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

 

[Stormonu]

I don’t know, to me it looks like there are a few people on here that just hate WotC and make ridiculous claims / accusations no matter what, facts (of which there aren’t all that many since the module is still over a month away) be damned

Not sure if these are OSR fans or what their stance is, but I am also not that interested in finding out.

I wouldn't assign malice to the dissenters, I think many are truly annoyed and have valid concerns what WotC is going to do with a beloved setting. Some may be using hyperbole to get their point across, others may be making assumptions or guesses at what WotC will do, but I wouldn't dismiss or attribute malice to them.

I've been a long-time fan, and mostly excited for what is coming. However, there was a time I gave up on Dragonlance - on SAGA and all that came with it - so I can understand folks being upset about possible changes WotC is going to again inflict upon Krynn once again. I'm not 100% on-board with the possible changes that might be made, but I welcome a 5E version and if I find anything I don't like (like I did with Ravenloft or Spelljammer), I can incorporate what I remember enjoying back into the setting. Having the old books to reference is a blessing as well. Mostly, I'm glad to see the 5E mechanics being converted for me and getting some new content - in the form of a new campaign adventure.

 

[R_J_K75]

That's why Orc's had number appearing in ranges like 30-300. That ability to scale the encounter to conduct mass combats was baked into the system from the get go.

Of course Gygax assumed prior wargaming experience for people to recognize that the system was set up this way to even pick up on this. Which most missed because it is inferred from how Gygax wrote the game - he never explicitly spells it out.

Interesting because I never picked up on this in 1E/2E. Battle Systems seemed kind of clunky from reading it and seemed that it took a bit of commitment to implement it into your AD&D games, so we never bothered. ICR exactly if Combat & Tactics included a mass combat system or not but we did implement some of the rules from that book for a while but even those were hard to pull off if you had a few casual players in the group. A streamlined mass combat system included in the core books would be nice as I think the reason, we (and probably many others) never used them, is because they were always another set of mechanics added onto the system instead of being correctly built into the core from the start.

 

[Stormonu]

I had that same impression myself that it is going to be similar to Battle Systems. I had the 1E and 2E versions, read them but we never used it. I also had and read the original Birthright box but again we never used it, it was just too far removed from traditional D&D for our group at the time. I think I see a pattern and if those trends continue, I'm questioning whether we will use the board game enough to justify the price. I'm glad I asked the question because talking about it has made me realize this.

Similar experience (I did play a little Battlesystem in 1E, though). I want to do some mass battles, but my last bout with that for our Saltmarsh campaign revealed to me that sentiment isn't shared with the rest of my group. I'd really advise folks that if they wouldn't buy the board game as a stand alone product, they really should take a pass on it for the RPG adventure.

 

[Remathilis]

I said that they were "...not as talented" - which is not the same thing at all as incompetent - they are just not as talented. I also said that they were "...incapable of doing anything better." You know, because of the whole not as talented thing...

So if I said you're "not as intelligent" that's not the same thing as saying "you're stupid", it's just saying your not as intelligent and incapable of getting smarter, because of the whole not as intelligent thing...

I'm sure you can see why that is still an insult, right?

You might disagree with WotC's current design principles, but you can do so in a way that isn't insulting or demeaning. Not agreeing with their decisions is not the same as saying they are uncreative or incapable of change.

Addendum: I am NOT saying you are or aren't intelligent, merely using the language to illustrate the point.

 

[Velderan]

Your alternate hypothesis has a flaw in your core assumption:

TSR settings sales numbers from Ben Riggs, starting with Lankmar, Maztica, Al-Qadim and Planescape!

Ben is releasing quite a few settings today so I thought I’d do a mega thread for those. I’ll update when things are posted. Lankhmar is one of my favorite things. In fact after The Hobbit it was among the first fantasy I read. In 1985, TSR produced Lankhmar: City of Adventure based on the...

www.enworld.org

Yes, we have sales data: So why then did they pick one of the more naughty word selling settings (Spelljammer) to revive? By your own criteria it will appeal to too small a subset of players.

Dark Sun was less naughty word than Spelljammer, yet it is nowhere to be seen. (Probably a good thing though...)

If not being a naughty word seller is the criteria; Then why haven't we seen an Oriental Adventures revival yet?




Don't put words in my mouth.

I said that they were "...not as talented" - which is not the same thing at all as incompetent - they are just not as talented. I also said that they were "...incapable of doing anything better." You know, because of the whole not as talented thing...

If they were just as, if not more talented, then why is WotC continually mining the back catalogue for content instead of introducing something new and original?

Having most of their adventures/AP's set in the 5e default setting of the forgotten realms is understandable. But aside from those: It's all a bunch of one and done nostalgia berry setting/Adventure books.

