Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
I don't know about RL if it's going to be a setting book. The "revisited worlds" are supposed to be stuff not seen in 5e yet and Strahd even got a deluxe edition in house. I know an adventure isn't really a setting book, but Ravensloft is the setting of those games and the statement from WotC high ups were 2-3 not yet visited classic settings over the next two years and the MtG tie ins. That latter part is the only reason I think we'd see a FR book, because it'd be timed and tied to the MtG release. Speaking of, has WotC announced anything about those FR MtG cards?
To the gang that has turned this thread into a debate over Dragonlance, remember we don't know what's coming. As for the Gully Dwarf and Kender, I could see the Gully Dwarves revised into a race that's sort of reskinned Minions from the Despicable Me franchise (a species that has proved endearing if box office and merchandising is to be followed. Kender ... I see the Chaotic Stupid rap they get in play. That said, passages of the original DL novels that sit in Tasslehoff's perspective are some of the best written parts of an otherwise largely "OK" written series. You could deride them as a "childish" race, but really they're simply anarchic and the game traits of fearlessness, the taunt, and yes their complete disregard for the concept of property are exhibitions of a people whose psychology doesn't have the capacity to consider what conventional psychology calls boundaries. I'll admit though that, it is problematic to throw that fictitious perspective into a game where contemporary understandings of propriety and property are the guiding mores.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You mock their intelligence and suggest that they are somehow less valuable because of their flaws but go reread the novels again. Tas was a central character, his impact on the storyline was massive, and his innocent kleptomania was a plot device on numerous occasions, not to mention his humorous nature which injected fun into some dark and oppressive plot lines. I loved his character throughout all of the books not just the original three.
Dismissing the Gully Dwarves is equally as bad, and some of the comments almost imply that they are thought of as 'sub-human' and that is the very opposite of virtue signalling! Who can really look at the interaction and effects of Bupu on Raistlin - sure she wasn't a central character, but she influenced and changed one of the major characters in ways that nobody else could. Not to forget the Cattle-pult, which shows innovation and invention, not to mention courage and dedication. All of which seriously out-way their albeit substantial flaws.
Where am I asserting anything like that?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I didn't say anything of the kind. You said Kender being kleptomaniacs isn't so bad because players don't have to play their character like that. Your argument, not mine, is that playing against type can make a race less problematic. What logically follows from that is that not playing against type does make it problematic, at least to an extent. If that's the case, a DM has three options for dealing with the problem: not allowing the race at all, only allowing it if the player doesn't play it in a problematic/typical way (which seems silly to me), or suffering through. Again, your argument, not mine. All I said about what I might do is that I'd probably allow the races and that I keep an eye out for potentially disruptive character concepts - not even that I'd disallow such concepts either, just that I'd have a word with the player so everybody's got more or less the same expectations. Nobody enjoys playing a character for a couple of levels to then get told by the other players they're making the game less fun for them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To an extent it depends on your players. If you are playing with mature players who know how far to push things and still keep it in the realms of fun then great but if you are playing with a jerk then it doesn't really matter what character they play. I agree that allowing an inexperienced player to create a character from either race is likely to cause problems but in the hands of a good player - fun for all.
Sure, but that might mean I have to warn one player that the character concept he's working on might be disruptive and could ruin the fun for the other players, so to keep that in mind and make sure it doesn't get too egregious, while either hoping another player with a similar concept understands it's ok for him, or tell that player he doesn't have to worry about what I said to the first one. And in the mean time hope I didn't upset that first player or turn him off from the game. I can deal with this, it's not something i'm going to lose sleep over, I'm just saying this isn't some negligible issue that will never have a negative impact. People can play what they want, but they have to be aware there might be consequences they won't like - and not necessarily because of something the DM does.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
KENNNNDEEEEEEEEEEERRRRR!!!!! *shakes fist*
My guess is either Ravenloft or Dragonlance; I'm erring towards Dragonlance largely from hints that've been dropping elsewhere on the interwebz lately, and also because I think they'd save Ravenloft for a spoopy Halloween event. I wondered briefly if they were gearing up for something as thematically incoherent as Tasha's, but there hasn't been enough UA for us to get Terrance and Phillip's Manual of
FlatulenceEverything just yet.I’d honestly be up for anything. I’d really like a setting book of a similar quality to Eberron or Wildemount but as far as what setting I’m pretty neutral.
I want Dark Sun, but more so for the few races common to those places and more Psionic options (despite how controversial Psionic is in D&D is). I’d also be fine with a M:tG setting book as I enjoyed the content in the Ravnica ad Theros books.
Honestly, anything that gives us more monsters, magical items, spells, and/or race and subrace options would excite me. We just got a slew of subclasses so I can wait a bit for more (though I wouldn’t say no to them)
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
(I personally hate Kenku for the same reason I hate Kender and Gully Dwarves. It restricts player roleplay and very commonly disrupts the campaign.)
