Next D&D Book Announced January 12th 2021 and Releasing March 16th 2021

 Confirmed by Penguin Random House (link below) ,  Barnes & Noble,  and Amazon. 

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/677168/dandd-march-title-by-wizards-rpg-team/

 My guess its either a monster book with player options (think VGTM) or a Campaign setting book for  Spelljammers, Zendikar,  or Kaldheim. 

"Preorder [D&D March Title] now for only $49.99!!"

No thank you, Barnes and Noble.  Not after the disappointment that was Tasha's Cauldron.  Not from you, and not from DDB unless DDB does a much better job with this book.  And not ever if it's another friggin' Magic tie-in.

Dragonlance.  Not saying because it's what I'd want, but because it's the what the tea leaves are telling me.

I'm certainly curious.

Well if you look at current UA there are two very Ravenlofty character options and two very Dragon(lance)y character options being playtested.

Also quick PSA, if you have a local gaming store and plan to get a physical book, please consider ordering from there rather than B&N or Amazon. Shops like that are wonderful places that spread the game and provide places for people to play, and the pandemic has hit them hard like so many other businesses.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

Well if you look at current UA there are two very Ravenlofty character options and two very Dragon(lance)y character options being playtested.

Also quick PSA, if you have a local gaming store and plan to get a physical book, please consider ordering from there rather than B&N or Amazon. Shops like that are wonderful places that spread the game and provide places for people to play, and the pandemic has hit them hard like so many other businesses.

Ditto the PSA, plus incentive covers.  Say what you will about the convenience and discounts of Amazon or B&N, but local game or comic shops are important components to the TTRPG infrastructure.  If there's a shop available to you, sustain it.    

I'm guessing that it's a Draconomicon or Someone's Guide/Manual to Dragons. It would contain the Drakewarden and Ascendant Dragon subclasses, as well as Gem Dragons, probably a reprint of Kobolds and possibly Exandria Dragonborn subraces, and maybe some racial feats for the two of them. They may even make Gem Dragonborn as an option. 

The only thing that points to this possibly not being this release is the fact that the Spirits Bard/Undead Warlock UA was released earlier than the Dragon Subclasses UA, which may point to a Ravnica/Innistrad setting book being released before a Dragon book is, but it's not unthinkable that something from a later UA is officially released earlier than a different UA's options. 

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

"Preorder [D&D March Title] now for only $49.99!!"

No thank you, Barnes and Noble.  Not after the disappointment that was Tasha's Cauldron.  Not from you, and not from DDB unless DDB does a much better job with this book.  And not ever if it's another friggin' Magic tie-in.

Yeah. I'm especially not preordering it before they announce what it is. 

Dragonlance or Ravenloft.

I would be quite happy if both of those races were stricken from canon.

The problem is that both races are jokes.  And not even good jokes.

I mean, kender are a race of thieves and unlike every other D&D thief race in D&D, they're not portrayed as needing to do it to survive, but just because they're too naive to understand private property and the authors shill them like Westley Crusher.  And with gully dwarves, the only joke is that they're really stupid.

Quote from Portential >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

The problem is that both races are jokes.  And not even good jokes.

I mean, kender are a race of thieves and unlike every other D&D thief race in D&D, they're not portrayed as needing to do it to survive, but just because they're too naive to understand private property and the authors shill them like Westley Crusher.  And with gully dwarves, the only joke is that they're really stupid.

 

A lot of people would love to roleplay a race that doesn't have the concept of ownership.

 

 And you can play an oblivious "doesn't understand the world and how it functions character." - you don't need dragonlance to do that.

It is problematic when you make an entire race "kleptomaniacs"

Not to mention making a race that just takes things with no concept of ownership would be the "It's what my character would do" Grognards wet dreams come to life.

Quote from Portential >>

 It's called fantasy realm where you can explore different cultures and ideas.  Now if you are a binary person who is set in his poor ideological limitations, then that unfortunately is the life you are doomed to lead.  Imagine living in a world of nothing but right or wrong.  I glad you don't have a seat at my table.  Good luck in life.

 

 If you think those two races are "different culture and Ideas" - More power to you I guess.

I just think making races that are single minded and only have one overall characteristics falls in that the issue of stereotypes we have in the real world where I would really love to explore being an American because every American is "Fat and Lazy." Makes for a great character and race. "Perpetually stupid" and "Can't NOT steal that item."

.Since you want to play the table card btw - Yeah I'd NEVER want you at miner either - BYE!!! o/

Quote from Portential>>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard>>

The problem is that both races are jokes.  And not even good jokes.

I mean, kender are a race of thieves and unlike every other D&D thief race in D&D, they're not portrayed as needing to do it to survive, but just because they're too naive to understand private property and the authors shill them like Westley Crusher.  And with gully dwarves, the only joke is that they're really stupid.

