BUT Erin M. Evans turned both Infernal Tieflings and Dragonborn into something awesome via her Forgotten Realms novels, with others adding their own cool stuff to it as well. She wrote the book as it were on the 5e Infernal Tieflings and Dragonborn (although they have since added new stuff to both).
I liked her books well enough, but no she didn't redeem the changes. Nothing can really.

That's why SCAG fixes it, by saying 'these Tieflings are separate, like the old ones'.
 

Bolares

Hero
What burns me about the 4e tieflings is that they were reimagined clearly for commercial purposes, essentially to add to the brand. A terrible reason to worldbuild.
Well, I don't know if I agree with this. The dragonborn and new tiefling are incredibly popular, and have a LOT of resonance with the audience, so maybe reimagining things for commercial purposes is a smart choice?
 

Well, I don't know if I agree with this. The dragonborn and new tiefling are incredibly popular, and have a LOT of resonance with the audience, so maybe reimagining things for commercial purposes is a smart choice?
I know a lot of people like them, and I fully understand commercial reasons for making that kind of change. From their perspective, it was a good idea. I'm saying I, personally, dont like them and consider them a bad worldbuilding element. I take issue with making any artistic change for commercial reasons, but I understand why they did it.
 

I know a lot of people like them, and I fully understand commercial reasons for making that kind of change. From their perspective, it was a good idea. I'm saying I, personally, dont like them and consider them a bad worldbuilding element. I take issue with making any artistic change for commercial reasons, but I understand why they did it.
honestly, the dragonborn were improved before they were just strange sterile paladins.
 



Scribe

Hero
99% of it seems to be the standardization of their look.
Standardized look. -> Removal of agency at the player level.
Flipped the ASI. -> Removal of the -2 Cha!
Standardized back story -> Removal of agency at the player level.
Monolithic history. -> 'Forced' Asmodeus changes.

Not a single thing I see as a positive! :LOL:

what is the point if you do not look like you walked from hell anyway? do they want to look like Demogorgon?

No? Not at all.


Thats the whole point. We used to be able to look like how we wanted our characters to appear. The 4e version ruined that.

Granted, they (Wizards) have heard my pleas, and backed off of all that and we have a solution in SCAG, but thats the root of it for me. The 4e Tiefling took away player agency, and forced this thing on us that may as well be a Cambion.
 




Standardized look. -> Removal of agency at the player level.
Flipped the ASI. -> Removal of the -2 Cha!
Standardized back story -> Removal of agency at the player level.
Monolithic history. -> 'Forced' Asmodeus changes.

Not a single thing I see as a positive! :LOL:



No? Not at all.


Thats the whole point. We used to be able to look like how we wanted our characters to appear. The 4e version ruined that.

Granted, they (Wizards) have heard my pleas, and backed off of all that and we have a solution in SCAG, but thats the root of it for me. The 4e Tiefling took away player agency, and forced this thing on us that may as well be a Cambion.
they removed all minus numbers is not a flaw.
a concrete origin help place them in a setting.
a look that has propelled them to stardom.

before it was a race that would never make it into the handbook now it is a major race.
before what was it charts you rolled on?
and how many people really care beyond horns, tails and hoofs anyway?

the problem with infinite possibility is you end up in a decision trap of not knowing where to go with it which is a minus to playability.
should it have stayed a third-place race? what should have had that slot instead?
 

Scribe

Hero
they removed all minus numbers is not a flaw.
a concrete origin help place them in a setting.
a look that has propelled them to stardom.
Removing negative modifiers is a flaw. (Subjective)
Then they should have been left there.
Subjective.

and how many people really care beyond horns, tails and hoofs anyway?
Clearly many, since in your estimation that is what propelled them to 'stardom'.

the problem with infinite possibility is you end up in a decision trap of not knowing where to go with it which is a minus to playability.
should it have stayed a third-place race? what should have had that slot instead?
If thats a problem, boy do I have some news for you regarding new race design.

Nothing needed to be added, but they could have easily retained the proper Tiefling, and even included the Aasimar which oddly enough doesnt NEED to look like a glowing, Wings sprouted, Halo on head, Angel.
 

Bolares

Hero
I think everyone has a point here. IMHO the best way to do a lineage is not to be entirelly free (like it was before 4e) o be too restrictive (like it was in 4e and early 5e). To me the best way to go is to give the lineage a definitive look and backstory, to give players somewhere to start creating from, and then give other options and variants. that's why I like what SCAG did (that book had to do at least one thing right), giving more backgrounds for Tieflings.
 




Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top