A lot of Castle fans will be happy with this set.

Better than anticipated:
Minifigs: Spot on
Build: Stunning and playable
Creature Builds: All fantastic especially that dragon
Crazy how they crammed so much dnd into one set. It's perfect

Yet again, the fan design was better.
To me this looks like a more "infantilised" (for lack of a better term) version of the submitted project. And it won't blend as well with the other Castle sets.

So while the fan project was on my to-buy list, this version will definitely be a skip for me.

I'm not seeing $360 here.

Hell yeah, also noted the official confirmation of the D&D CMF at the end of the press release!

@djcbs said:
"Yet again, the fan design was better.
To me this looks like a more "infantilised" (for lack of a better term) version of the submitted project. And it won't blend as well with the other Castle sets.

So while the fan project was on my to-buy list, this version will definitely be a skip for me."

Did your wife watched you behind when you wrote this? Wink two times.

Yes to everything here. Absolutely love it.

Definitely a "skip" set

This set is really cool. I hope this is the start of a new theme for Lego. There's a lot of fun and creative ways they could expand Dungeons and Dragons in Lego form.

So happy that LEGO made this look like a toy, and again turned away from the rather drab and muted colours of the original that so many MOC'ers seem to love. Especially impressed with the dragon, and the decision to change it from dark green to the much cooler and vibrant red. Minifigs look great, build looks fun and kind of modular. And we get a cool GWP apparently. In other words: day one purchase and worth a trip to the local LEGO store.

Honestly, I'm on the fence over whether this was worth four teasers and a countdown worth of hype. I mean, the structure looks great and pretty similar design-wise to the original submission. The dragon and, more importantly, the price however is where this set will likely fall in priority for a lot of people. The original dragon looked amazing, especially in its green and red colour-scheme, and the lack of actual eyes isn't doing it much favours. The addition of the Displacer Beast and Owl Bear, which weren't in the original submission, are welcome, though that displacer build does look a bit flimsy.

I'm sure this set will sell fairly well, but at $360 I just cannot justify it over what is still to come later this year.

Is that "Inn plain sight" sign a hint on the upcoming LotR Barad-Dur set?

I like it, but I don't love it. The whole thing looks a bit messy and incoherent. But I suppose that's the tradeoff when you jam everything possible into a single massive set, instead of releasing multiple sets with 1) a tavern, 2) a dragon, 3) a tower, and 4) a dungeon.

The minifigures and monsters are delightful. I love that dragonborn.

D&D could be a very fun theme, with a wide range of characters / monsters / settings / price points. "Elf Ranger vs the Owlbear" in a forest. "Dwarf Cleric vs. the Displacer Beast" in an ancient ruin. And so on. Instead, we get just the one big expensive set. As it stands, this is (yet again) far out of my price range, so it's a pass from me. Despite being both a big Lego and D&D fan!

Can’t afford it, but I like it! You’ve got a dungeon, a dragon, a tavern, an adventuring party, hidden secrets to find during the adventure, it’s pretty packed with stuff for fans of the game!

I do kinda wish there were other, smaller sets. An all-in-one-package is good if you can afford it, but it leaves little option for those who don’t want to drop that much.

I don't want to drop that much on a single set. I don't care how good it it is, at that price I'd feel like a lot of the cost I pay for it doesn't go into stuf I'd actually want. And besides, although I love playing D&D I don't have such an attachment to the brand that I'd want to spend 360 euro on a lego version of one specific location full of references to things I may or may not have actually encountered in our campaigns.

That said, this is the closest a 300+ euro set has ever gotten me to tempted. Part of me feels like it might be a good one to actually save a dizzying amount of money for. But the rest of me says: no.
Maybe...? NO!

The press release says 6 minifigures but only lists four, and then looking at different images of the set there appear to be far more than 6 unique minifigs (and I'm not even counting the skeletons)... I'm confused. I wish there was a picture of all the minifigures together.

Dungeon: check
Dragon: check
Guess this set is accurate then

In all seriousness though, I might have to pick up that new green dragon minifigure on Bricklink.

It's expensive.

