WotC Dragonlance: Everything You Need For Shadow of the Dragon Queen

WotC has shared a video explaining the Dragonlance setting, and what to expect when it is released in December.

World at War: Introduces war as a genre of play to fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons.

Dragonlance: Introduces the Dragonlance setting with a focus on the War of the Lance and an overview of what players and DMs need to run adventures during this world spanning conflict.

Heroes of War: Provides character creation rules highlighting core elements of the Dragonlance setting, including the kender race and new backgrounds for the Knight of Solamnia and Mage of High Sorcery magic-users. Also introduces the Lunar Sorcery sorcerer subclass with new spells that bind your character to Krynn's three mystical moons and imbues you with lunar magic.

Villains: Pits heroes against the infamous death knight Lord Soth and his army of draconians.

Notes --

• 224 page hardcover adventure
• D&D's setting for war
• Set in eastern Solamnia
• War is represented by context -- it's not goblins attacking the village, but evil forces; refugees, rumours
• You can play anything from D&D - clerics included, although many classic D&D elements have been forgotten
• Introductory scenarios bring you up to speed on the world so no prior research needed

 

[gorice]

I think it has more to do with they are better at making what they know will sell. Part of the wonderful diversity of TSR settings was that they were awful with their finances and undisciplined in market research.

According to an interview with one of the creators I once listened to, the only reason Dark Sun got made was that someone at TSR asked a room full of their staff who wanted to make a new setting. After stony silence from a room of burnt-out employees, the two newest hires put up their hands. There was no brief: they just made what they felt like (then got reined in a bit, sadly).

 

[The Perechon]

Not really. You literally can just not focus on the same things every time. Orcs and Minotaurs can just occupy different narrative space than they do in FR. You can bring Minotaurs and Hobgoblins to the forefront. Full stop. You don't need to do anything to anything else, you can just put them centerstage. You could make Hobs one of the top half dozen or so races that has impacted history.

Would it have been more clear if I had said "Removing or minimizing..." instead of just "removing..." to make the same point? Removing or minimizing the participation of orcs in a campaign world allows for other participants to have a greater share of the spotlight. Is it necessary to not have them? No, of course they could have been included and not important or not important in the first modules/novels. In this particular case, the creators consciously chose to not include orcs. I was simply commenting on the decision by the creators, as stated by one of them, to not include a typical D&D monster in their attempt to draw a distinction between their [then] new world and the already existing D&D setting(s). I was bringing it up because there were a number of messages on the thread that boiled down to "but why no orcs?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

You mean the type where there are actual setting details, and the world feels like real place and not a playground for any given group of PCs? That type?

Even though the book's not out, WotC has been pretty clear about what  they think Dragonlance is.

No they do, just not the restrictive type you do.

Anyway I fell people are assuming too much about a book that’s not out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

According to an interview with one of the creators I once listened to, the only reason Dark Sun got made was that someone at TSR asked a room full of their staff who wanted to make a new setting. After stony silence from a room of burnt-out employees, the two newest hires put up their hands. There was no brief: they just made what they felt like (then got reined in a bit, sadly).

That's awesome! I wish that sort of thing could still happen.

 

[Remathilis]

No, because all options = any settings, so it isn't contrary to War of the Lance. It is however contrary to the Krynn setting which had limitations that made it unique.

So a setting that has kender, draconians, Towers of High Sorcery, Knighthoods of Solomnia, moon magic, etc is just a Forgotten Realms clone because WotC refuses to remove half the Players Handbook options from the game? Lmao. That's like saying "why do we have Eberron? It's just forgotten realms plus robots."

 

[Dire Bare]

I was just thinking that about people who characterize TSR's entire output as "Tolkien+this thing."

But yeah, Radiant Citadel brought very little to the table (unless you want to be extremely parsimonious) that Planescape hadn't already done.

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten Realms, and Mystara don't stray far from Tolkienesque fantasy. Dragonlance, not much farther.

But you're right, TSR also gave us Birthright, Dark Sun, and Planescape. And all of the mentioned settings are glorious.

WotC gave us the Nentir Vale, another Tolkienesque setting. They also gave us Eberron!

In the current era, we are getting mostly rebooted classics from D&D and Magic's history, plus adaptations of Critical Role's setting. Not much in the way of fully realized, new settings.

