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

 

[JEB]

@Faolyn, thank you for clarifying your opinion on alignment for monsters (that it's inherently a bad thing) and on essentialism for monsters (that it's not generally an issue, unless it involves alignment, which you see as inherently a bad thing). I don't share your views on those matters, and believe there are other approaches to addressing those issues as previously described... but I understand your objections and appreciate your honesty.

I should say, after hearing how Fizban's plans to handle these subjects, I will be very interested in how they appear in the final product. It sounds to me like they're on the right track, but we'll see.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

if they changed the quick descriptor to "violent and selfish" instead of "chaotic evil", or "scrupulous and kind"

Solasta: Crown of the Magister has done this. Originally, it used a standard D&D alignment grid, with various personality traits to select based on your alignment. Later in development they removed the alignment requirement, so you can create, for example, a "violent kind" character.

 

[Remathilis]

Non-alignment words--yes, even words like violent and selfish--don't have intrinsic morality to them. You can have a creatures that are violent or selfish to good ends (like most adventurers, especially those that demand payment for their services) just like you can have them that are violent and selfish to evil ends. Ditto, a kind person can have other traits that could be good or not good.
...
And to be honest, there is some actual, real-world essentialism. Animal species have very distinct and often very strong behavioral traits--and in the case of domestic animals, those traits were often bred into them. Go to any pet site and read up on the temperament of different purebred cats and dogs. Considering how many animalistic traits most D&D monsters have, I don't have a problem with saying that a type of dragon "tends to be enjoy military history."

This still feels like there is going to be problematic though. Even without using good/evil morality, there are plenty of ways to describe a creature in less-than-flattering light. You can say bugbears are inherently lazy, drow culture is sadistic, or gnolls have short, viscous tempers. I didn't say Chaotic Evil, but I still didn't paint them in any positive way, and each used language that has been used by RW racists.

Yet what are the alternatives? How do you differentiate between colors of dragons or varieties of goblinoids beyond physical or mechanical? To say a bugbear is a big goblin or merely have fire dragons, ice dragons, lightning dragons, etc.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Yet what are the alternatives? How do you differentiate between colors of dragons or varieties of goblinoids beyond physical or mechanical? To say a bugbear is a big goblin or merely have fire dragons, ice dragons, lightning dragons, etc.

Here's the thing:

I believe that's all the distinction that is necessary.

 

[Reynard]

At the risk of repeating myself for the Nth time:

One thing to do is make Alignment exactly that -- the universal force with which the creature is aligned, almost like a zodiac sign. Creatures and characters can act as they will, but they were born under the auspices of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil. Just like you can't determine you aren't a Taurus, and don't have to "act like" a Taurus, a CE creature can't help but be CE, but doesn't have to BE chaotic or evil. But when the universe presses down on that creature, Chaos and Evil hold the most sway.

Or you could just ignore it because it is a meaningless artifact of faction based wargaming.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

almost like a zodiac sign

You mean complete bollocks?

 

[Maxperson]

These orcs can be aggressively warring against cruel tyrants who seek to enslave the world, or they can be aggressively warring against elves for the crime of having pointy ears.

By not labeling them good or evil, you open up the options enormously without having to also say “most orcs are evil but these ones aren’t”

This is precisely why alignment needs to stay. DMs should have to sit down and figure out in detail what "warlike" and "aggressive" really mean. Alignment helps with that. Traits + Alignment is greater than either traits or alignment alone. All they need to do to take care of both sides is label alignment as optional so it can be ignored by people like you who don't want it and/or go back to 3e alignment conventions where orcs were just "usually chaotic evil," which meant that 40-50% of them were than alignment, making it so that the other half of orcs were of whatever alignments the DM wanted to make them.

 

[Reynard]

You mean complete bollocks?

Sure, or not. I mean, it is a fantasy world. Destinies and universal forces impacting Fate are a thing.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

You mean complete bollocks?

Those zodiac signs could have very real influences in Reynard's game world.

 

[JEB]

Here's the thing:

I believe that's all the distinction that is necessary.

Fair enough, I certainly understand that view. The problem is, that means DMs have to fill in all the characterization gaps themselves, without any guidance or suggestions whatsoever. If you're super creative, that's great, but many new DMs, or DMs who don't have the time or inclination to come up with that stuff on their own, will find their games suffering for it. Not to mention that for some fans, that kind of material is what makes sourcebooks like Fizban's worth reading...

(On a more pragmatic note, a complaint folks had about 4E books was that they were too focused on rules widgets and too light on lore. Whether or not that's actually true - I've heard opinions from both sides - it seems unlikely Wizards is likely to pursue that path again.)