D&D 5E Is Paladine Bahamut? Is Takhisis Tiamat? Fizban's Treasury Might Reveal The Answer!

According to WotC's James Wyatt, Fizban's Treasury of Dragons introduces a new cosmology for dragon gods, where the same beings, including Fizban, echo across various D&D campaign settings with alternate versions of themselves (presumably like Paladine/Bahamut, or Takhisis/Tiamat). Also... the various version can merge into one single form.

Takhisis is the five-headed dragon god of evil from the Dragonlance setting. Paladine is the platinum dragon god of good (and also Fizban's alter-ego).

Takhisis.jpg


Additionally, the book will contain psychic gem dragons, with stats for all four age categories of the five varieties (traditionally there are Amethyst, Crystal, Emerald, Sapphire, and Topaz), plus Dragonborn characters based on metallic, chromatic, and gem dragons.


 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Scribe

Hero
I remmember them saying there were different canons.... wasn't that a thing? My take is I could care less what is the canon for anything but the game. And even then I care about canon in a sense of them keeping up the spirit and principles of the settings and characters...
So if they changed a bunch of things in Eberron you just roll with it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


FIFTH EDITION’S CANON BEGINS WITH ITS CORE RULEBOOKS.
Fifth edition’s canon includes every bit of lore that appears in the most up-to-date printings of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide. Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners.
Re-reading that article, it makes less sense.

The first time I read it as a “sequel” to the other comments that had said that 5e canon is whatever is written in the 5e RPG books. If that were intended context, the article makes sense.

But since the article doesn’t actually say that, it doesn‘t make sense. It does not say that only the PHB, DMG, and MM are canon, but that canon begins there. It then gives a few examples of other things that are canonical, which are found in other 5e D&D products. And it even specifically talks about introducing new lore beyond the core books!

It seems to be claiming: “Canon is PHB+DMG+MM+other stuff that we probably know but you have to guess at and generally is inspired by, but not limited to, things which have been true in previous editions.”

I mean, with just that article itself (and since it doesn‘t link to anything, I can only assume it is supposed to stand on its own), I feel like I know less about what they are treating as canon than before I read it.

The best I can derive is that for purposes of “fellow creators and business partners” they need only abide by the core books, but internally WotC has a much bigger body of canon that D&D sourcebooks are intended to present portions of when published, but that sometimes evolves and changes.
 

Bolares

Hero
So if they changed a bunch of things in Eberron you just roll with it?
Oh we are going for the gut shots are we? :p

Well, since 3e they made a lot of changes to Eberron... but I'd say they kept the spirit and the principles of the setting intact, so I'm mostly okay with the changes... and even if I'm not, I can ignore what I don't like.

Sure, if they change things to a point where they advance the timeline, answer the questions the game left open, or stuff like that I'd be tilted, but that is strictly changing the spirit and principles of Eberron.

One example that pissed me of is the awfull take in mordenkaine's about all elves comming from Corellon. But later both Rising and Fizban's contradict that, so I chalk it up to lazy writting and omission in MtoF
 

Scribe

Hero
Oh we are going for the gut shots are we? :p

Well, since 3e they made a lot of changes to Eberron... but I'd say they kept the spirit and the principles of the setting intact, so I'm mostly okay with the changes... and even if I'm not, I can ignore what I don't like.

Sure, if they change things to a point where they advance the timeline, answer the questions the game left open, or stuff like that I'd be tilted, but that is strictly changing the spirit and principles of Eberron
Sure, but that's a personal judgment call, to you.

Canon doesn't care. It's in writing. It's 'true'.

Without MToF, in 5e for new players, what is the lore for Elves? Gith? The Hell's? Dwarves?

Setting specific only? Fine.

I hope to see a whole lot of settings books.

Oh wait, only the core 3 are canon...

Right.
 

Bolares

Hero
Oh wait, only the core 3 are canon...
again, I don't read that statement as "only the core three are canon for consumers" obviously setting books are canon for the settings, arguing against that just doesn't make sense to me.
Sure, but that's a personal judgment call, to you.
Well, you asked if I'd roll with it... what did you expect except my judgment call? :)
 

Scribe

Hero
again, I don't read that statement as "only the core three are canon for consumers" obviously setting books are canon for the settings, arguing against that just doesn't make sense to me.

Well, you asked if I'd roll with it... what did you expect except my judgment call? :)
That's the point.

You would be fine, unless it crossed an arbitrary line you have drawn in the sand.

In essence.

There is no canon.
Even settings books are not canon.
But that's OK, because unless they print something you don't like, you'll take it or leave it.

All of which boils down to.

There is no canon in 5e.

Just be thankful your setting isn't old enough to be too much bother to maintain.
 

Bolares

Hero
Hey, I'm not trying to say how you should feel or that because I would not be bothered with something you should not too. Feel what you have to feel, it's your prerrogative, you just asked me how I would feel.... About the canon, I don't know if we can reach a point where we agree, because our understanding of the article per se is so different. I just don't want to give the impression the because I'm not bothered with it you are not justified.
 

Scribe

Hero
Hey, I'm not trying to say how you should feel or that because I would not be bothered with something you should not too. Feel what you have to feel, it's your prerrogative, you just asked me how I would feel.... About the canon, I don't know if we can reach a point where we agree, because our understanding of the article per se is so different. I just don't want to give the impression the because I'm not bothered with it you are not justified.
It's all good, this is just one more recent choice by wizards that tells me I don't like their direction.