Yes, TSR put out some pants settings in their day. But they also put out the very fan favorite settings that WotC is continually mining for content to this day!

Where is the new original Setting that has captured everyone's attention? The follow up with AP's and new adventures due to popular demand?

Nowhere. That's where it is: Nowhere to be seen at all.

I absolutely stand by my assertion that WotC Worldbuilding is superficial. They have yet to do anything good or popular that has not been taken and re-worked from the TSR back catalogue.

How much of it is talent and how much of it is creative freedom to take a chance though? TSR was not a typical company by any definition and it sounds like their game designers were given a lot of freedom, meanwhile WotC is part of a massive publicly traded company with shareholders to answer to. I'm sure that's a big difference in how much freedom they have to experiment and they likely are under some level of pressure to produce things that will sell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

why? As the DM you are always free to make any change you want. WotC couldn’t provide a list of all allowed changes even if they wanted to / tried. Any change is allowed, always.

A sidebar explaining that this is a different Dragonlance from what was originally published and a broad review of what is and isn't different would be enough.

As long as they limit to to a high level overview and one page, fine, otherwise there is more important stuff to put into that section… I am sure the Internet will provide all the small changes in excruciating detail soon enough

A high-level overview and one page is fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wouldn't assign malice to the dissenters, I think many are truly annoyed and have valid concerns what WotC is going to do with a beloved setting. Some may be using hyperbole to get their point across, others may be making assumptions or guesses at what WotC will do, but I wouldn't dismiss or attribute malice to them.

I've been a long-time fan, and mostly excited for what is coming. However, there was a time I gave up on Dragonlance - on SAGA and all that came with it - so I can understand folks being upset about possible changes WotC is going to again inflict upon Krynn once again. I'm not 100% on-board with the possible changes that might be made, but I welcome a 5E version and if I find anything I don't like (like I did with Ravenloft or Spelljammer), I can incorporate what I remember enjoying back into the setting. Having the old books to reference is a blessing as well. Mostly, I'm glad to see the 5E mechanics being converted for me and getting some new content - in the form of a new campaign adventure.

See, to me the 5e conversion that Dragonlance nexus did in Tasslehoffs Pockets of Everything is more than good enough. I'm very glad I grabbed that before they pulled it; they said they're going to re-release it on DMsguild, but I'm afraid they might compromise it to align with WotC's work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How much of it is talent and how much of it is creative freedom to take a chance though? TSR was not a typical company by any definition and it sounds like their game designers were given a lot of freedom, meanwhile WotC is part of a massive publicly traded company with shareholders to answer to. I'm sure that's a big difference in how much freedom they have to experiment and they likely are under some level of pressure to produce things that will sell.

WotC definitely has less creative freedom than TSR, I agree.

 

[R_J_K75]

I'd really advise folks that if they wouldn't buy the board game as a stand alone product, they really should take a pass on it for the RPG adventure.

Probably good advice. I was looking at the picture for the contents of board game and I was thinking that it looks somewhat involved, lots of cards, tokens, etc. Switching from 5E to that to get the grand campaign experience is probably a bit cumbersome unless you have a good amount of experience in playing these type of modern board games. We don't.

 

[Jaeger]

So if I said you're "not as intelligent" that's not the same thing as saying "you're stupid", it's just saying your not as intelligent and incapable of getting smarter, because of the whole not as intelligent thing...

I'm sure you can see why that is still an insult, right?

If I tell you that you are not as smart as someone like Stephen Hawking; is that an insult?

Not saying that the TSR creatives were all world building Stephen Hawkings! LOL... An exaggerated example for sure!

But we do have two groups of creatives, separated by enough time, to be able to make a proper value judgement of their respective works at their peaks.

One group is largely cribbing from the others past creations. And when turned loose creatively, their efforts have not been in the same league.

So yeah, not as talented...

You might disagree with WotC's current design principles, but you can do so in a way that isn't insulting or demeaning. Not agreeing with their decisions is not the same as saying they are uncreative or incapable of change.

The problem here is that their creative decisions go hand in hand with their ability to execute. Obviously, I am not a fan of their current efforts.

How much of it is talent and how much of it is creative freedom to take a chance though? TSR was not a typical company by any definition and it sounds like their game designers were given a lot of freedom, meanwhile WotC is part of a massive publicly traded company with shareholders to answer to. I'm sure that's a big difference in how much freedom they have to experiment and they likely are under some level of pressure to produce things that will sell.

Now this is a legit point. And I would otherwise be inclined to agree that the current team might be operating under a large degree of creative restraint.

Except for the fact that in my opinion; their existing creative track record of many years 're-imaginig' older IP like Nu-Ravenloft, and the introduction of the new setting Radiant Citadel, very much failed to impress to put it mildly.