Dragonlance adaptation to D&D 5th Edition

Dragonlance adaptation to D&D 5th Edition

Thumbnail

Rating: 0
Favourites: 0

Report File

Dragonlance adaptation to D&D 5th Edition


File Information



Files   


Mirrors



XP Troy Plain gave XP for this post
A Dragonlance adaptation to the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons.
For a good understanding of this document´s content, you should have at least the Dungeon and Dragons Basic Rules and one of the many Dragonlance campaign setting books. We used the 3rd edition Dragonlance Campaign Setting as a general reference to write it.

Current version: 2.2

Uploaded 2.2 version:
-Corrected typos
-Corrected Thanoi Stat Block
-Corrected writing style in kender racial traits
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

  1. Bitbrain
    shouldn't the Death Throes' DC follow the standard 8 + proficiency bonus + relevant ability modifier?

    Also, why not just use the Duergar PC sub-race from Mordenkainen's and SCAG for the Daergar and Zhakar?

    Finally, I always got the impression that the Theiwar were less based upon the dwarves . . . and more on the Derro.
    They also need some kind of innate spellcasting at the very least, and I would argue that they should be a Charisma sub-class too, since they had a reputation as being deceitful and manipulative.
  2. PabloM
    Thanks for reading and to make time to comment Bitbrain. I´ll go part by part:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bitbrain View Post
    shouldn't the Death Throes' DC follow the standard 8 + proficiency bonus + relevant ability modifier?
    Yes, we considered it and finally established a fixed number looking for a faster pace in play (after all the magnitude´s Death Throes explosions not depends of any of the draconian character´s abilities, but a different threat). Considering the draconians are monsters AND PC races, we tried to maintain coherence between both. But definitely we are revising that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bitbrain View Post
    Also, why not just use the Duergar PC sub-race from Mordenkainen's and SCAG for the Daergar and Zhakar?
    In the first version of the Guide it was like you say. But revising the 3e Dragonlance Campaign Setting and Races of Ansalon we realized that the Duergar and the Daergar and Zhakar has little (or nothing) in common. With that books in mind we created a more accurate to Dragonlance version of the Dark Dwarves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bitbrain View Post
    Finally, I always got the impression that the Theiwar were less based upon the dwarves . . . and more on the Derro.
    They also need some kind of innate spellcasting at the very least, and I would argue that they should be a Charisma sub-class too, since they had a reputation as being deceitful and manipulative.
    You are right. We unificated all the Dark Dwarves clans in one subrace using, like I say above, the 3e Dragonlance Campaign Setting and the Races of Ansalon books as guides, but it is really a good idea to make an optional Theiwar subrace.
  3. Raunalyn
    When 5e first game out, I updated Draconians to 5e for my game and posted them in the Downloads section as well. A couple of your Draconians are very similar to mine.

    Good to see someone is interested as well. I do like that you made them into playable races as well; I never got that far into it.
  4. Ath-kethin
    Nice work; I particularly like Mystic as a background, though I could see a case being made for the Favored Soul.

    A few suggestions:

    On Page 4 (of the PDF) in your Languages sidebar, you refer readers to an out of print 3.5e sourcebook. Since it is unlikely that everyone has access to this book, I would remove the reference.

    On page 6 (of the PDF) I'd take another look at your wording for the kender's Taunt ability. I feel it could be clearer.
    - I actually really love your take on kender overall. The Pitiable trait for afflicted kender is just so sad. Well done! You may, however, want to spend a bit of text explaining the difference between True and Afflicted kender, for readers who are not as familiar with the setting and its lore.

    In several places: 5e graphic standards have spell names as lowercase and italicized. In your document, spell names are capitalized and not italic.

    On page 9 (of the PDF) under dragonarmies, it would be more helpful to list them as "formally dissolved in AC XXX" instaed of just "actually dissolved."

    Again, nice work.
  5. Raunalyn
    Might I make a suggestion regarding Moon Magic?

