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]

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).

 

[dave2008]

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).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What's the problem with 4e tieflings?

99% of it seems to be the standardization of their look.

 

[Mind of tempest]

99% of it seems to be the standardization of their look.

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