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

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Mod Note:

“Don’t make it personal.” is one of ENWorld’s basic rules. The way this sentence finishes makes it personal. Don’t do that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

true it was an improvement but if we take you idea we get stuck in the 2e bloat problem of endless new setting just so we have new ground to work with which might tank the IP again.

what bits are so utterly loveable to you anyway some of the high lights please as all I can see is so stuff to use to bulk things up or cool monsters to add back in and would like to see your point better?

I have loved pretty much everything about the Great Wheel cosmology since I first sat down with the 1st edition Manual of the Planes and read it cover to cover. When they added to it with Planescape (added, not replaced) I fell in love with all over again. It felt and feels like the sort of thing centuries of loremasters and sages would come up with as a sort of "grand unified theory". The biggest problem I had with the 4th ed version was that everything about it was designed to be super playable on the tabletop, with little concern for the worlds that supposedly believed in it. It felt completely artificial to me, and thus I see it as gamey and poor worldbuilding. On the other hand, the Feywild/Shadowfell dichotomy is workable and capable of being added to the Wheel without replacing anything (as 5th ed demonstrated), so that's all right.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess WotC does. However, "new" and "cool" are often synonyms, as long as the lore is executed correctly.

This has got to be among the most subjective statements I have ever heard on this forum.

 

[Scribe]

It felt and feels like the sort of thing centuries of loremasters and sages would come up with as a sort of "grand unified theory".

Absolutely.

The biggest problem I had with the 4th ed version was that everything about it was designed to be super playable on the tabletop, with little concern for the worlds that supposedly believed in it. It felt completely artificial to me, and thus I see it as gamey and poor worldbuilding. On the other hand, the Feywild/Shadowfell dichotomy is workable and capable of being added to the Wheel without replacing anything (as 5th ed demonstrated), so that's all right.

Yes. (Most) Everything about 4e felt just off. I agree, the Feywild/Shadowfell (and actually I enjoy the Elemental Plane changes of 4e as well) worked as Planar additions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Absolutely.



Yes. Everything about 4e felt just off. I agree, the Feywild/Shadowfell (and actually I enjoy the Elemental Plane changes of 4e as well) worked as Planar additions.

Given that even in the Great Wheel the elemental planes had areas where they flowed into each other, I don't really see much of a difference.

 

[Scribe]

Given that even in the Great Wheel the elemental planes had areas where they flowed into each other, I don't really see much of a difference.

True, maybe its just in how I read it/saw it recently described, I liked it more.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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.

People hate 4e for alot of reasons, like nuking alot of the favorite parts of the Forgotten Realms, for being too influenced by MMOs, for combats that took way too long, for tossing the Great Wheel, it just depended on who you talked too. Don't get me wrong 4e had tons of awesome ideas, locations, spells/powers, lore, and 5e shouldn't be afraid to draw upon that well Spring, but still learn from what went wrong. 4e's designers didn't respect tradition enough, rule of cool and tradition have to be in balance and harmony, go too far one way and you lose the essence of it and alienate long term fans that spend alot and stick around during down turns, and too much the other way and things become stale.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I have loved pretty much everything about the Great Wheel cosmology since I first sat down with the 1st edition Manual of the Planes and read it cover to cover. When they added to it with Planescape (added, not replaced) I fell in love with all over again. It felt and feels like the sort of thing centuries of loremasters and sages would come up with as a sort of "grand unified theory". The biggest problem I had with the 4th ed version was that everything about it was designed to be super playable on the tabletop, with little concern for the worlds that supposedly believed in it. It felt completely artificial to me, and thus I see it as gamey and poor worldbuilding. On the other hand, the Feywild/Shadowfell dichotomy is workable and capable of being added to the Wheel without replacing anything (as 5th ed demonstrated), so that's all right.

There are other elements of the 4e cosmology that could be added to 5e, but 5e already absorbed the best parts, but there are little things. They even managed to find a way to absorb Eberron's Orrey Cosmology into the Great Wheel. 3e's Forgotten Realms unique Cosmology on the other hand has alot to offer, with 5e only sort of absorbing part of it (the Plane of Zigguraxus is mentioned as being mothballed, but with both Enlil and Gilgeam planning on pulling it out of retirement.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I can agree with that, but we dont need to retcon things for that to remain true.

I disagree. In general, sure, but there are some specific parts that do need retconning in order to take full advantage of the new audience (just like how Ravenloft got quite a few retcons in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft to appease to both newer and older fans).

Yes. I hope this gets pushed enough that Wizards picks up on it eventually and just runs with it. A new setting which better aligns to whatever direction they wish to go, while allowing other settings to exist as distinct, can only be a help imo.

I'm worried that the reaction to 4e and Nentir Vale will prevent them from doing it again. I really hope they do, because they're clearly very talented at making awesome and inspiring lore. However, their contract with Ed Greenwood where they agree to keep making FR books in order to keep the rights to the setting will also probably stop them from doing this.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

This has got to be among the most subjective statements I have ever heard on this forum.

Well, I did say "if executed correctly". Newer things, by definition, have more potential to be "cool" than old ones. Old things are familiar, and familiar things get old and boring more easily than newer things. It's not true 100% of the time or in all situations, but it's generally true.