    Instead of increasing the DC of the caster's spells, allow them to cast those spells as if they were of a higher caster level. That, or allow the casters to count as a level higher (like they were in previous editions). While this doesn't allow them access to new spells when they are of a higher level, it will allow them to access to more spells and the ability to cast one of their known spells at a higher spell level.

    Just a thought.
  6. Irda Ranger
    Cool! I'm running a Dragonlance 5E campaign myself (set 300 years after DoSF). I just ignored the whole Age of Mortals/War of Souls timeline and branched off from DoSF.

    I’ll admit my approach was just to reskin or only lightly touch up the available 5E races and classes as much as possible. Phaethons (for instance) are just winged tieflings (per SCAG) with a few rules for their wings being made of fire (dim light, combust materials, etc.). Kender are just halflings, Tinker Gnomes are just rock gnomes, etc. Bakali are lizardmen from VGM. The recent UA rules for centaurs and minotaurs can be used as-is. PC draconians are the “natural born” descendants of the original dragonians and just use the 5E dragonborn stats. The death throes rules of “the firstborn draconians” make for good monsters but bad player characters IMO. It’s pretty obvious from all the Dragonlance references throughout the 5E books that 5E was designed with this approach in mind.

    Part of why I took this approach was laziness, but another part was that with the disappearance of the Greygem at the end of DoSF, it seemed reasonable that the madness of the gnomes, dwarves, gully dwarves, and kender would leave them, and you’d be left with the more toned down versions you find in the 5E PHB. Which make for more playable and less disruptive PCs, to be perfectly honest.

    Since I was making my own timeline though, and not attempting to publish a “faithful conversion”, I also wrote up how the War of Chaos and Takhisis’ repeated piercing of the Gray between Krynn and the Abyss resulted in sorcerers and warlocks making an appearance. Those are the only classes that really needed an explanation for appearing on Krynn.
  7. Pauln6
    Fun! I started converting the Heroes of the Lance, which is far easier in 5e than it was in 4e. They transfer over ok with their original stats, although picking the right sub-classes and feats is fun. Tika even got a write up as a fighter with her thieves' abilities being covered off with her background in 5e.
  8. PabloM
    Quote Originally Posted by Raunalyn View Post
    When 5e first game out, I updated Draconians to 5e for my game and posted them in the Downloads section as well. A couple of your Draconians are very similar to mine.

    Good to see someone is interested as well. I do like that you made them into playable races as well; I never got that far into it.
    Great! We used the 2e and 3e draconians as reference to make them as monsters and from there it was not difficult to think them as a race. I hope you can use our material to complement yours.
  9. PabloM
    Quote Originally Posted by Ath-kethin View Post
    Nice work; I particularly like Mystic as a background, though I could see a case being made for the Favored Soul.
    Thanks. We want to enhace the core book as the only book you need to play Dragonlance. But I think the Favored Soul is a perfect match for a Krynn Mystic too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ath-kethin View Post

    On Page 4 (of the PDF) in your Languages sidebar, you refer readers to an out of print 3.5e sourcebook. Since it is unlikely that everyone has access to this book, I would remove the reference.

    On page 6 (of the PDF) I'd take another look at your wording for the kender's Taunt ability. I feel it could be clearer.
    - I actually really love your take on kender overall. The Pitiable trait for afflicted kender is just so sad. Well done! You may, however, want to spend a bit of text explaining the difference between True and Afflicted kender, for readers who are not as familiar with the setting and its lore.

    In several places: 5e graphic standards have spell names as lowercase and italicized. In your document, spell names are capitalized and not italic.

    On page 9 (of the PDF) under dragonarmies, it would be more helpful to list them as "formally dissolved in AC XXX" instaed of just "actually dissolved."

    Again, nice work.
    Thanks a lot for the suggestion, all are welcome and I will try to incorporate in the next version of the document.
    About the difference between True and Afflicted kender I think you are right, and when we write the guide we added a little description in the "subrace" entry, but we didn´t to extend a lot more thinking in possible legal issues.
    It´s great you liked the Kenders!
  10. PabloM
    Quote Originally Posted by Raunalyn View Post
    Might I make a suggestion regarding Moon Magic?

