D&D 5E Vecna: Eve of Ruin Coming May 21st!

[Pentallion]

I do. Except the lore IP they own, I play my own game now, free of WotC to the extent I want to be.

Here's a thing I did to my 5e players: Took them to Greyhawk, where vampires drain levels, Rings of Protection have multiple plusses and poison is save or die.
They loved it.
What does that say?

 

[Pentallion]

"2. Dragonlance specifically doesn't contradict earlier lore. That's the whole point of the module."

What? I had to rewrite so much of that module for violating canon. SotDQ is terrible at lore.

 

[Hussar]

"2. Dragonlance specifically doesn't contradict earlier lore. That's the whole point of the module."

What? I had to rewrite so much of that module for violating canon. SotDQ is terrible at lore.

Considering virtually none of it actually touches on anything outside of that specific location, I have zero idea what you are talking about. The whole point of SotDQ is that it's self-contained. It doesn't touch on the larger War of the Lance and changes virtually nothing. You could run both the War of the Lance and SotDQ side by side and nothing would change in either module.

 

[Pentallion]

You mean except good clerics entering the world before Goldmoon retrieves the Disks? There was a lot more, but right now I'm not going to go dig it up.
How about letting the PCs find a dragonlance? Wasn't finding one and then learning how to forge new ones the ENTIRE POINT of the original campaign and how they had no idea such things existed until the heroes came back with one? But hey, let's give 'em one now.
But this is a thread about Vecna, and I got sidetracked by someone else's assertion so how about we just drop it and stick with Vecna?

 

[Hussar]

You mean except good clerics entering the world before Goldmoon retrieves the Disks? There was a lot more, but right now I'm not going to go dig it up.

Meh. Since you don't leave this specific area, and it doesn't actually change anything, who cares? But, sure, it's a massive change to the setting to have a couple of clerics wandering around doing stuff that no one actually hears about a couple of years before Goldmoon.

Yeah, that's certainly a "major" violation.

People get bent out of shape over the weirdest things.

 

[Pentallion]

Oh don't start that "bent out of shape" nonsense. YOU made the false claim that DL doesn't contradict earlier lore. Just admit you're wrong, it does. Wait, actually, you just did.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Oh don't start that "bent out of shape" nonsense. YOU made the false claim that DL doesn't contradict earlier lore. Just admit you're wrong, it does. Wait, actually, you just did.

Nah, it doesn't. That stuff is just there IF your table has a player that insists on playing a Cleric and the DM wants to let them. Then they can use it. Otherwise, they don't.

The adventure itself doesn't contradict lore, but YOU are free to use it to do so (if, like probably most players of modern D&D, you don't remember, don't know, or don't care about contradicting lore). I mean, clearly you-you DO, but you get my point.

For example: There's no Clerics in MY Dragonlance game. No Wizards either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, you got what you wanted for years, but, a few years ago, they expanded to start giving other people what they wanted, and you're annoyed? Yeah, we've been over this, that's true. But the fact that you keep insisting that stuff happened that actually hasn'T happened, is why we keep coming back to this.

1. Nothing in Spelljammer contradicts 2e Spelljammer in any meaningful way. Yeah, there's a couple of minor differences, but, lore wise? Nope, it's the same.

2. Dragonlance specifically doesn't contradict earlier lore. That's the whole point of the module.

3. Yup, it's a new take on Ravenloft. Ya got me there. One book out of the half dozen or so lore books for 5e actually does change stuff. Granted, it mostly changes stuff from 3e, none of which was canon and none of which was published by WotC, but, yup, it does change stuff.

What else? FR is largely unchanged. Greyhawk is certainly unchanged. They haven'T really dipped into any of the other settings, so none of them are changing. What is this "overtly messing with setting lore" that you keep talking about?

I stand by the lack of crystal spheres and phlogiston as a fundamental change in how Spelljammer was originally conceived. As is often the case with these discussions, you are saying, "not really much of a change" but meaning, "not a change I personally care about, and therefore of little importance".

Ravenloft was a massive change from every previous version of the setting (with the potential exception of the original module, and even that didn't clearly contradict later material like VRG did for everything prior to it).

The changes to Dragonlance and Planescape actually were for the most part minor and did little (although not nothing) to contradict earlier material, and thus I have little problem with either.

The issue as always is that it doesn't matter to you, so it doesn't matter. If you can't understand the problem with that, I don't know what to tell you. I don't recall constantly dismissing your feelings and opinions when you've expressed a concern about something in the hobby.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's a thing I did to my 5e players: Took them to Greyhawk, where vampires drain levels, Rings of Protection have multiple plusses and poison is save or die.
They loved it.
What does that say?

That I would probably like your play group?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Meh. Since you don't leave this specific area, and it doesn't actually change anything, who cares? But, sure, it's a massive change to the setting to have a couple of clerics wandering around doing stuff that no one actually hears about a couple of years before Goldmoon.

Yeah, that's certainly a "major" violation.

People get bent out of shape over the weirdest things.

Case in point.