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.

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

 

[dave2008]

That's kind of my point. There isn't a Shadowfell equivalent of a Faerie Dragon and there's now a Feywild equivalent of the Shadow Dragon (the "Moonstone Dragon", whose name is a bit misleading). It just makes me think that it would've been better to have Shadow Dragons and Faerie Dragons be opposite-equivalents from the beginning.

As explained very well by another poster, the history of the two dragons doesn't really support that. There doesn't need to be an exact analog for everything between the Shadow and Fey realms. That line of thinking went out the window a long time ago. However, if you really wanted to do that, then the better answer, IMO, would be:

Moonstone = Shadow
Fairy = ??? (something new)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Moonstone = Shadow
Fairy = ??? (something new)

I'd go with Caith Sith Drake, some kind of ghostly feline drake based on illusion and curses.

Or pseudo-dracolich?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

No, the "Plane of Shadow" is way older, but the "Plane of Faerie" isn't.

The Plane of Shadow (whatever the nonce name; it changed a lot but was always identifiable) has been a part of the standard cosmology since 1980 (1e Deities & Demigods, p.114). Which explains why it was mentioned in the monster entries for shadow dragons in 1st edition (pp.58-59 of the Monster Manual II mentions "planes of dimness such as the Shadowland"), 2nd edition (p.85 of the Monstrous Manual), 3rd edition (p.44 of Monsters of Faerun), and 3.5 (p.191 of the Draconomicon).

The Plane of Faerie, on the other hand, shows up in D&D hardbacks for the first time as an optional plane in the 3rd edition Manual of the Planes in 2001, with any version only becoming a standard part of D&D cosmology with the 4th edition Feywild. Which explains why such a plane isn't mentioned at all in the faerie dragon entries on p.57 of the 1st edition Monster Manual II, or on p.89 of the Monstrous Manual, or even pp.158-159 of the 3.5 Draconomicon.

Faerie actually comes up sooner in the Forgotten Realms setting, Faerun is literally named after Faerie.

 

[Maxperson]

The identifiable predecessor of the Plane of Faerie, the Seelie Court, appeared earlier than that, as early as the Planescape product Planes of Chaos. Even at that point, it wasn't part of the traditional Outer Planes, but was accessed from various planes like Ysgard, Arborea, and the Beastlands. Already at that early stage, it was something outside and different.

It wasn't really anything different at all. I have the Planes of Chaos and what the Seelie Court was, was a wandering domain. Most gods set their domain on a plane and just kept it there. Titania had hers wander from plane to plane, sometimes being on Ysgard and sometimes on Arborea, etc. It wasn't some sort of "other" kind of thing.

 

[Parmandur]

That's kind of my point. There isn't a Shadowfell equivalent of a Faerie Dragon and there's now a Feywild equivalent of the Shadow Dragon (the "Moonstone Dragon", whose name is a bit misleading). It just makes me think that it would've been better to have Shadow Dragons and Faerie Dragons be opposite-equivalents from the beginning.

Pure symmetry is not necessary.

 

[see]

Didn't they do exactly that with the eladrin back in 4th ed?

Despite many virtues when considered as a game in itself, 4th edition D&D was a master class in mishandling relations with an existing fanbase.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Despite many virtues when considered as a game in itself, 4th edition D&D was a master class in mishandling relations with an existing fanbase.

And I honestly don't care one single bit about that. 4e did a lot of really cool and interesting stuff lorewise. Just because older fans didn't like it doesn't mean that it was bad. The Dawn War is f**king awesome.

 

[see]

And I honestly don't care one single bit about that.

And that's why WotC, in turn, honestly shouldn't pay any attention to your opinions.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And that's why WotC, in turn, honestly shouldn't pay any attention to your opinions.

Coolness should override tradition. Based on how Great Wyrms work in Fizban's being different from previous editions' versions of Great Wyrms (and being cooler than those editions' great wyrms), I'm pretty sure WotC agrees. You and other older players don't own D&D and definitely don't get to gatekeep what exists in the game.

 

[Bolares]

That escalated quickly...