Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Products
 D&D Core Products
 Fizban's Treasury of Dragons

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
HighOne Posted - 14 Jul 2021 : 19:12:43
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons is the title of this year's last unannounced D&D hardcover:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-gvLfO-5Ww

The book cover was data-mined on the D&D Beyond website a few days ahead of the announcement.
25   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
sleyvas Posted - 20 Nov 2021 : 01:36:23
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

This thing of gemstone dragons having bits of their bodies physical separated but still part of their body... Is this a new thing?

I don't recall seeing it before, and I can't say I like the idea for each member of a species. One-off cases, where the dragon is powerful psionically and the disconnected bit is a battle wound? Awesome! All gemstone dragons just naturally have disconnected bit? Beyond ridiculous.



It's new to this, and I'd bet it's related to them being psionic.... kind of like how psions have psicrystals (and kind of like how we've posited here that psicrystals might actually be scales, etc.. of gem dragons). I agree though, it would be better if it were only like when they get older or somesuch.... maybe they start shedding parts of themselves and "hold themselves together" psychically or somesuch.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 20 Nov 2021 : 00:58:04
This thing of gemstone dragons having bits of their bodies physical separated but still part of their body... Is this a new thing?

I don't recall seeing it before, and I can't say I like the idea for each member of a species. One-off cases, where the dragon is powerful psionically and the disconnected bit is a battle wound? Awesome! All gemstone dragons just naturally have disconnected bit? Beyond ridiculous.
sleyvas Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 23:09:48
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas


Now, that being said, I know what I just said is going to kind of sound odd as I ask this next question, but we have different types of dragons on Toril. One major faction of them are the Lung Dragons of Kara-Tur. Another unique factor of that region (at least in 3e, the last visit to the region) is that the spirit world is coterminous to that region. Would it be a good, bad, or neither idea to have it that the Lung Dragons actually come from the spirit world to Kara-Tur, and they are spontaneously formed in the spirit world from the spirits of dead dragons or from the spirit of the land, etc....



I don't see an issue with having the lung dragons come from the spirit world, as powerful manifestations of place/nature spirits. I'd shy away from the spirits of dead dragons, though.



Maybe "indirectly" the spirit of dead dragons.... as in the dragons die, but their "spirits" don't go to the outer planes, and they "merge with the spirit world"..... later the spirit world uses that "energy" to make new lung dragons?? Could just as easily be "they form from the land of the spirit world".

Not a huge thing, but it did hit me as an idea in reading the book.
Gary Dallison Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 22:09:42
if you read up on Bahamut through the various editions, independent aspects is exactly how it works.

Bahamut is an archtype, he lives on the outer planes, he is the platinum dragon.

On each world, worthy beings can become the platinum dragon. They become like the Platinum Dragon but they are not the Platinum Dragon, they are like a merged being with its own thoughts and feelings and personality entirely independent of "The Platinum Dragon". They are described as aspects.

So Marduk and Bahamut on Toril were separate beings, entirely independent of one another that worked towards similar ideals. Xymor was another independent aspect.

Tiamat the Dragon Queen and Tiamat the Queen of Chaos were also separate beings, independent aspects. Note the difference in appearance to show they were definitely not the same. The first Tiamat was also another aspect, and so was Nagamat.

Paladine and Takhisis are the same. They look like the archetype in some way, they act like him in some way, but they are independent beings.

When an aspect dies a new one can take their place but on Toril it may be that there can be multiple aspects in existence at the same time (and why not).
Wooly Rupert Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 21:37:26
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder

As in... Fizban from Krynn? Who can trust anyone from that world to get any planar matters right?..



Yesn't. The Fizban of this book is a guise of Bahamut, not of Paladine. But the book says that Paladine may be just another name for Bahamut.



I've decided to assume that Paladine and Takhisis are independent aspects of Bahamut and Tiamat. The two dragon deities spun off those aspects and basically disconnected from them, so Paladine and Takhisis then grew into their own entities.