But the recent Radiant Citadel book changes the game. Sure, it is a planar hub, but it's not just another planar hub! The citadel itself is pretty interesting and unique, but what makes the setting shine is the many micro-settings attached to it. Not a one being overly Tolkienesque. It's one of the best books WotC has put out for 5E.

 

[Maxperson]

So do you have any proof of this claim. Cause I see no evidence of this.

They've said it includes every option for players. What's the difference between one kitchen sink and another?

 

[Hussar]

I was hesitant about Radiant Citadel at first, mostly because I didn't care about it, but I've come around. It sounds like one the few decent pieces of design work put put under the WotC banner. I say it that way because was almost entirely written by freelancers. Not a ringing endorsement of WotC themselves beyond their freelance hiring practices.

Dude.

WotC hasn't written ANY of it's modules in house in decades. Or barely anyway. Virtually every adventure for 5e has been written by freelancers. And, frankly, that's been true since the early 3e days. You can't piddle on WotC for hiring freelancers to write this adventure when that's all they've ever done.

But, as far as the discussion over setting design goes, my take is this. WotC is refusing to do your work for you. You don't want orcs in Dragonlance? Fine. No problem. But YOU convince your players that this is a good idea. You can't use WotC anymore as a beat stick to tell your players, "Well, I'd let you be a half-orc, but, WotC says no, so, sorry." You, the DM, have to actually justify your preferences to your players and if you cannot do that, then, well, that's your problem.

Now, in the actual adventures? Guess what? They aren't going to feature half-orcs or tieflings or tabaxi. Look at those released images. How many tieflings do you see in those pictures? How many half-orcs? Because WotC isn't in the business of negative advertising. They're telling you, "Look, play in Dragonlance and you can be this or that really cool thing - a minotaur pirate or a moon-wizard or a kender." What they are not telling you is, "Hey, look at all these cool things you CAN'T be in this setting."

So, it will be just like Ghosts of Saltmarsh. It's set in Greyhawk. Very firmly set in Greyhawk. And, yup, there's a couple of pictures of dragonborn in the adventure art, but, guess how many dragonborn NPC's there are? Zero. There's exactly ONE NPC Tiefling, and she's from a land very far away that you will never visit in the scope of this campaign.

There won't be orcish strongholds in the new DL adventure. There won't be tiefling shopkeepers. There won't be dragonborn villages. YES, your players can play one of those things as far as WotC is concerned. But, they won't support it. Your tabaxi warlock will be the only tabaxi in the setting unless your DM decides to add more.

It utterly baffles me that people view world building in light of negatives. This setting doesn't have X or Y or Z. Who cares what the setting doesn't have? I don't run settings by what they exclude. I run settings based on the cool and interesting things they bring to the table. There's so much more to Dragonlance than what it excludes.

 

[Maxperson]

So a setting that has kender, draconians, Towers of High Sorcery, Knighthoods of Solomnia, moon magic, etc is just a Forgotten Realms clone because WotC refuses to remove half the Players Handbook options from the game? Lmao. That's like saying "why do we have Eberron? It's just forgotten realms plus robots."

I can literally have all of that in the Forgotten Realms, because it's a kitchen sink setting. What's actually unique to Krynn when it is also a kitchen sink setting now?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten Realms, and Mystara don't stray far from Tolkienesque fantasy. Dragonlance, not much farther.

But you're right, TSR also gave us Birthright, Dark Sun, and Planescape. And all of the mentioned settings are glorious.

WotC gave us the Nentir Vale, another Tolkienesque setting. They also gave us Eberron!

In the current era, we are getting mostly rebooted classics from D&D and Magic's history, plus adaptations of Critical Role's setting. Not much in the way of fully realized, new settings.

But the recent Radiant Citadel book changes the game. Sure, it is a planar hub, but it's not just another planar hub! The citadel itself is pretty interesting and unique, but what makes the setting shine is the many micro-settings attached to it. Not a one being overly Tolkienesque. It's one of the best books WotC has put out for 5E.

It looks like a very creative work. I just don't see it as representative of the company's output, largely due to the heavy freelance aspect. In short, Radiant Citadel seems like an aberration to me.