Dragonlance What do you want from a Dragonlance 5e?

[Tony Vargas]

But, in any case, there just aren't that many dragons in modules. That baby white dragon in, ah bugger, that intro module for 3e.

Calcryx, in Sunless Citadel. Almost as memorable as Meepo.
And Forge of Fury featured a black dragon.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1E I don't think the game was really designed for level 10+

Can't say for sure. The class/level/spell-progression tables sure went past 10th... and 20th, for that matter.... 2e seemed to cap at 20, not 10, but didn't appreciably change anything that might've made higher levels work better.

But, 3e they prettymuch admitted they didn't bother much with playtesting or anything beyond level 10, because, 'people don't play high level' (yeah, because the game doesn't work at high level - sure, because it doesn't need to because people don't...). And, of course, E6 was a popular variant that lopped off higher level issues.

In spite of that, the MI in BECMI went to very high levels, 3e had PrCs with high preqs that became available at high level, and the Epic Level Handbook (whatever one may have thought of it), and 4e, it's tight balance holding up to high level play, replaced those with Paragon Paths at double-digit levels, and added Epic Destinies beyond 20th.

And, 5e the exp progression vs the encounter guidelines reveals a game that's designed to level faster (not take as long to get through) at levels 1-4 and 12+, recognizing the 'sweetspot' where people actually play (ie the game sucks less), between 4 and 12.

Yet, the heavy use of dragons and the themes of Dragonlance seem to cry out for high level play. No? And, it also seems to have setting-specific organizations, (moon) magic, and the like that, in 5e, would usually be baked into some sub-class, starting at low level...

Could be an opportunity to add back Prestige Classes.

 

[Zardnaar]

Can't say for sure. The class/level/spell-progression tables sure went past 10th... and 20th, for that matter.... 2e seemed to cap at 20, not 10, but didn't appreciably change anything that might've made higher levels work better.

But, 3e they prettymuch admitted they didn't bother much with playtesting or anything beyond level 10, because, 'people don't play high level' (yeah, because the game doesn't work at high level - sure, because it doesn't need to because people don't...). And, of course, E6 was a popular variant that lopped off higher level issues.

In spite of that, the MI in BECMI went to very high levels, 3e had PrCs with high preqs that became available at high level, and the Epic Level Handbook (whatever one may have thought of it), and 4e, it's tight balance holding up to high level play, replaced those with Paragon Paths at double-digit levels, and added Epic Destinies beyond 20th.

And, 5e the exp progression vs the encounter guidelines reveals a game that's designed to level faster (not take as long to get through) at levels 1-4 and 12+, recognizing the 'sweetspot' where people actually play (ie the game sucks less), between 4 and 12.

Yet, the heavy use of dragons and the themes of Dragonlance seem to cry out for high level play. No? And, it also seems to have setting-specific organizations, (moon) magic, and the like that, in 5e, would usually be baked into some sub-class, starting at low level...

Could be an opportunity to add back Prestige Classes.

The monsters didnt really exist to support high level okay. Lolth 66 go, Balors 8+8 HD.

Wasn't until MM2 they started adding in really nutty stuff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Can't say for sure. The class/level/spell-progression tables sure went past 10th... and 20th, for that matter.... 2e seemed to cap at 20, not 10, but didn't appreciably change anything that might've made higher levels work better.

But, 3e they prettymuch admitted they didn't bother much with playtesting or anything beyond level 10, because, 'people don't play high level' (yeah, because the game doesn't work at high level - sure, because it doesn't need to because people don't...). And, of course, E6 was a popular variant that lopped off higher level issues.

In spite of that, the MI in BECMI went to very high levels, 3e had PrCs with high preqs that became available at high level, and the Epic Level Handbook (whatever one may have thought of it), and 4e, it's tight balance holding up to high level play, replaced those with Paragon Paths at double-digit levels, and added Epic Destinies beyond 20th.

And, 5e the exp progression vs the encounter guidelines reveals a game that's designed to level faster (not take as long to get through) at levels 1-4 and 12+, recognizing the 'sweetspot' where people actually play (ie the game sucks less), between 4 and 12.