@Zink said:
"It is so weird how every big release now has to be a one-off 18+ license set. Lego could have had a D&D theme from day one. D&D is as generic a fantasy setting as they come. But now they (and therefore we, the consumers) have to pay for a license to build a generic castle and a generic red dragon. Ridiculous. It really feels like Lego has become a medium for other franchises to be transported into. Like Funko Pops. I miss the originality and creativity Lego once stood for…
"

Very well said! They hope "license" will add value and create the urge to get the set. Not in my house. Meanwhile, i'll wait for the BDP Castle.

Expensive for sure, but a lot of love went into this.

I like this set a lot, and enjoy the fact that it feels like a really big *playset* and not a really big *statue*.

Definitely too expensive for me, though, even if I were a bigger Castle fan.

@Zink said:
"It is so weird how every big release now has to be a one-off 18+ license set. Lego could have had a D&D theme from day one. D&D is as generic a fantasy setting as they come. But now they (and therefore we, the consumers) have to pay for a license to build a generic castle and a generic red dragon. Ridiculous. It really feels like Lego has become a medium for other franchises to be transported into. Like Funko Pops. I miss the originality and creativity Lego once stood for…
"

It's not, though? Lego releases plenty of smaller sets aimed at kids, and plenty of sets not based on external properties. And when Lego comes up with their own original franchises (like Dreamzzz, or Ninjago, or Friends) AFOLs complain about that too, like clockwork.

It's kind of sad to see the portion of Lego stores being taken over by "black box" sets with price tags in the triple digits. I suppose they are just chasing the money and AFOLs have it.

@AmIEvil01 said:
"Is that "Inn plain sight" sign a hint on the upcoming LotR Barad-Dur set?"

I’m thinking it’s a wink at the Beholder. Giant eye, sight-based pun, and the set already comes with shields sporting the Beholder and Displacer Beast.

If not for the knowledge of Barad Dur coming this summer, this would be a day one purchase for me.

Alas, I have limited funds and LOTR tops D&D.

Very torn, but overall disappointed.

The castle itself is grand, being a much better build for a slightly cheaper price than the Lion Knights castle. I still haven't gotten the Lion Knights castle, but was planning to buy it around the same time this comes out so I'm not sure what I should go for. In the end I've collected LEGO my whole life and never played DnD so I'm probably gonna lean for the 90 years of LEGO set instead of the 50 years of DnD one, but if by some miracle I got the money and space it would be cool to own both someday.

The figures are fleshies and not yellowies which is always a massive turnoff for me. In this case they are all wearing gloves and have no skin on their torsos so I could just do a simple head/elf-ear-hair swap, but still it would be hard to work this organically into a display with other castle models.

But the big thing that's turned me off from it is that dragon. Having a huge dragon wrapped around the keep was the big bit of visual intrigue that had me sold on the original submission, and it's use of that ratchet-ball joint made it seem stable enough to make the final cut. Apparently not. Maybe the camera crew just go real lazy with posing, but it looks like the legs can only rotate back and forth and don't have a full range of motion at the shoulders/hips. Combine that with the giant fabric wings and not the multiple plates connected by hinges of the original and this thing just feels a lot more stiff. I get that's a stability thing, but we have plenty of giant stiff dragons in Ninjago already, I was hoping for something more serpentine.

It's also not as if LEGO can't make a dragon that's big AND posable, Vikings being a prime example. Say what you will about BIONICLE, but Kardas is both way bigger and more posable than this thing!

@Zink said:
"It is so weird how every big release now has to be a one-off 18+ license set. Lego could have had a D&D theme from day one. D&D is as generic a fantasy setting as they come. But now they (and therefore we, the consumers) have to pay for a license to build a generic castle and a generic red dragon. Ridiculous. It really feels like Lego has become a medium for other franchises to be transported into. Like Funko Pops. I miss the originality and creativity Lego once stood for…
"

I mean, there was a wave of non-licensed D&D-inspired sets in the Ninjago theme just a few years ago, with its own tabletop role-playing game and everything: https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Ninjago/subtheme-Master-of-the-Mountain

But it doesn't surprise me that there are people who enjoy non-licensed sets who would ALSO enjoy sets with an actual Dungeons & Dragons license, especially since the latter allows LEGO to portray D&D-specific creatures like a beholder, owlbear, etc. without violating any trademarks.

