D&D 5E (2014) New D&D Hardcover To Be Announced On The 23rd (Tomorrow)?

According to this page on Amazon.com, a new Dungeon & Dragons hardcover title for May will be announced tomorrow. Users in the US see the product below (those in the UK are seeing a Wizkids miniatures set instead).

So far signs look like Ravenloft, but we’ll know for sure tomorrow.

[Update -- also mentioned by Todd Kendrick, recently of D&D Beyond].

WotC has posted the below animation, which says “The Mist Beckons”.

 

[Zaukrie]

The undead book from Nord Games is great, if you want more monsters .....really.

 

[TheBanjoNerd]

I do wonder why TSR and WotC never gave us an official witch. It's likely too late to get a subclass or standalone class version for this one, but it would fit and feels like a huge continuing oversight from the company.

As far back as the 1E era, two of the most iconic articles in Dragon magazine, referenced in a number of DM Guild products today, were witch write-ups. And that was well before witches became popular as a spiritual tradition/ideal for modern New Age practitioners.

If EGG were still alive and posting on this board, I would love to ask him why that never happened. They even showed up in an illustration in OD&D, plus another piece of unpublished art that showed up, as I recall, in Art & Arcana.

I've often wondered this myself. I was especially disappointed that we didn't see a Witch subclass in Tasha's Cauldron, which would have been absolutely perfect to include in that book.
I've seen some suggestions that instead folks should re-fluff the Warlock class, which might work for some folks, but the insinuation that Witches receive their powers through a pact with a (stereotypically) evil patron might rub some people the wrong way. Mostly due to the tired old stereotype that real-world witches channel their power through a "deal with the devil".
Personally, I think that re-fluffing the druid would better reflect the real-world modern day neo-pagan type witches.

 

[Remathilis]

I do wonder why TSR and WotC never gave us an official witch. It's likely too late to get a subclass or standalone class version for this one, but it would fit and feels like a huge continuing oversight from the company.

I know, right?

 

[Mind of tempest]

we had a whole topic on that right?

 

[hopeless]

I'm sorry to be sticking my oar in this as I know I should know better but the warlock is a male witch so the literal witch is a female warlock.
How badly wrong am I as I assume this has been discussed quite a bit already?

 

[TwoSix]

THE CURE SETTING CONFIRMED

I don’t care if Planescape’s blue
Eberron’s grey and the Realms are too
Dark Sun I don’t care about you
It’s Ravenloft I’m in love

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I cast Andrew Eldritch Blast!

THE CURE SETTING CONFIRMED

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sorry to be sticking my oar in this as I know I should know better but the warlock is a male witch so the literal witch is a female warlock.
How badly wrong am I as I assume this has been discussed quite a bit already?

The two terms aren't gender-swaps of another, though they are of similar origin. Witch is anyone (male or female) who practices witchcraft, while a warlock is a practitioner of black magic. So, a female black-magic practitioner of witchcraft could be both a witch AND a warlock, neither owing to her gender.

In game terms, I'd see the witch as more of a naturalist spellcaster vs the warlock's pact magic. But that's me and there is a long thread here that hashes out some of the issues with a witch class, subclass, and the controversy with using the term.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I don’t care if Planescape’s blue
Eberron’s grey and the Realms are too
Dark Sun I don’t care about you
It’s Ravenloft I’m in love

Greyhawk wait
Blackmoor doesn't come too late
But Dragonlance never hesitates.

 

[pumasleeve]

maybe a sequel to Curse of Strahd?