I want Dark Sun, but I don't think that is what this book is going to be. It's probably Ravenloft or a Dragon Book (either Dragonlance or a Draconomicon).
They could surprise us all and do something that no one ever guessed, like they did last year with Explorer's Guide to Wildemount and the year before with Acq. Inc., but I'm not sure what this book would be in that case.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
What if its an update for Oerth given the last book was about one of its denizens?
I know very unlikely, but I can see that being bought, but it really depends on what they're focusing on.
The Neverwinter game next month on PC (and in March for consoles) is releasing a new Sharandar scenario with previous scenarios focused on new releases for 5e I was wondering if that might be a clue?
I'm putting my money on another adventure book personally.
Those normally come out later in the year.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I am not too familiar with Dragonlance, but since there are two dragon themed classes lately, I am going to assume it is Dragonlance too.
For what I wish for, I really want it to be Spelljammer and/or Planescape, preferably one book after the other. I am not too familiar with either setting either, but I think being able to travel across worlds would be amazing for high level endgame content.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Spelljammer/Planescape would be great. Several people mentioned the dragon subclasses. Aren't the UAs too new for them to be in the next book?
Yes. And neither are actually that close to really fitting into Dragonlance's themes, which revolved more around heroic low fantasy in a rather grim setting.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As a person relatively new to D&D and with absolutely no connection to, reverence for, or even much understanding of "Dragonlance", and whose understanding of the things in question comes from basically this thread alone...
The idea of an anarchic kleptomaniacal species with "no concept of personal property" is an immediate red flag to my DM brain. That pretty much screams "terrible rogue memes" to me, and a player who comes to me all bright-eyed with a kender rogue, bard, or a kender anything with the Criminal background is getting a sit-down, a talking-to, and a very intense Fry Meming. That's the sort of thing that seems tailor-made to capital-letters Cause Problems at the table. I totally get people having a nostalgic enjoyment for the books and wanting a chance to play their nostalgia, but someone who says to me "My character comes from a species with no concept of personal property and no real understanding of law or government, and nothing you say will convince me to play anything else"?
I'm going to look at that someone and say "You get two strikes. I will allow your klepto-anarchist to Cause Problems at my table twice. Those two times, I will work to smooth things over, sooth ruffled feathers, and keep the game going. On the third strike? The third time you steal stuff from the other players or get the party thrown out of a key hub town or give everybody's stolen purses to a crime boss or whatever else, because you want to flip the bird finger at Societal Norms via the 'safe space' of my D&D game? I'm picking you up by the belt and throwing you off my roof. You are not only being thrown off my roof, but you are out of my game with absolutely no appeal, and the rest of the party gets to keep your stuff and decide how your klepto-anarchist dies."
If they can't abide by that rule? They don't get to play a character type explicitly designed to cause intra-party strife at my table.
Same for gully dwarves, and people wanting to turn them into bad hillbilly memes. Same for kenku - I ******* hate kenku for many of the same, and many other, reasons. Same for kobolds, actually - all the people who gave gnomes a bad name by turning every gnomish PC they could into a carnival clown with absolutely no appreciation for drama seem to've switched to kobolds as of late, and now I find myself Fry Meming the microlizards the same way a lot of folks Fry Meme gnomes. People who are unwilling to respect my time, the time of their fellow players, or the story we're all working to tell together can take their clownshoes fratboy comedy PC and shove it up their [PRE-REDACTED].
And I'm sorry, but certain species, certain archetypes, and certain set-ups are absolutely warning flags that somebody is about to waste my time with fratboy bullshit.
Please do not contact or message me.
WotC announced revisiting three classic settings this year, and given the comparatively low release frequency of 5E I don’t see them adding a 4th non-classic setting to the roster.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Many people here say it's Ravenloft, but I'm fairly sure it's not. Every year for 2 years now, M:tG releases a set, with a fan-favorite plane, Ravnica and Theros, which both got D&D books, and now Innistrad is coming out. Innistrad steps on Ravenloft's toes a bit because they both have a similar tone and aesthetic. Also, I feel like they would release the book closer to Halloween, but they probably won't do that. While I like Innistrad better than Ravenloft, I would like a Ravenloft book better, but some signs are pointing otherwise.
3. When the lawsuit was dropped, one of the plaintiffs said fans should be hearing some exciting news in a few weeks.
3.a. It'll be a few weeks on the 12th.
So my guess is either Dragonlance or another classic setting with Dragonlance and the third announced publicly as being in the production pipeline.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Wait....what....you and I in complete agreement? The apocalypse is nigh. Player comes to my table with this garbage. Reply is a flat "no." No discussion, just "no."