I kind of like the original set more. I really liked the way the dragon wrapped around the tower. I suppose this one has more play-ability, though that seems an odd decision for an 18+ set.

@Zink said:
"It is so weird how every big release now has to be a one-off 18+ license set. Lego could have had a D&D theme from day one. D&D is as generic a fantasy setting as they come. But now they (and therefore we, the consumers) have to pay for a license to build a generic castle and a generic red dragon. Ridiculous. It really feels like Lego has become a medium for other franchises to be transported into. Like Funko Pops. I miss the originality and creativity Lego once stood for…
"

Oh come on. Comments like this just willingly ignore every other set that Lego releases year in andout that isn’t tied to an licence, and ooze with creativity and originality.

Spo @GSR_MataNui said:
"
But the big thing that's turned me off from it is that dragon. Having a huge dragon wrapped around the keep was the big bit of visual intrigue that had me sold on the original submission, and it's use of that ratchet-ball joint made it seem stable enough to make the final cut. Apparently not. Maybe the camera crew just go real lazy with posing, but it looks like the legs can only rotate back and forth and don't have a full range of motion at the shoulders/hips. Combine that with the giant fabric wings and not the multiple plates connected by hinges of the original and this thing just feels a lot more stiff. I get that's a stability thing, but we have plenty of giant stiff dragons in Ninjago already, I was hoping for something more serpentine.

It's also not as if LEGO can't make a dragon that's big AND posable, Vikings being a prime example. Say what you will about BIONICLE, but Kardas is both way bigger and more posable than this thing! "

Spot on about the dragon, this is what made the set go from awesome to "that´s nice" for me, also lost some appeal withe the chosen color palette.

The beholder has the correct number of eye stalks. Sold!

As a DM and D&D lover, this set is everything I could have wanted. I actually didn't love the original submission, and I think the vibrant colors and dragon look much better here. I love that pretty much every classic monster has been represented (also a change from the original submission). It has an owlbear, gelatinous cube, displacer beast, beholder, mimic, treant (or just an animated tree), mushroom creatures (myconids?), and of course our heroes. Only creature I feel is missing is a mindflayer, but we're getting that in the fall CMFs, so I'm okay with its absence. It Looks like for the minifigs, it comes with multiple or double-sided heads to customize their gender?

I don't get the harping on the price. Sure, it's expensive, and I get that criticism, but the price-per-piece is at least reasonable. It's not like you're paying $360 for hardly anything.

After looking at the additional images on the set page, I'm even more frustrated. There's a picture of just the tower, which looks great! I can't help but think: "Throw in a monster and three minifigs, and it's a perfect $70 set!" I'd love to buy just the tavern and a handful of figs for, like, $40.

It's painfully clear to me that my purchasing habits no longer align with Lego's product design / pricing strategy, and that makes me sad. And the thing is, if they broke this giant set up into four sets that collectively added up to more than $360 ... I might end up buying all of them eventually! But all at once? Never gonna happen.

@PurpleDave said:
" @AmIEvil01 said:
"Is that "Inn plain sight" sign a hint on the upcoming LotR Barad-Dur set?"

I’m thinking it’s a wink at the Beholder. Giant eye, sight-based pun, and the set already comes with shields sporting the Beholder and Displacer Beast."

Nah. I reckon 'Inn plain sight' is a reference to the 'friendly' barkeep actually being the big bad evil warlock (sorcerer? wizard?) at the top of the tower.

@Rimefang said:
"Perfect!
Are they going to go ahead and officially announce the D&D minifigure collection now?"
They already have. It's at the end of the press release. They haven't revealed what the CMFs are but it's all over the interwebs for anyone who cares to look.

@Zink said:
" @Aanchir said:
" @Zink said:
"It is so weird how every big release now has to be a one-off 18+ license set. Lego could have had a D&D theme from day one. D&D is as generic a fantasy setting as they come. But now they (and therefore we, the consumers) have to pay for a license to build a generic castle and a generic red dragon. Ridiculous. It really feels like Lego has become a medium for other franchises to be transported into. Like Funko Pops. I miss the originality and creativity Lego once stood for…
"

I mean, there was a wave of non-licensed D&D-inspired sets in the Ninjago theme just a few years ago, with its own tabletop role-playing game and everything: https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Ninjago/subtheme-Master-of-the-Mountain

But it doesn't surprise me that there are people who enjoy non-licensed sets who would ALSO enjoy sets with an actual Dungeons & Dragons license, especially since the latter allows LEGO to portray D&D-specific creatures like a beholder, owlbear, etc. without violating any trademarks."