(And they did this because Krynn's Prime is obviously somewhat disconnected from the Great Wheel... Not to the same extent as Eberron, but still separated from the standard planar configuration)

It's easier to play it that way than it is to try to reconcile Fizban being Bahamut. None of the deities of Krynn have been shown to be multispheric, so either we further retcon Dragonlance lore, or we get creative.
Zeromaru X Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 21:11:02
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder

As in... Fizban from Krynn? Who can trust anyone from that world to get any planar matters right?..



Yesn't. The Fizban of this book is a guise of Bahamut, not of Paladine. But the book says that Paladine may be just another name for Bahamut.
TBeholder Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 20:34:24
As in... Fizban from Krynn? Who can trust anyone from that world to get any planar matters right?..
Of course, this goes double for the ones who do know better, but keep the local Clueless in confused and superstitious state for which they are infamous (Abyss, really?).

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert


Part of my theory of there being one Prime Material Plane, with infinite layers, is that there was originally just one layer, and other layers were modified copies.
Layers are sequential.
It's more like relationship between Ethereal and demiplanes. Demiplanes in some ways count as Ethereal, in other ways don't, and may have border (now, Border Ethereal is more like a layer).
Or maybe an elemental plane and native pockets (as in, plasma pockets on Lightning, vs. air pockets on Water). They are similar to "foreign matter" pockets in many ways, but are born of the plane, not brought from elsewhere.
Gary Dallison Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 19:56:26
Reading various reddits I see a lot of next gen players who dont care much for the new lore at all. Even they have spotted the inconsistencies.

Most seem to be of the opinion that they will take or leave what they want.

If you are designing a setting, the last thing you want to do is make some or any of your work disposable because it means it is no longer important to you or your customers.
Zeromaru X Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 19:41:30
You said that, but there is a lot of new gen players and DMs who really loves the 5e lore. I have to admit that there is stuff in the Fizban's book that make sense to me. I'll ignore the rest
Gary Dallison Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 18:57:31
They already achieved their goal but I think it is having the unintended consequence of nobody cares about what lore they publish anymore. I suspect people will buy the books for rules but when it comes to the lore and a setting what would be the point.

Bit of an own goal really.
HighOne Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 18:43:10
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertI've already decided that Fizban is going to have to be given the unreliable narrator treatment on a lot of stuff... much as with a lot of other 5E lore.
I think this is part of the plan. Wizards wants to muddy the lore waters enough that the entire concept of official canon or lore just goes away; there will be so many conflicting, contradictory accounts for every subject that no one can point to any one as definitive. That way, Wizards can publish pretty much anything they want, and they won't have to worry about continuity anymore. Heck, we're already halfway there.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 13:31:32
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas


Now, that being said, I know what I just said is going to kind of sound odd as I ask this next question, but we have different types of dragons on Toril. One major faction of them are the Lung Dragons of Kara-Tur. Another unique factor of that region (at least in 3e, the last visit to the region) is that the spirit world is coterminous to that region. Would it be a good, bad, or neither idea to have it that the Lung Dragons actually come from the spirit world to Kara-Tur, and they are spontaneously formed in the spirit world from the spirits of dead dragons or from the spirit of the land, etc....



I don't see an issue with having the lung dragons come from the spirit world, as powerful manifestations of place/nature spirits. I'd shy away from the spirits of dead dragons, though.
sleyvas Posted - 16 Nov 2021 : 13:15:49
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Got this book yesterday, and I'm doing a kinda in-depth flip-through right now (more than just flipping pages, but not reading every page).

I've already decided that Fizban is going to have to be given the unreliable narrator treatment on a lot of stuff... much as with a lot of other 5E lore.

One thing in the book that I found interesting was tying draconic power to their hoards. Not that I like the idea; I just found its inclusion interesting.

Tolkien gave us -- or at least made popular -- the idea of a dragon having such a bond with its hoard that it knew the contents to the last copper and could tell if anything, even just a cup, was removed.

But -- at least in the Lord of the Rings -- he didn't make the dragon's power dependent on its hoard.