I don't really understand how we see the canon article differently it seems very clear, but all good.

I'll just buy 3rd party products or use my own if Wizards doesn't care to provide what I'm looking for.
 

Bolares

Hero
It's all good, this is just one more recent choice by wizards that tells me I don't like their direction.

I don't really understand how we see the canon article differently it seems very clear, but all good.

I'll just buy 3rd party products or use my own if Wizards doesn't care to provide what I'm looking for.
I guess that's the way to do it. Bringing it back to Eberron, while we have Keith Baker's blog and he keeps publishing material in the DM's Guild, I could care less about what WotC says about Eberron. Lucky me I guess.
 





Azzy

KMF DM
Re-reading that article, it makes less sense.

The first time I read it as a “sequel” to the other comments that had said that 5e canon is whatever is written in the 5e RPG books. If that were intended context, the article makes sense.

But since the article doesn’t actually say that, it doesn‘t make sense. It does not say that only the PHB, DMG, and MM are canon, but that canon begins there. It then gives a few examples of other things that are canonical, which are found in other 5e D&D products. And it even specifically talks about introducing new lore beyond the core books!

It seems to be claiming: “Canon is PHB+DMG+MM+other stuff that we probably know but you have to guess at and generally is inspired by, but not limited to, things which have been true in previous editions.”

I mean, with just that article itself (and since it doesn‘t link to anything, I can only assume it is supposed to stand on its own), I feel like I know less about what they are treating as canon than before I read it.

The best I can derive is that for purposes of “fellow creators and business partners” they need only abide by the core books, but internally WotC has a much bigger body of canon that D&D sourcebooks are intended to present portions of when published, but that sometimes evolves and changes.
I think that the article is like a Rorschach test... Your take away depends on your POV.

To me, what I got was that, beyond the core three, those that license D&D from WotC don't have to worry about what WotC is doing in a supplemeny, like Volo's. Salvatore, foe example, can keep on Dritzzing in a way consistent with what he's always been doing. WotC also has an internal canon that is (supposedly) consistent across their 5e products. They draw from previous editions (as has been apparent in the various adventures), but are not above changing something should the need or desire arises (something that has happened in previous editions, too).

So, what does this mean for Joe/Jane D&D Player/DM? The only thing that they need to worry about is what's in their hands. Take what you want, throw away the rest (or save it for later). Like in the OG D&D ethos—do what you want with the lore available to you. Hack it, it's yours to play with.

WotC is saying that new players don't need to go buy all the older products on DMsGuild (though, I'm sure their bean counters would love that) or consult some fan wikia to keep track of all the massive glut of information that is out there. Want to play in a published setting in 5e? Get the core 3, plus the relevant setting book and you're good to go out of the box. Prior lore? It's there is you want it, but it's not something that you need to have to run a game.
 

Scribe

Hero
I think that the article is like a Rorschach test... Your take away depends on your POV.

To me, what I got was that, beyond the core three, those that license D&D from WotC don't have to worry about what WotC is doing in a supplemeny, like Volo's. Salvatore, foe example, can keep on Dritzzing in a way consistent with what he's always been doing. WotC also has an internal canon that is (supposedly) consistent across their 5e products. They draw from previous editions (as has been apparent in the various adventures), but are not above changing something should the need or desire arises (something that has happened in previous editions, too).

So, what does this mean for Joe/Jane D&D Player/DM? The only thing that they need to worry about is what's in their hands. Take what you want, throw away the rest (or save it for later). Like in the OG D&D ethos—do what you want with the lore available to you. Hack it, it's yours to play with.

WotC is saying that new players don't need to go buy all the older products on DMsGuild (though, I'm sure their bean counters would love that) or consult some fan wikia to keep track of all the massive glut of information that is out there. Want to play in a published setting in 5e? Get the core 3, plus the relevant setting book and you're good to go out of the box. Prior lore? It's there is you want it, but it's not something that you need to have to run a game.
I just dont understand how that can be the reading.

Its not saying, get the core 3 + setting. Its not about prior lore at all.

"The Core 3 are the only public facing canon."

That excludes settings, XGtE/MToF/Volos.

Its the Core 3. Thats it.
 

Bolares

Hero
I just dont understand how that can be the reading.

Its not saying, get the core 3 + setting. Its not about prior lore at all.

"The Core 3 are the only public facing canon."

That excludes settings, XGtE/MToF/Volos.

Its the Core 3. Thats it.
How we read it "public facing canon" means that that's what they expect other public facing DnD products have to respect. Not "all that matters to the public".
 

Scribe

Hero
How we read it "public facing canon" means that that's what they expect other public facing DnD products have to respect. Not "all that matters to the public".
If its public facing, it is the same as 'what matters to the public'.

They are one and the same, or else its not canon.
 


Scribe

Hero
Well by their own difinition there are multiple canons.
Sure, and I do not mean this to be offensive to you, I understand this is what they are saying by way of 'internal' vs 'public' canon, but to be blunt.

That's complete trash. :D

Its just more of Wizards 'we want to ride the fence and have it both ways without taking a stance that could later get us in trouble.'
 

Bolares

Hero
That's complete trash. :D
Well well well...

Now its MY TIME to say "that's a personal judgment call! :p

I don't know if it's a good decision, I think I'm not invested enough in canon to judge that. But saying there is no canon because of the statement, or that only the 3 are canon is not true by WotC's definition of canon. And obviously WotC wants to ride the fence... its WotC.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top