The Ninjago sets were great. I agree with all your points, BUT I feel like the trade-off for the official license is a) an exorbitant price point and b) this overstuffed one-off set which crams as much things as possible into one release (and thereby inflating the price + sacrificing looks) instead of a simple fantasy Lego theme with multiple sets from which you can pick and choose, maybe buy multiples of the creatures you like and ignore the sets you don't like."

I feel like the "one big set" approach is more due to launching the theme through LEGO Ideas than due to the licensed status. After all, the original fan submission appears to have heavily informed the size and composition of the final product, even if the final set added more detail to areas like the inn roof, tree, coastline, and balcony and introduced a few more side-builds like the owlbear and displacer beast. And there are plenty of licensed themes that HAVE launched with a wave of smaller sets instead of one big set.

Moreover, it's quite possible that there will be other non-exclusive, non-Ideas D&D sets in the future, just as there have been for Minecraft or Sonic the Hedgehog.

On a side note, I just pulled up the Ideas blog post announcing the winner of the D&D contest, and it amused me to read a comment that said "Beautiful set, congrats to the creator! Make it as expensive as it needs to be, detail is key!" So I guess if the price is too exorbitant or the detail is too excessive for people's tastes, we can always pretend that's LEGO Ideas user Oomaloompa's fault. :P

It’ll look great with all the dust.

@johleth said:
"A lot of Castle fans will be happy with this set."

Castle fan here. But even as a fan of Lego, I need much more convincing to go for this. I’m mostly curious if this is an instant hit for real D&D fans? I see a few brick built creatures, which I believe reference animals in the universe, but in terms of lego they don’t look too impressive in build. The characters seem okay, a little low on figure count considering scale, yet printing looks great on torsos etc..

Next to other medieval lego sets I don’t see it “fitting in” though. Which is fine if it’s its own thing but I’m not seeing it work next to lion knights castle, falcons, etc…I just need more convincing & understanding to go for this..

I am wondering if there is a rule at Lego that says: "no two adjoining bricks on the fan model can exist on the final model" It looks as if Lego has to redo the whole thing completely - why not only fix what does not meet their standard???

Anyhow, I kind of like it. (IMO) the inn and the dragon are worse than the proposed model. The rest is better. The dragon is fine (in fact, it is really nice) but the one proposed seemed to be much more posable and I really liked the idea of wrapping it around the tower - that made it look like it was stealthy and coming without anyone being aware of its presence - until it was too late.

With all that, I am not a D&D fan but I would really like to get this. However, this set costs a leg in Canada (CAD$469.99 - CAD$540.49 after taxes) and I need to keep both of mine as long as possible.

And finally, thank god for the VIP program. Those who will be buying this will be able to do so on 1st of April while the plebs will have to soak in their miserable existence and calvary for another excruciating 3 days - 3 days of unspeakable waiting agony knowing that VIPs next door are basking in the euphoria and ecstasy of the mere presence of this contraption in their own abode. The cruelty of it all is unfathomable...

@johleth said:
"A lot of Castle fans will be happy with this set."

I'm happy for D&D fans. As someone who's into LEGO castles, but not into any fantasy stuff, this doesn't particularly appeal to me. It looks great, but I don't need any big red dragons hovering over my medieval town.

@Zink said:
"It is so weird how every big release now has to be a one-off 18+ license set. Lego could have had a D&D theme from day one. D&D is as generic a fantasy setting as they come. But now they (and therefore we, the consumers) have to pay for a license to build a generic castle and a generic red dragon. Ridiculous. It really feels like Lego has become a medium for other franchises to be transported into. Like Funko Pops. I miss the originality and creativity Lego once stood for…
"

As you probably know, LEGO actually had a fantasy theme. We've seen Star Wars replace the classic LEGO Space theme, likely because SW outsold it. It's much easier to sell a product if it's linked to a familiar franchise. That's why barely any toy company out there is still investing in launching fully new brands. LEGO at least tries, but as we see from annual reports, the licensed sets outsell nearly everything else but City. You could try and sell kids a generic fantasy LEGO set, but they'll likely be more interested if it says Harry Potter on the box.