    Instead of increasing the DC of the caster's spells, allow them to cast those spells as if they were of a higher caster level. That, or allow the casters to count as a level higher (like they were in previous editions). While this doesn't allow them access to new spells when they are of a higher level, it will allow them to access to more spells and the ability to cast one of their known spells at a higher spell level.

    Just a thought.
    Nice thought, but I´m afraid that I don´t follow you. The caster level in 5e is a diminished factor in comparison to spell slot used to cast a spell. In most spells you have to spend a higher spell slot to enhace the spell efects, so enhace the effective caster level it won´t necessarily enhace the spell.
  11. PabloM
    Quote Originally Posted by Irda Ranger View Post
    Cool! I'm running a Dragonlance 5E campaign myself (set 300 years after DoSF). I just ignored the whole Age of Mortals/War of Souls timeline and branched off from DoSF.

    I’ll admit my approach was just to reskin or only lightly touch up the available 5E races and classes as much as possible.
    Thanks! This document started with that approach too, and in fact we never wanted to get away from the core book as the only tool to play.

    In another vein, interesting time line you have...
  12. PabloM
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauln6 View Post
    Fun! I started converting the Heroes of the Lance, which is far easier in 5e than it was in 4e. They transfer over ok with their original stats, although picking the right sub-classes and feats is fun. Tika even got a write up as a fighter with her thieves' abilities being covered off with her background in 5e.
    Totally fun! We made this list, but we never actually passed from the first:

    Tanis: fighter (battle master), Folk Hero
    Raistlin: wizard (abjurer), Sage
    Caramon: fighter (champion), Folk Hero
    Sturm: fighter (cavalier), Knight
    Tas: Rogue (thief), Far Traveler
    Tika: Like the PHB
    Flint: fighter (champion), Guild Artesan
    Goldmoon: cleric (life), Noble
    Riverwind: barbarian (berserker), Outlander
    Laurana: fighter (baneret), Noble
  13. Pauln6
    Quote Originally Posted by PabloM View Post
    Totally fun! We made this list, but we never actually passed from the first:

    Tanis: fighter (battle master), Folk Hero
    Raistlin: wizard (abjurer), Sage
    Caramon: fighter (champion), Folk Hero
    Sturm: fighter (cavalier), Knight
    Tas: Rogue (thief), Far Traveler
    Tika: Like the PHB
    Flint: fighter (champion), Guild Artesan
    Goldmoon: cleric (life), Noble
    Riverwind: barbarian (berserker), Outlander
    Laurana: fighter (baneret), Noble
    Nice! I did a rough draft of Tanis and Laurana and I came to similar conclusions. Laurana had quite high stats and really benefits from the edition change. I suppose one option is to give her a built in stat boost instead of a feat. With his crap armour Tanis possibly lends himself more towards a ranged fighter. Tika in the novels is pretty much just a fighter so I think giving her thieves skills from her background is probably the best option. I wish there were more alternatives for the fighter subclasses but I suppose the tavern brawler feat would let Tika fight with her frying pan.
  14. Raunalyn
    Quote Originally Posted by PabloM View Post
    Nice thought, but I´m afraid that I don´t follow you. The caster level in 5e is a diminished factor in comparison to spell slot used to cast a spell. In most spells you have to spend a higher spell slot to enhace the spell efects, so enhace the effective caster level it won´t necessarily enhace the spell.
    Let's say I'm a 6th level wizard. My moon's in High Sanction. I now count as a 7th level wizard for the purposes of spell-casting. I don't get to learn any new 4th level spells, but I do get the extra spell slots associated with a higher level spellcaster, and I can cast my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells at 4th level if I am able to do so (since I have a 4th level slot).

