DarkCrisis
Let her cook.
The literal prophesied exception to the rule.
The literal prophesied exception to the rule.
Apparently, Kender Wizards used to be a thing. Then they crashed a floating castle into a mountain causing a century of magical research to be lost, and the Towers decided to never teach Kender again.The literal prophesied exception to the rule.
Apparently, Kender Wizards used to be a thing. Then they crashed a floating castle into a mountain causing a century of magical research to be lost, and the Towers decided to never teach Kender again.
In classic Tower fashion, they just claimed Kender have no ability to wield magic.
The knight backgrounds/feats could easily be refluffed as a "chivalric knight" for other settings, such as Cormyr, or something Arthurian.but I imagine a lot of the subclasses and features are going to be more or less tied to the lore (Solamnic knights, for instance).
All it would take is someone to run a Dwarf Wizard in DL to make some folks eyes twitch.
I do expect to see a blurb in the book saying something to the effect of "traditionally, X, Y and Z aren't part of classic DL, but you can add them if you want."
If the world(s) didn't end when 3e opened up all classes to all races, Dragonlance can survive the same.
As much as I have no small amount of nostalgia for old-school class restrictions, I still remember the explosion of character ideas when I first cracked open the 3e PHB and saw that. I look forward to plenty of dwarven wizards and kender Knights of Solamnia.
It’s not that they didn’t/couldn’t get exist it’s just that typically they didn’t. And AD&D usually had you playing a “typical” whatever. A Dwarf Wiz may exist but they would be fairly unique as Dwarves (from a Dwarven kingdom) typically don’t trust arcane magic and it’s users.All it would take is someone to run a Dwarf Wizard in DL to make some folks eyes twitch.
I do expect to see a blurb in the book saying something to the effect of "traditionally, X, Y and Z aren't part of classic DL, but you can add them if you want."
I consider myself a younger player (mid 30's? Tell me if that's not young) but I plan to get this one. My group started playing D&D at the end of 4e so our collective dragonlance experience is really limited to those of us who have read the books.I think this is the first time I have seen "no" winning in a poll of this kind. And the reasons given are diverse. Might this product flop, or will younger players, underrepresented on this forum, and without an iron in the fire, swing it?
And that’s a fair way to handle it. If somebody wanted to run a chivalric knight in one of my non DL games I’d be fine with it; but since I’m otherwise lukewarm on the setting itself it probably won’t be enough to tempt me to buy it, but I am curious to read the reviews when it comes outThe knight backgrounds/feats could easily be refluffed as a "chivalric knight" for other settings, such as Cormyr, or something Arthurian.