But, if you're into LEGO for the creativity, you could of course always build things yourself. ;-)

These BLDP castles are too MOC-y.
This Ideas castle has been too infantilized.

I love AFOLs.

This looks splendid to me. And while very expensive, we all knew what we were getting into when the original submission was first approved.

@DaLegoNerd1 said:
"Better than anticipated:
Minifigs: Spot on
Build: Stunning and playable
Creature Builds: All fantastic especially that dragon
Crazy how they crammed so much dnd into one set. It's perfect"

I'm with you on this one! I'm very impressed. I also love the ACTUAL adventure tie in!

@TheAbleTable said:
" @johleth said:
"A lot of Castle fans will be happy with this set."

Castle fan here. But even as a fan of Lego, I need much more convincing to go for this. I’m mostly curious if this is an instant hit for real D&D fans? I see a few brick built creatures, which I believe reference animals in the universe, but in terms of lego they don’t look too impressive in build. The characters seem okay, a little low on figure count considering scale, yet printing looks great on torsos etc.."
That’s a good question. As an AFOL and a D&D gamer, this is a day one purchase for me. But if I were a D&D gamer who had no prior interest in LEGO, would this set appeal to me? That’s difficult to say but I don’t see many non-FOLs spending over £300 as their first foray into LEGO. Perhaps LEGO should have released the D&D CMFs first and supplemented them with some mid-range D&D sets, easing D&Ders into AFOLdom.

@HOBBES said:
"I am wondering if there is a rule at Lego that says: "no two adjoining bricks on the fan model can exist on the final model" It looks as if Lego has to redo the whole thing completely - why not only fix what does not meet their standard??? "
I expect LEGO’s designers feel threatened by the idea that fans can do as well as them so deliberately make significant changes to convince management that they are needed.

@djcbs said:
"Yet again, the fan design was better.
To me this looks like a more "infantilised" (for lack of a better term) version of the submitted project. And it won't blend as well with the other Castle sets.

So while the fan project was on my to-buy list, this version will definitely be a skip for me."

I think the 'better term' you're looking for is 'massively improved'.

This is one of the few sets that I want on Day 1! What a cool set. I liked the original submission, but I love the color change on the Dragon, and love all the details and I won't lie, I want the Mimic too! I grew up playing D&D and if I had more time on my hands I would play still, and hoping to pick up the hobby again, in the next few years.

But this is so cool! Colorful, beautiful, just stunning. A lot of sets I will wait or look for a sale, this one I will pay to have right away! Thank you Lego, I love this set and cant wait for the minifigures too!

I for one am not going to judge the original or bash Lego for making it into a profitable, stable, desirable set, while sticking close to original. Happy to be a fan today, and a fan of Lego. I hope they do well with this set. Thanks again Lego. I for one will buy it and be happy.

@legoverslinder said:
"One thing that worries me a bit about this set is the false advertising. It seems like you can't pose the dragon how it is on the box, without it falling over all the time. The dragon is not connected to the building in any way.
"

It looks to be propped up pretty well to me (with the front legs gripping the railing and the back legs presumably propped up by the lower ruined back of the tower). I guess we won't know for sure until people have it in-hand but I could definitely see it being able to be posed reliably that way even if not "attached" by studs or clips.

@HOBBES said:
"I am wondering if there is a rule at Lego that says: "no two adjoining bricks on the fan model can exist on the final model" It looks as if Lego has to redo the whole thing completely - why not only fix what does not meet their standard???

Anyhow, I kind of like it. (IMO) the inn and the dragon are worse than the proposed model. The rest is better. The dragon is fine (in fact, it is really nice) but the one proposed seemed to be much more posable and I really liked the idea of wrapping it around the tower - that made it look like it was stealthy and coming without anyone being aware of its presence - until it was too late."

