D&D 5E The October D&D Book is Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons

As revealed by Nerd Immersion by deciphering computer code from D&D Beyond!

Spoiler

Fizban the Fabulous is, of course, the accident-prone, befuddled alter-ego of Dragonlance’s god of good dragons, Paladine, the platinum dragon (Dragonlance’s version of Bahamut).

Which makes my guess earlier this year spot on!

UPDATE -- the book now has a description!

D&D 5E - Fizban's Treasury: The Dragon Book Now Has A Description... And A Feat

Courtesy of Amazon, we now have a description for Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, the October D&D hardcover. The book introduces gem dragons, dragon-themed player options, and plenty of draconic lore! This joins September's The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, and November's Strixhaven: Curriculum of...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - My guess for the other D&D book this year... Draconomicon!

We know the fifth major product this year will be James Wyatt‘s as-yet unannounced project, and we know it will be coming out this year between Witchlight and Strixhaven. Wyatt co-wrote the Draconomicon for 3E. There have been two recent dragon-themed Unearthed Arcanas — dragon-themed...

www.enworld.org

Fizban the Fabulous by Vera Gentinetta

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

I’m not too thrilled about the title (Fizban’s), but hope it is a monster book.

TOO BAD!
/em Hurls 10 kender at you
DRAGONLAAAAAAAANCE

 

[pukunui]

If they are, the copyright is owned by WotC. It would have belonged to TSR when they bought D&D. They even use the name Draconian in the PHB for Dragonborn.

Edit: and looking at it, they've already used the whole dark ritual corruption to make them. "In the Dragonlance setting, the followers of the evil goddess Takhisis learned a dark ritual that let them corrupt the eggs of metallic dragons, producing evil dragonborn called draconians."

I don’t think the 5e PHB is the best indicator of where the designers are at any longer. I'm sure you're aware how they've chosen to make changes to the way they've protrayed orcs and drow, for instance.

I feel it's more likely that, rather than sticking with what it says about draconians in the PHB, should WotC decide to make them a playable (sub)race, they'll change or broaden their origins, like they've done with the drow. That is, they'll likely make it so draconians are just dragonborn by another name and don't have to be created by an evil corrupting ritual. Perhaps if you want that kind of draconian, they'll include death effects mechanics.

That said, I don't really see the appeal of wanting to play a race with a death effect. Unless you're playing a zealot barbarian who can be rezzed for free, it's not like you're going to want your PC to die frequently, so it's a mechanic that will rarely come up. And slapping a death effect on an already weak race like the dragonborn doesn't seem like the best idea to me.

I think draconians with death effects work better as monsters that blow up in the PCs faces when they die.

That said, I would like them to give us mechanics for those death effects!

 

[bedir than]

I want a lot of little dragons. Kobold Press's Ale Dragon and their weird folding paper dragon and the lantern dragon all see play at my table.

 

[SkidAce]

Yeah, those humanoid dragons are totally unlike those other humanoid dragons . . . just like those half-devil, half-mortals are totally unlike those other half-devil, half-mortals . . .

Tiefling aren't half-devil, they have devil ancestry somewhere up the line.

Cambions are actual half-fiends, one parent mortal, the other parent fiend. A lot more powerful.

Sorry for the pedantry, tieflings/cambions are one of my pet peeves.

 

[Mecheon]

I gather the 4E treatment was rather different, but that if they do revisit them they will likely split the difference and reconcile different takes.

4E Steels were consistent with their previous versions, but 4E browns were actually the Sand Dragon from 3.5e's Sandstorm

Frankly, I prefer 4E's brown over 2E's "Its a red dragon but with no wings"

I'm down for any new dragons though. Gimme the ones from 4E! Gimme pink dragons back, except just inject a good ol' pile of Mizustune into 'em. I think we can add in a yellow and an orange from one of the many, many versions the game's had over the year

 

[pukunui]

Don't forget that steel dragons are technically already in 5e thanks to Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Granted, the dragon in that adventure is mechanically just a modified silver dragon, but still ...

 

[Rabulias]

While I look forward to some nice additions to dragons and dragonlore, I am hoping we get some other monsters in this book, too. Some additional classic (and/or new) non-dragon creatures would be most welcome.

 

[Stormonu]

I propose that a group of dragons be called a Treasury.

Actually, they would be called a Hoard.

 

[Kurotowa]

Actually, they would be called a Hoard.

Nonsense. That's like calling a gathering of birds a Nest. Also there's too much overlap with the other type of horde. There would be immense confusion between a dragon's hoard and a hoard of dragons and a horde of dragons.

A treasury of dragons might be acceptable, but it's a little on the nose and a tad belittling. As a counter-proposal, I would suggest that treasury be applied to a clutch of pseudodragons, while the appellation for a gathering of true wyrms is a calamity of dragons.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Don't forget that steel dragons are technically already in 5e thanks to Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Granted, the dragon in that adventure is mechanically just a modified silver dragon, but still ...

Yeah, I remember being surprised, but delighted, to find her there. As you said, it was something of a cheat with the stat block, but given that one has already appeared canonically in 5e, and that steel dragons have a long history in the game, I wouldn't be surprised if we see them in this upcoming book.