The first place I saw that was in the Council of Wyrms setting... Which again makes me wonder if that's going to be one of our upcoming settings.

Also, the whole multiversal dragons thing, particularly with Ashardalon slaying other versions of himself to get more powerful... Ugh. I think this idea is a horrible fit for fantasy. The Jet Li movie with the same premise was decent, not great, and certainly not something to take inspiration from. I'm ranking that whole concept up there with the concepts of beholders dreaming other beholders into existence and hyenas spontaneously transforming into gnolls: proof that a lot more editorial direction is needed at WotC. Someone there needs to learn that just because someone has a thought, it doesn't need to make it into print.



Yeah, as I look through the book, I get the feeling that so much of this is like the experimental work I do here.... throwing ideas against the wall as options. However, there are a lot of options that they throw out there that "you can just add" to a dragon that they should have gone a step further and said "and when you DO add this option it raises the CR of the challenge by X amount or by this formula". Its full of a lot of noncommital ideas, including things like "dragons give birth via any of these multiple ideas, and you should pick one and apply it to your world".

Now, that being said, I know what I just said is going to kind of sound odd as I ask this next question, but we have different types of dragons on Toril. One major faction of them are the Lung Dragons of Kara-Tur. Another unique factor of that region (at least in 3e, the last visit to the region) is that the spirit world is coterminous to that region. Would it be a good, bad, or neither idea to have it that the Lung Dragons actually come from the spirit world to Kara-Tur, and they are spontaneously formed in the spirit world from the spirits of dead dragons or from the spirit of the land, etc....
Wooly Rupert Posted - 15 Nov 2021 : 01:40:54
Got this book yesterday, and I'm doing a kinda in-depth flip-through right now (more than just flipping pages, but not reading every page).

I've already decided that Fizban is going to have to be given the unreliable narrator treatment on a lot of stuff... much as with a lot of other 5E lore.

One thing in the book that I found interesting was tying draconic power to their hoards. Not that I like the idea; I just found its inclusion interesting.

Tolkien gave us -- or at least made popular -- the idea of a dragon having such a bond with its hoard that it knew the contents to the last copper and could tell if anything, even just a cup, was removed.

But -- at least in the Lord of the Rings -- he didn't make the dragon's power dependent on its hoard.

The first place I saw that was in the Council of Wyrms setting... Which again makes me wonder if that's going to be one of our upcoming settings.

Also, the whole multiversal dragons thing, particularly with Ashardalon slaying other versions of himself to get more powerful... Ugh. I think this idea is a horrible fit for fantasy. The Jet Li movie with the same premise was decent, not great, and certainly not something to take inspiration from. I'm ranking that whole concept up there with the concepts of beholders dreaming other beholders into existence and hyenas spontaneously transforming into gnolls: proof that a lot more editorial direction is needed at WotC. Someone there needs to learn that just because someone has a thought, it doesn't need to make it into print.
Eldacar Posted - 02 Nov 2021 : 18:58:46
quote:
Originally posted by TKU

I'm hesitant to ask considering how Song and Steel dragons seem to have gotten the axe in a very deliberate way, and because of my own very negative opinion of what the Deep Dragons got turned into....but is there any mention of Fang/Gray dragons or Brown Dragons in the book?


There is none, no.
Zeromaru X Posted - 02 Nov 2021 : 17:56:48
There is none so far I've read.
TKU Posted - 02 Nov 2021 : 16:25:41
I'm hesitant to ask considering how Song and Steel dragons seem to have gotten the axe in a very deliberate way, and because of my own very negative opinion of what the Deep Dragons got turned into....but is there any mention of Fang/Gray dragons or Brown Dragons in the book? Those are some of my favorite lesser-known chromatics and I would love to dig my teeth into some more information about them.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 02 Nov 2021 : 15:59:42
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar


I have no idea if a policy changed between the publication of that and this, or there was just miscommunication somewhere along the line. Or if somebody doesn't like song/steel dragons but somebody else does.