I have doubts about whether the original dragon's joints would have supported its weight enough to hold that pose in real life, even with click hinges in its shoulders, hips, knees, and elbows — especially since it was submitted as a digital render rather than a photo. So I figure that stability was the main motive for the more extensive redesigns there.

Even so, the final version adds a lot of detail to the dragon, like the scaly textures on its neck, chest, and tail, and the clearly defined digits that make up its wing structure. And why NOT add detail in areas like these, the roof of the inn, or the blackened tree? Especially if "only the best is good enough"?

As for the structure/setting itself, I was honestly struck by how extremely faithful it is to the original project. The overall composition is almost exactly the same, to the extent that one might expect if both models were based on a pre-existing location from real life or scene from a movie!

On the far left, both versions have a small pier and a two-story inn with intersecting gable roofs, half-timbered walls, and a front door at a 45-degree angle to the main walls. Above is a rocky cliff face with conifer trees growing around it, supporting a tall, crumbling square tower with a balcony in front, a single surviving bartizan at its peak, and decorative quoins in its corners.

To the right of this is a central bridge supported by a single arch, which leads to a bastion (and many of the specific parts and building techniques used for the bridge and bastion are identical to those in the original project). Below are a sheer cliff, a steep stone staircase, and a large tree growing along a sandy coast. And in the very back is a spacious dungeon with a spiral staircase and some SNOTted stone formation — again, using many of the same parts/techniques as the original project.

All in all, these are a LOT fewer changes than many non-Ideas sets might undergo between prototype/sketch model and final product! Some colors, building techniques and proportions have changed, certainly (the finished build is considerably smaller, which is most obvious from the size of the openings in the back of the dungeon, the height of the arch bridge, and the size of some of the windows), but it adheres very closely to the features of the original model and the way they're arranged.

@djcbs said:
"Yet again, the fan design was better.
To me this looks like a more "infantilised" (for lack of a better term) version of the submitted project. And it won't blend as well with the other Castle sets.

So while the fan project was on my to-buy list, this version will definitely be a skip for me."

Is this comment auto-generated? I see a similar comment on nearly every post.

@GSR_MataNui said:
" @ol_bubba said:
"
According to the description on Lego product page the dragon will wrap around the tower. "a posable Cinderhowl the Red Dragon figure that can be wrapped around the tower.""

See they say that, but in all the official press photos only it's tail and possibly back legs are wrapped around while it's front legs and chest are always in this same... What would you call it. H pose? Lowercase n pose? Just standing on the bridge.

If the upper body and front limbs of the dragon could actually wrap around the tower why wouldn't they show it, and if it's only the back half that's not really "wrapped around" moreso "hiding behind"

"

Yeah, I don't see any "wrap around" happening with that dragon. The original had incredible articulation, and was able to crouch in poses used in a lot of the original artwork (see, the Dragonlance Chronicles covers).

I agree that this dragon lacks that, and is more like ALLLLLLL the other Lego dragons we get. They had a shot to do something special, and they bricked it!! ;)

For all those commenting that this should have been several smaller sets:
It was an Ideas contest. How would they take the winning Idea, then make it as several sets? Does the fan designer get each of the smaller sets, or what?
And isn't the whole idea of, well, "Ideas" to let fans show Lego what they'd like to see as a set? If not for the Ideas program, Lego D&D might never have happened.

This set is pretty much guaranteed 50% off at some point in time, if not more.

Medieval Village, DND Castle, and leaked Architecure Notre-Dame? Us medieval lovers are eating good this year.

@Legoninjas said:
"Medieval Village, DND Castle, and leaked Architecure Notre-Dame? Us medieval lovers are eating good this year."

Or you're eating dehydrated ramen packets...

@morvit said:
"This set is pretty much guaranteed 50% off at some point in time, if not more."

Alex, I’ll take “delusional” for $500.

@CamberbrickGreen in said:"It’s got an Elves vibe about it."

I wouldn't say so; Elves had a certain amount of whimsy that I don't see here.

@MegaBlocks said:"Niche set and theme. Will struggle to sell."

The most successful tabletop roleplaying game ever is not "niche."

