D&D (2024) The Two Forgotten Realms Books Were Not Finalized At Their Announcement, Artificer & Species Could Still Be For It

[Henadic Theologian]

I mean even the titles of the two books were placeholders, and D&D Direct Video & D&D Beyond Article didn't even agree on the placeholder name for the second book, & the video doesn't mention that the general Setting lore update is in the player book not the DM book, but the Beyond Article did.

So no one should treat the features of these books listed in video & article as definitive.

It's possibly they hadn't made final decisions on the Artificer or Species when it was time for the announcement.

Thoughts?

 

[Stormonu]

Putting the Artificer in the FR campaign books would strike me as very strange.

MotM covered most of FR's popular races, so I think it would be a waste of valuable space to reprint the likes of Genasi in it.

I'm sure it will have a player section, and hopefully they'll put a few interesting subclasses, backgrounds and feat that are fit for FR.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Putting the Artificer in the FR campaign books would strike me as very strange.

MotM covered most of FR's popular races, so I think it would be a waste of valuable space to reprint the likes of Genasi in it.

I'm sure it will have a player section, and hopefully they'll put a few interesting subclasses, backgrounds and feat that are fit for FR.

FR had Artificers and simular Artificer liked stuff before Eberron even existed, like Gondsmen, Clockwork Wizards, Imaskari Artificers, etc...

And if Genasi are in it, they might be Elementals instead of humaniods and have more lineages like Void Genasi (a Void Genasi Avenger of Shar was a major character in an FR novel).

But there are FR races that have not been done yet, like Wemics, Shades, and more.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Any possible future "demicore" sourcebook with "new" PC species or classes will have to be published in 2026.

It is too soon for a new book style "Moderkainen Monsters of Multiverse", and this is an "update" of "Moderkainen Tome of Foes". The list of playable species will have to be different and not only a new "rehush".

I doubt to see new PC species without a previous playtest in UA articles but these are practically almost spoilers.

Maybe current WotC's strategy is all crunch about player options was for all the settings.

 

[GreyLord]

It could be that we see how the setting books will work from here on out. In general, it has been typical for a race to be introduced per setting, though exceptions were had.

We could see one, or several races and perhaps a class or two (most likely at least a few subclasses/archtypes) I'd imagine.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I mean even the titles of the two books were placeholders, and D&D Direct Video & D&D Beyond Article didn't even agree on the placeholder name for the second book, & the video doesn't mention that the general Setting lore update is in the player book not the DM book, but the Beyond Article did.

So no one should treat the features of these books listed in video & article as definitive.

It's possibly they hadn't made final decisions on the Artificer or Species when it was time for the announcement.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that they will 100% go into a 2026 Xanthar's/Tasha's type book.

Why would you, an admitted FR fan, want the Artificer and generic D&D species taking up precious pages in a book that should be solely dedicated to FR information? At best, maybe some FR-specific species and subclasses, but it's hard to come up with any that wouldn't be better off served as being part of a general D&D book. As an FR fan myself, I absolutely hope that they don't show up in the upcoming FR books.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

but it's hard to come up with any that wouldn't be better off served as being part of a general D&D book

Revamped battlerager and purple dragon knight?

But I agree, artificer would be an odd choice to occupy space in an FR book, even though the class clearly exists in the setting.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Revamped battlerager and purple dragon knight?

I think the purple dragon knight is very close to being actually usable.

But I agree, artificer would be an odd choice to occupy space in an FR book, even though the class clearly exists in the setting.

I am torn. Between agreeing and just wanting the new artificer as soon as possible (maybe a bit changed from the curren UA version though).

 

[dave2008]

I mean even the titles of the two books were placeholders, and D&D Direct Video & D&D Beyond Article didn't even agree on the placeholder name for the second book, & the video doesn't mention that the general Setting lore update is in the player book not the DM book, but the Beyond Article did.

So no one should treat the features of these books listed in video & article as definitive.

It's possibly they hadn't made final decisions on the Artificer or Species when it was time for the announcement.

Thoughts?

What video and article are you talking about? Links?

I guess that is possible, but I find the Artificer an unlikely choice for that book.

 

[Reynard]

I mean even the titles of the two books were placeholders, and D&D Direct Video & D&D Beyond Article didn't even agree on the placeholder name for the second book, & the video doesn't mention that the general Setting lore update is in the player book not the DM book, but the Beyond Article did.

So no one should treat the features of these books listed in video & article as definitive.

It's possibly they hadn't made final decisions on the Artificer or Species when it was time for the announcement.

Thoughts?

Is this speculation or do you have documentation?