Given the current team at WotC, it could be any combination of those things.

Rich Baker personally killed plotlines from 2E that he didn't like (like the Harper Schism). Policy changes have been an issue since 2E, and miscommunications happened during that era, but became a lot worse since 3E came out.
Eldacar Posted - 02 Nov 2021 : 15:03:39
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

IIRC, that steel dragon was just a reskined silver dragon (the text outright says "use the silver dragon stats"). So, there have been no actual steel dragons in 5e so far.


Yes and no. It says to use an adult silver dragon as the base and then make changes. Whether that qualifies or not as a "steel dragon statblock" it's definitely said in the text that it is a steel dragon.
Zeromaru X Posted - 02 Nov 2021 : 14:55:37
IIRC, that steel dragon was just a reskined silver dragon (the text outright says "use the silver dragon stats"). So, there have been no actual steel dragons in 5e so far.
Eldacar Posted - 02 Nov 2021 : 13:53:45
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert


And that thing about song and steel dragons? Oh HELL NO. I'm choosing to "unreliable narrator" that bit of info, rather than invalidate existing Realmslore and retcon entire species out of existence.



Yeah, totally agree. That was unnecessary simplification when just ignoring them would have been better.


Amusingly, Dungeon of the Mad Mage actually has a steel dragon in it, complete with breath weapon and shapechanging ability (page 273). I have no idea if a policy changed between the publication of that and this, or there was just miscommunication somewhere along the line. Or if somebody doesn't like song/steel dragons but somebody else does.
TomCosta Posted - 01 Nov 2021 : 21:25:22
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert


And that thing about song and steel dragons? Oh HELL NO. I'm choosing to "unreliable narrator" that bit of info, rather than invalidate existing Realmslore and retcon entire species out of existence.



Yeah, totally agree. That was unnecessary simplification when just ignoring them would have been better.
Zeromaru X Posted - 01 Nov 2021 : 16:08:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I really dislike the dragonsight thing Eldacar described, though. That sends things in a "infinite parallel universes where everything is almost but not quite the same" direction, something horribly overused in comics and sci-fi, and I don't think that's a good fit for D&D. I also don't think anything prior in D&D has even hinted at such a thing.



Well, they have been using that concept since the 5e DMG, as they explained any individual game in any official setting as happening in a slightly different parallel world, as well.
sleyvas Posted - 01 Nov 2021 : 11:13:32
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta

So I'm not anti-5E products by any stretch. I think most have been pretty great, but while most of the community seems to rate Fizban's very highly, I have to say, I found it a bit meh. I did like the whole First World idea for explaining the linkages between the primes and the gods and certainly the book is useful. Some neat and scary monsters, but I kinda miss the 3E draconomicon.




I do note that there's some odd wording that is related to Eberron on this that sounds like word mix mumbo jumbo.... as in they wanted to say its different but gave not much of a meaningful answer, except to point out that its "outer planes" are not the same "outer planes" as everyone else's.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 31 Oct 2021 : 18:38:20
quote:
Originally posted by TomCosta

So I'm not anti-5E products by any stretch. I think most have been pretty great, but while most of the community seems to rate Fizban's very highly, I have to say, I found it a bit meh. I did like the whole First World idea for explaining the linkages between the primes and the gods and certainly the book is useful. Some neat and scary monsters, but I kinda miss the 3E draconomicon.




Part of my theory of there being one Prime Material Plane, with infinite layers, is that there was originally just one layer, and other layers were modified copies.

Haven't gotten this book yet, though, to see how the WotC version gels with that idea.

I really dislike the dragonsight thing Eldacar described, though. That sends things in a "infinite parallel universes where everything is almost but not quite the same" direction, something horribly overused in comics and sci-fi, and I don't think that's a good fit for D&D. I also don't think anything prior in D&D has even hinted at such a thing.

And that thing about song and steel dragons? Oh HELL NO. I'm choosing to "unreliable narrator" that bit of info, rather than invalidate existing Realmslore and retcon entire species out of existence.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2021 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000