@StyleCounselor said:"Lego, the only way you're going to get D1 money from over-saturated AFOLs like me is with a cool, exclusive tie-in GWP. It has to be better than the lame Tower Taxi, Venator patches, and DD Dice."

While I'm totally with you about the taxi (not a bad model in and of itself, but underwhelming as a GWP) and the patch (I, for one, prefer my GWPs to be sets), seeing the words "LEGO Dungeons & Dragons Mimic Dice Box" just made me regret even more that I don't have the space for this thing.

Greetings to all. Just signed up on this site after months of reading it on a daily basis. I have to say that this D&D set is what brought me back to LEGO after more than 45 years. Having seen the first articles about it at the early stage, I just had to have it and that got me interested in other sets. Suffice to say my wallet has taken a hammering over the last year or so! This set will be a Day 1 purchase for me and probably a Day 2 for my grand-daughter.

Thanks to all those who contribute and post on here for giving me a fascinating insight into this new world.

Yes, It's Expensive.

However, I don't think it's overpriced at all.

Those AFOL's looking for bargains, or price per piece, are missing the bigger picture. Namely, this is a complete D&D adventure jam packed with details and replayability.

Speaking as a Lego and D&D fan without a ton of discretionary "play" money, this will be my big purchase of the year. No regrets at all.

Let's tic off the boxes of what makes this set awesome:

-Customizable characters
-Multiple posable monsters for encounters
-Modular castle/dungeon/inn sections
-Many magical (and non-magical) items for storytelling
-The inclusion of a D&D Adventure manual for storytelling and play
-Based on a popular game system with character driven stories tied to books and movies.

Many D&D fans, myself included, have been using repurposed Lego minifigs for years as a visual device for adventure campaigns. Add to that the purchases/use of Castle and LOTR sets over the years to establish encounters and the price of this set is a deal for what you get.

Lego and D&D share some intrinsic DNA (imagination, open ended play, unfettered creative agency), and in my opinion, this set represents the best both have to offer.

@Amik said:
" @MaverickDengo said:
"As a DM and D&D lover, this set is everything I could have wanted. I actually didn't love the original submission, and I think the vibrant colors and dragon look much better here. I love that pretty much every classic monster has been represented (also a change from the original submission). It has an owlbear, gelatinous cube, displacer beast, beholder, mimic, treant (or just an animated tree), mushroom creatures (myconids?), and of course our heroes. Only creature I feel is missing is a mindflayer, but we're getting that in the fall CMFs, so I'm okay with its absence. It Looks like for the minifigs, it comes with multiple or double-sided heads to customize their gender?

I don't get the harping on the price. Sure, it's expensive, and I get that criticism, but the price-per-piece is at least reasonable. It's not like you're paying $360 for hardly anything."

Once you become too much theme-biased, your opinion on price point is just meaningless as your objectivity goes out of the window"

This doesn't seem a very fair comment - ultimately this is designed for D&D fans first and foremost. And everyone's opinions are subjective - someone with only a mild or total lack of interest in D&D also retains a subjective opinion on any set with the D&D theme, no matter how objective they feel that they're being.

@Amik said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @Amik said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @Amik said:
" @MaverickDengo said:
"As a DM and D&D lover, this set is everything I could have wanted. I actually didn't love the original submission, and I think the vibrant colors and dragon look much better here. I love that pretty much every classic monster has been represented (also a change from the original submission). It has an owlbear, gelatinous cube, displacer beast, beholder, mimic, treant (or just an animated tree), mushroom creatures (myconids?), and of course our heroes. Only creature I feel is missing is a mindflayer, but we're getting that in the fall CMFs, so I'm okay with its absence. It Looks like for the minifigs, it comes with multiple or double-sided heads to customize their gender?

I don't get the harping on the price. Sure, it's expensive, and I get that criticism, but the price-per-piece is at least reasonable. It's not like you're paying $360 for hardly anything."

Once you become too much theme-biased, your opinion on price point is just meaningless as your objectivity goes out of the window"

Oh boy, I wish I could dislike these types of comments here with a massive "thumbs down". This is just such an arrogant point of view. What you are basically saying is that the OP is blinded and basically will pay anything for what you probably see as a "quite average and too expensive" set, because he is a fanboy of the source material.