Yet, the heavy use of dragons and the themes of Dragonlance seem to cry out for high level play. No? And, it also seems to have setting-specific organizations, (moon) magic, and the like that, in 5e, would usually be baked into some sub-class, starting at low level...

Could be an opportunity to add back Prestige Classes.

No. The focus on Dragons in DL very specifically calls out for keeping the game low to mid level.

The point is that there is basically no one that can stand up to a dragon solo. That’s why you need the lances. That’s why you need good dragon allies. Because you cannot win without them. Period. The heroes are not enough on their own. It is not a setting where you can win without allies and resources.

All of that disappears when you hit high levels.

 

[Zardnaar]

No. The focus on Dragons in DL very specifically calls out for keeping the game low to mid level.

The point is that there is basically no one that can stand up to a dragon solo. That’s why you need the lances. That’s why you need good dragon allies. Because you cannot win without them. Period. The heroes are not enough on their own. It is not a setting where you can win without allies and resources.

All of that disappears when you hit high levels.

In a modern setting each PC learns to ride a young Dragon and gets a Dragonlance a lot earlier than 5E default expectation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No. The focus on Dragons in DL very specifically calls out for keeping the game low to mid level.
That’s why you need the lances. That’s why you need good dragon allies. Because you cannot win without them.
...
All of that disappears when you hit high levels.

So, it was essentially a high-level (high power?) setting, with high-power foes, but actively avoided high-level PC? Instead boosting them with allies & magic items?

Well, that certainly supports Zard's assertion of D&D not being intended for high level, back then.

In a modern setting each PC learns to ride a young Dragon and gets a Dragonlance a lot earlier than 5E default expectation.

There's not really a default 5e expectation, is there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There's not really a default 5e expectation, is there.

Yes, there is. The DMG has advice, Xanathar’s has a table spelling it out explicitly, etc.

There are default assumptions regarding magic items and NPC allies. They aren’t spelled out explicitly (except for magic items by level in XGTE), but they’re right there in what levels you can get things via spells, what is and isn’t available via hirelings and such, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, there is. The DMG has advice, Xanathar’s has a table spelling it out explicitly, etc.

Well, I'd be sad to see that degree of freedom go...

5e design is meant to be without the assumption of wealth/level or make/buy, that is, magic items can't be expected, either by a given level or to shore up a weakness, so the class/monster designs & encounter guidelines, play dynamics, etc, are all before any impact of items. Creating that expectation would, at best shift those factors.

...ie, if it were ever taken as seriously as in 3e & 4e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, I'd be sad to see that degree of freedom go... ...ie, if it were ever taken as seriously as in 3e & 4e.

Well that’s the good thing about the default assumptions not being actual rules. Deviation from them isn’t a houserule, it’s just part of the game.

 

[Hussar]

No. The focus on Dragons in DL very specifically calls out for keeping the game low to mid level.

The point is that there is basically no one that can stand up to a dragon solo. That’s why you need the lances. That’s why you need good dragon allies. Because you cannot win without them. Period. The heroes are not enough on their own. It is not a setting where you can win without allies and resources.

All of that disappears when you hit high levels.

I'm not sure I agree with this actually. If we're looking at the modules, the first module of, what, 13, 14 modules, starts at 5th level. (Well, the range is 4-6). The series ends at 10-14th level. By 1e standards that is certainly not low to mid level. That's mid to high level.

There were no "zero to hero" stories in Dragonlance. The Heroes of the Lance started out as pretty established heroes before the first module starts. Raistlin has already passed his test of magic, Kitiara is a dragon highlord, that sort of thing.

Now, it's true, you STILL can't do things on your own, simply because the forces you are facing are so overwhelming. Yup, you're a 12th level party, but, you are facing dozens, if not hundreds, of dragons and entire armies. You need armies of your own to deal with the threats. Which meant that the heroes are intended to lead those armies. Which, in turn, generally means that the heroes aren't low level.