D&D 5E 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”.

 

[Daemini]

Please, oh please, let Lord Soth be somewhere in it!

 

[Mercurius]

We’re in a different time zone to the US, not actually forward in time.

No kidding, Master Snarkus. But...

2/23 starts five hours earlier in the UK than it does in NY, so...

 

[Charlaquin]

WotC has certainly done D&D&D (D&D Diablo) before! I think it was back in the 2E era, or it might have been 3E . . . they also had the license to do a D&D version of Warcraft, but eventually sub-licensed that out to White Wolf.

I didn't care for the previous take on D&D Diablo, but it's a rich setting that could be amazing if done right.

Definitely 3e,

But this is just repeating what I actually said (which was that the distant influence of Hammer lives on via reflections and third-hand sources), apparently in an attempt to "debunk" what I said, which is kind of hysterical.

The idea that most people who run or play or have anything to do with Ravenloft are "horror fans" to the level you're describing is patent nonsense if that's being remotely suggested btw.

Sorry, not an attempt to debunk what you said. There just seemed to be an air of “nobody knows what hammer horror is!” in the thread, and I wanted to express that I think most fans of horror do in fact know what it is, and those who don’t... I don’t think it’s influence will harm their experience with the campaign.

 

[Morrus]

No kidding, Master Snarkus. But...

2/23 starts five hours earlier in the UK than it does in NY, so...

Yes but events still take place simultaneously. I’m not sure what you mean by them restricting info so those in Europe didn't get it earlier. I didn’t see your post 5 hours ago!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm in for something that links Ravenloft, Innastrad, and the Shadowfell. An adventure might be nice, but a "Guide to..." would be better right now I think.

 

[tetrasodium]

Please, oh please, let Lord Soth be somewhere in it!

Someone like that making use of unnoticed nobodies sucked in by the mists for a few tasks in place of the 5e CoS waterdeep (or whatever)& AL faction sourced free starting gear would have made for a much more interesting CoS. With patrons a thing now they could even set him in as a patron at the mercy of the Dark Powers

 

[Dire Bare]

If by "pretty new stuff" you mean, from the 1940s, sure. And that's wicca - the idea that witches weren't evil diabolic servants goes back even further, y'know, back to when there were actual witches, and people didn't normally view them as "diabolic servants". That's actually kind of a weird historical anomaly, that exists primarily in the 1500s through 1700s, the "diabolic servant" thing, which ties in to problems Christianity was having.

Wicca - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah . . . 1940s is "new". In the sense that the folklore that D&D and the fantasy genre pulls from medieval to ancient times. Wicca is a very much a modern world phenomenon.

Were "witches" not seen as automatically evil in Europe's ancient past? That's up for debate, we don't have a lot of information on the supernatural beliefs of ancient Europe. Modern Wiccans like to trace their origin back to that time frame, but . . . that's not based on the science.

I certainly think a D&D witch class needs to respect the Wiccan style of witchcraft without trying to emulate it, seeing as how it's a very real world religion with real people following it.

 

[AmerginLiath]

“The Mist Beckons”

Detailed weather rules? Good, the Exploration Pillar needed more support!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah . . . 1940s is "new". In the sense that the folklore that D&D and the fantasy genre pulls from medieval to ancient times. Wicca is a very much a modern world phenomenon.

Were "witches" not seen as automatically evil in Europe's ancient past? That's up for debate, we don't have a lot of information on the supernatural beliefs of ancient Europe. Modern Wiccans like to trace their origin back to that time frame, but . . . that's not based on the science.

I certainly think a D&D witch class needs to respect the Wiccan style of witchcraft without trying to emulate it, seeing as how it's a very real world religion with real people following it.

No, sorry, it isn't "up for debate", we have more than enough information to say that up until well into the middle ages, the sort of people who were labeled as "witches" were at worst, regarded as largely neutral figures by the general populace. They were definitely not seen as "automatically evil" (not even the church saw them that way until later - the famous King James Bible quote is a mistranslation - possibly intentional, to tap into the zeitgeist - replacing poisoner with witch). So again, no, not up for debate. You're not even just out of date here - there was no point in the 20th century where it was really "up for debate", research had already cleared that up, and we're all the way in the 21st century.

That there were malignant spellcasters and the like is clearly something that was also part of those beliefs, but they weren't the same people later labeled "witches" and so on.

As for "not based on science", sure but that seems a bit funny when you've just made an incredibly dodgy claim. No religion has any "basis in science" (not even very recent ones), and all religions of any antiquity or claiming any antiquity have some, let's say, impossible-to-prove claims, and this is not the right forum to discuss those in detail.

 

[Mercador]

Maybe WotC want to be in front of the tide and create a book on zombies cough