The Kender can have brain differentiations compared to other humanoids that cause that behavior.  Elves in European lore are believed to be based on people born with William's Syndrome a disease having significantly lower than normal IQ but are gifted verbally.  A lot of people would love to roleplay a race that doesn't have the concept of ownership.  Like a lot of hunter gatherer tribes that existed in the real world.

As to the gully dwarves, the Coptic Christians of Egypt are treated as garbage people forced to clean up filth, and you could look at Gully Dwarves as having that role in society put upon them.

One only has to use their imagination when roleplaying rather than relying on some form of ideological orientation that one has went under to look at the world.  I suggest role playing rather than going with such a binary view of the world.

 This is not about ideological orientation.  This is about the fact that the races were badly written and based on the sort of mockery of developmental conditions that you could get away with in the 80s that have not aged well in the last 30 years.

Not to take sides in a debate about what's fun or interesting (debating this seems like the best way to take the fun out of anything, to be honest), an incorrigible kleptomaniac does have a higher chance of disrupting a campaign than a character with a speech deficiency that has to resort to mimicry. Both can be tedious and annoying and both can be fun, but frequent and impromptu petty larceny has broken up more than one party I've been involved with.

Quote from Portential >>

Quote from pangurjan >>

Not to take sides in a debate about what's fun or interesting (debating this seems like the best way to take the fun out of anything, to be honest), an incorrigible kleptomaniac does have a higher chance of disrupting a campaign than a character with a speech deficiency that has to resort to mimicry. Both can be tedious and annoying and both can be fun, but frequent and impromptu petty larceny has broken up more than one party I've been involved with.

 As but you are assuming they are player characters.  They can be quite fun as NPC's.   If the players run into the gully dwarves after never seeing them before, it could start an adventure to fix their behavior.  Such as you could hint its a curse applied upon the tribe for some prior deed.  Maybe they were hill dwarves who went against an ancient unknown and it cursed them with madness.  I did have one campaign where a party did do just that and got one hell of a good hammer for running the long quest line against the Illithids.

As to the Kender, Gully Dwarf or Kenku, they all have mental limitations place on them.  And people of a particular ideological bent, are upset against the Kender and Gully Dwarfs because their politically ideologies told them to be upset.  They don't really care in real life, but they do want to come of as being virtuous.  Its trite and sad.

 Well, you brought up Kenku as a counterexample - and Kenku are a player race.

I figure that I would chime in for sake of the original topic of this post before it gets locked like all previous posts that started down this road.

I am excited to see what is coming up and I am glad that we don't have to wait too long to see what is coming up.  I will venture a guess at a Ravenloft book of some kind given that WotC already announced that two books with the Vistani would be released "soon".  With the Revised Curse of Strahd released already we still have one more to go.

Quote from Portential >> 

Oh most assuredly I brought up Kenku as an example to show the hypocrisy of people complaining about races in D&D.  They haven't been told yet to be upset with Kenku, so they don't show publicly their dismay with the Kenku.  And when you bring them up as an example, well now they have to make a choice between jumping the shark and sticking with their political ideology and state yes Kenku are bad, or remain silent or come of as hypocrite.  By the current peoples ideology complaining about orcs, drow, kender and gully dwarfs well my god Kenku they are worse - just look at them based on the behavior of crows from Dumbo.  Its just political hay waiting to take place.  But no one wants to jump the shark on Kenku just yet.

And yes you can run a Kender who is full on LN and not a theif or a Gully Dwarf whose the wisest wizard of the land.  Its a fantasy game and its fun to play characters that go against the grain of the world.  Someone would have to have some form of brain limitation not to understand that in fantasy games you can do what you want, that's what makes the game fun.

Kenku are ok. Their lack of original creation ability doesn't mean they can't be smart. But the point was that you can't argue I shouldn't necessarily think of Kender or Gully Dwarves as player races while at the same time bringing up Kenku, a player race, as a counterexample - that logic doesn't hold up.

Playing against type is kind of a half-baked argument, no offense. As a DM I'd find it more than a bit silly to tell my players they're allowed to play a certain race, but only if they play as an atypical specimen of that race. Even with something like Drow I'd never tell my players they can play a non-evil Drow only. I might tell them they can only play non-evil characters in general, but there's a difference.

I don't think I'll ban Kender or Gully Dwarves if WotC releases a Dragonlance book that has them as player options. I will, particularly with newer player, have a bit of a chat during session zero if I see characters getting created that are more likely to be disruptive than most and seeing a Kender or Gully Dwarf is probably going to at least register as something to keep an eye on. That already happens with Goblin or Kobold characters though.