Let me turn that argument around: you just assume the set is way too expensive because you have zero affinity with the source material. But i bet that if LEGO would release something you would like, or be a fan of, then you would be a lot more willing to pay a bit of a premium, right?

Anyway: I notice quite a few comments, mostly from people from Central-Europe, who seem to not like the fact that a) the dragon is now red instead of dark green and b) the colours overall are too vibrant. Looking at these users I have the strong suspicion that most are not D&D fans, but rather just Castle or generic Fantasy fans. What they do not seem to grasp is that this is mostly a D&D set. And the main colour for D&D, and dragons in the D&D universe is... red. And if you look at other D&D material, especially of the last few decades, you will notice that it is all very vibrant. That distinguishes D&D from other Fantasy themes. And that explains the decisions made.
"

You have to cope harder snowflake. I'd pay $1k for UCS Millennium Falcon because, yeah, I am biased towards Star Wars. Therefore if I said that $1k price is valid for such a set, it would be meaningless as well. So no, $360 is not a good price no matter how many excuses you will find yourself to justify it. Same as paying $1k for a UCS set. Solidbrixstudios was right about this one.
"

OK, I think this is actually the first time on this forum that I have decided to block someone. There is zero need to start calling people names. That has no place here. I have also reported your comment to the moderators, btw. Hope they take the necessary action."

How do you survive in the real world lol, can't even handle little criticism online "
Who knew this set would come with a troll?

@yellowcastle said:
" @Amik said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @Amik said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @Amik said:
" @MaverickDengo said:
"As a DM and D&D lover, this set is everything I could have wanted. I actually didn't love the original submission, and I think the vibrant colors and dragon look much better here. I love that pretty much every classic monster has been represented (also a change from the original submission). It has an owlbear, gelatinous cube, displacer beast, beholder, mimic, treant (or just an animated tree), mushroom creatures (myconids?), and of course our heroes. Only creature I feel is missing is a mindflayer, but we're getting that in the fall CMFs, so I'm okay with its absence. It Looks like for the minifigs, it comes with multiple or double-sided heads to customize their gender?

I don't get the harping on the price. Sure, it's expensive, and I get that criticism, but the price-per-piece is at least reasonable. It's not like you're paying $360 for hardly anything."

Once you become too much theme-biased, your opinion on price point is just meaningless as your objectivity goes out of the window"

Oh boy, I wish I could dislike these types of comments here with a massive "thumbs down". This is just such an arrogant point of view. What you are basically saying is that the OP is blinded and basically will pay anything for what you probably see as a "quite average and too expensive" set, because he is a fanboy of the source material.

Let me turn that argument around: you just assume the set is way too expensive because you have zero affinity with the source material. But i bet that if LEGO would release something you would like, or be a fan of, then you would be a lot more willing to pay a bit of a premium, right?

Anyway: I notice quite a few comments, mostly from people from Central-Europe, who seem to not like the fact that a) the dragon is now red instead of dark green and b) the colours overall are too vibrant. Looking at these users I have the strong suspicion that most are not D&D fans, but rather just Castle or generic Fantasy fans. What they do not seem to grasp is that this is mostly a D&D set. And the main colour for D&D, and dragons in the D&D universe is... red. And if you look at other D&D material, especially of the last few decades, you will notice that it is all very vibrant. That distinguishes D&D from other Fantasy themes. And that explains the decisions made.
"

You have to cope harder snowflake. I'd pay $1k for UCS Millennium Falcon because, yeah, I am biased towards Star Wars. Therefore if I said that $1k price is valid for such a set, it would be meaningless as well. So no, $360 is not a good price no matter how many excuses you will find yourself to justify it. Same as paying $1k for a UCS set. Solidbrixstudios was right about this one.
"

OK, I think this is actually the first time on this forum that I have decided to block someone. There is zero need to start calling people names. That has no place here. I have also reported your comment to the moderators, btw. Hope they take the necessary action."

How do you survive in the real world lol, can't even handle little criticism online "
Who knew this set would come with a troll?
"

Great to know that some trolls think that calling someone a snowflake somehow is relevant criticism. I think @Amik and I have slightly different views on what is appropriate criticism and what is just childish name-calling.