Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Stormonu]

This changes the very nature of clerical spellcasting in 1e in a way that is not supported by, well, anything, really. I know that's four editions back, but that was the environment that Dragonlance was created in and for, and it's also applying a major screw to clerics in a way that I find verrrrry suspect.

The Dark Powers of Ravenloft replacing certain fallen cleric's abilities to gain spells was done back in 2E, but I can't think of it being done for the likes of FR, DL or any of the other campaign worlds.

 

[Faolyn]

The Dark Powers of Ravenloft replacing certain fallen cleric's abilities to gain spells was done back in 2E, but I can't think of it being done for the likes of FR, DL or any of the other campaign worlds.

Even then, it was up in the air as to whether or not the Dark Powers actually replaced the spells. It was definitely a strong possibility, but not an actual rule. Another option was that they merely perverted the spells.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is why I actually liked the later idea that it's the belief that grants the power rather than the diety.

Also explains weird stuff like how alignment determines your effect on undead even if the Chaotic Good god of fire doesn't care or the CE god of destruction sees undeath as an annoying intermediate step.

 

[Velderan]

Now that the dust has settled here, let me try a couple of thoughts.

@Velderan - I think it's fair to say that the gods are not allowed to directly intervene. Yes, you have avatars like Fizban or Astinus (sorry, dunno about Dougan, after my time) that appear in the story, sometimes parceling out a bit of exposition or comedic relief, but, at no point are they directly doing anything. They advise, they talk, but, they'd don't act. Which seems to be a fairly consistent thing in the series and yes, the Green Gemstone Man is what's preventing Takhisis from actually physically coming into Krynn. IIRC, though, it wasn't as an avatar - Takhisis wanted to actually directly manifest on Krynn. But, I'm very willing to be proven wrong there, it's been a while.

I only mentioned the examples of avatars because your post I quoted specifically said they did not have avatars. There definitely seemed to be a reason the good and neutral gods didn't do much beyond appearing in disguise. I'm not sure Takhisis was even allowed to come into the world in avatar form, she sorta appeared at the end of Dragons of Spring Dawning but iirc the description gave her a shadowy aspect like she wasn't fully able to project her avatar or something. It's been awhile since I've read the books though, so I might be a bit off there.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't. I want them to still have relevance, at least for Dragonlance.

PC's adventures don't need to revolve around them, but taking them out would be like dumping Luke, Leia, Han & Chewie from Star Wars.

nope, I want them to either be a foot note in history or an alternate reality... the game is about the PCs not the book characters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Even then, it was up in the air as to whether or not the Dark Powers actually replaced the spells. It was definitely a strong possibility, but not an actual rule. Another option was that they merely perverted the spells.

Well, the changes to spellcasting, regardless of the reason, in 2e and 3e Ravenloft were most definitely a rule.

 

[Velderan]

nope, I want them to either be a foot note in history or an alternate reality... the game is about the PCs not the book characters.

I think it's more of a campaign to campaign decision. If your group played through scenarios that were close to the books/original modules, then absolutely the book characters shouldn't even exist in your version of Krynn. If your campaign took place somewhere else while the main events of the books still happened, then it's fine for the book characters to still exist and be important figures. I've played a few campaigns set in Ansalon under both scenarios and didn't see an issue with our group doing "less important" stuff on the side while the book characters existed. Not every adventure has to be world changing to be enjoyable.

To the original point of this thread (I think.. lol), that's the main reason I'm not completely against them doing a different take on the War of the Lance and showing some events that focus on Solamnia while the Heroes of the Lance were having their adventures. If the campaign setting is any good, there's plenty of room for more events than just what Weis and Hickman wrote about.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think it's more of a campaign to campaign decision.

To be clear what I mean is In WotC published single books/boxset/bookset the campagin world should either just ignore the characters making them alternate reality, or set the setting post those books. At no point should a campagin book or adventure BOTH be set in the time of those books AND include the characters from the book in the main story.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be clear what I mean is In WotC published single books/boxset/bookset the campagin world should either just ignore the characters making them alternate reality, or set the setting post those books. At no point should a campagin book or adventure BOTH be set in the time of those books AND include the characters from the book in the main story.

Well, that is quite different from, "the books shouldn't count as part of the setting".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, that is quite different from, "the books shouldn't count as part of the setting".

again, they either need to be history, or alternate reality. Just like if I run a FR game(I wont) I don't want to deal with the Justice League of Midnight and the Mary Sue leader... I want my PCs to be the main focus. The Novels can be great reads, but in DL if the war of the lance is the main time of the setting let US be the heroes of the lance.