    Let's say I'm a 7th level wizard now, and my moon is in Low Sanction. I effectively cast spells as a 6th level spellcaster, which means I lose access to 4th level spells.
  15. Irda Ranger
    Quote Originally Posted by PabloM View Post
    In another vein, interesting time line you have...
    Well I really didn’t like the Fifth Age stuff at all, so I just stopped reading the novels at that point. So I’m not personally vested in any of that and preferred the setting (and pre-Great Dragon geography) I knew.
  16. PabloM
    Quote Originally Posted by Raunalyn View Post
    Let's say I'm a 6th level wizard. My moon's in High Sanction. I now count as a 7th level wizard for the purposes of spell-casting. I don't get to learn any new 4th level spells, but I do get the extra spell slots associated with a higher level spellcaster, and I can cast my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells at 4th level if I am able to do so (since I have a 4th level slot).

    Let's say I'm a 7th level wizard now, and my moon is in Low Sanction. I effectively cast spells as a 6th level spellcaster, which means I lose access to 4th level spells.
    I understand, but I think while is a good idea, adds too unnecessary complexity to the game. The same effect (demonstrate the enhaced power of a Wizard in a High Sanction and the decrease of that power in a Low Sanction) can be done by adding or substracting a number to spell attack and save DC.
  17. PabloM
    Quote Originally Posted by Irda Ranger View Post
    Well I really didn’t like the Fifth Age stuff at all, so I just stopped reading the novels at that point. So I’m not personally vested in any of that and preferred the setting (and pre-Great Dragon geography) I knew.
    I don´t know anybody who really likes the 5th Age stuff. I made peace with it after reading the 3e era books. Cam Banks made a really good work.
  18. Ath-kethin
    Quote Originally Posted by PabloM View Post
    I don´t know anybody who really likes the 5th Age stuff. I made peace with it after reading the 3e era books. Cam Banks made a really good work.
    Most of the SAGA era books made the classic mistake of focusing on new characters I just couldn't get into. And while the War of Souls books were fine and arguably Weis & Hickman's highest-quality writing, they smacked hard of being exactly what they were: an attempt to lend legitimacy to the setting's return to D&D proper by way of its most respected authors.
  19. PabloM
    Quote Originally Posted by Ath-kethin View Post
    Most of the SAGA era books made the classic mistake of focusing on new characters I just couldn't get into. And while the War of Souls books were fine and arguable Weis & Hickman's highest-quality writing, they smacked hard of being exactly what they were: an attempt to lend legitimacy to the setting's return to D&D proper by way of its most respected authors.
    I agree. I quit reading the novels a long time ago (in fact I don´t think they are particularly good, even the Chronicles), but I keep playing in the setting understanding it as it is: a very good classic D&D setting. Thereby, reading the 3e books (Dragonlance Campaign Setting, Age of Mortals, Races of Ansalon, etc.) made me change my mind about the current time line (with little changes here and there of course).

    Anyway, it´s nice to realize there are some Dragonlance fans out there. The setting is far from dead, although is far form its best moment of popularity too.
  20. oreofox
    While I am not a fan of what came after Dragons of Summer Flame (wasn't really much a fan of that book, but it wasn't terrible), I liked what they did with the 3e Dragonlance books, including the content made based on the post War of the Lance timeline. I'm not sure what timeline you were going for with your conversion, but I assume the official one if you have a form of mystic as well as sorcerer. From my memory of reading the 3e books, they have good aligned draconians made from chromatic dragon eggs.

    As for your other races: I'd personally build the draconians off the dragonborn, make the evil dwarves use the duergar from Xanathar's, and I believe there's a derro race write-up in another book, and modify to fit how you see them. You also don't have the Dimernesti/Dargonesti sea elves. I'd go with the aquatic elf write-ups in Mordenkainen's, but add in the ability to change into a sea otter (dimernesti) and dolphin (dargonesti). If you wanted to add in those elves as a playable race for your write-up. Other than those, I think you've done a pretty good job.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Report File

Reason










Report Comment

Reason






Report Link

Reason