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

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

4e's lore was pretty interesting, if you a little too clearly focused on adventuring to make any kind of historical or cultural sense. That being said, they made it clear on several occasions how little regard they had for the work of their predecessors, and I cant forgive that.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

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

Well that seems rude.

ANYWAY, @AcererakTriple6 isn't wrong that 4E had some good ideas for lore. If I absolutely have to pick a reason, 4E alienated folks for being too much... like a game. There are a ton of rules, and as you get into the higher levels each players turn takes a ton of time. I think this works well enough if its automated (Matt Colville's streams show this), but at the time it wasn't, so it was pretty hard to keep such games going. Pathfinder, and 3.5E, were just better alternatives for folks who couldn't handle the rules bloat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Not liking changes to a beloved property does not equal gatekeeping. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of that false parallel.

 

[Bolares]

Not liking changes to a beloved property does not equal gatekeeping. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of that false parallel.

Well, but when someone says WotC shouldn't pay attention to your opinions it does sound a little gatekeepy...

 

[Mind of tempest]

Not liking changes to a beloved property does not equal gatekeeping. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of that false parallel.

true but that does not infer that it was not wrong to change things as some ideas are just bland or poorly done thus cutting them is at least able to free up something new.

 

[Micah Sweet]

WWotC shouldn't pay attention to any one person's opinions, at least not if they want to continue selling the least objectionable material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

true but that does not infer that it was not wrong to change things as some ideas are just bland or poorly done thus cutting them is at least able to free up something new.

Whether or not something is bland or poorly done is in no way objective. 2nd edition was and remains my favorite D&D lore.

 

[Bolares]

WWotC shouldn't pay attention to any one person's opinions, at least not if they want to continue selling the least objectionable material.

Well, I hope you can see the diference of saying "WotC shouldn't listen to anyone's opinions" and "WotC shouldn't listen to YOUR opinion"

 

[Mind of tempest]

Whether or not something is bland or poorly done is in no way objective. 2nd edition was and remains my favorite D&D lore.

and much of it has aged poorly or is blandly purposeless not to also say that it is of great use and some of the best but do not let what was kill all possibilities of what could be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and much of it has aged poorly or is blandly purposeless not to also say that it is of great use and some of the best but do not let what was kill all possibilities of what could be.

I cant think of any of it that was particularly bland to my taste, and its purpose was to create a coherent cosmology that allowed for all of D&D while not catering entirely to the needs of adventurers. I like innovation, but with lore it should add and not replace.