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

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, here's the thing. They are not erasing the original. They are RESETTING to the original. You are the one insisting on changes to the lore by insisting that later stuff be included in the reset. All those things you are insisting on were NOT PART OF THE SETTING until years later.

Same goes for Ravenloft. They reset Ravenloft to the original. Barovia only, no Dark Powers, no Domains of Dread, none of that later stuff that changed the setting.

This is exactly the same as the originally published Dragonlance - or at least FAR closer to it than what you are advocating. So, why should they have a sidebar? All that stuff you're insisting on came later (and a lot of it MUCH later) than the original setting. It's pretty hypocritical to insist on sidebars explaining that this is different Dragonlance when it actually isn't.

Because all those things are part of the setting. It expanded over time to include new things, without invalidating earlier ones. If they're going to ignore everything published after the original modules, you should acknowledge the work you no longer care about.

Also, I don't recall the original Ravenloft module being any more than Barovia. A vaguely connected scattering of misty islands, physically separated, was never how Ravenloft was designed. As soon as there were other domains (outside of a brief and strange flirtation with Mordent), there was a Core.

 

[DarkCrisis]

But, here's the thing. They are not erasing the original. They are RESETTING to the original. You are the one insisting on changes to the lore by insisting that later stuff be included in the reset. All those things you are insisting on were NOT PART OF THE SETTING until years later.

Same goes for Ravenloft. They reset Ravenloft to the original. Barovia only, no Dark Powers, no Domains of Dread, none of that later stuff that changed the setting.

This is exactly the same as the originally published Dragonlance - or at least FAR closer to it than what you are advocating. So, why should they have a sidebar? All that stuff you're insisting on came later (and a lot of it MUCH later) than the original setting. It's pretty hypocritical to insist on sidebars explaining that this is different Dragonlance when it actually isn't.

No its a not a "reset". If so it would like like it did in 1st ed. WotC has said its a "Reimagining". That's their words.

 

[Hussar]

Because all those things are part of the setting. It expanded over time to include new things, without invalidating earlier ones. If they're going to ignore everything published after the original modules, you should acknowledge the work you no longer care about.

Also, I don't recall the original Ravenloft module being any more than Barovia. A vaguely connected scattering of misty islands, physically separated, was never how Ravenloft was designed. As soon as there were other domains (outside of a brief and strange flirtation with Mordent), there was a Core.

But, it absolutely did invalidate earlier ones. There was no reason you couldn't have orc, say, in the original modules, nor any reason you couldn't play a half-orc. And, you absolutely could not play a draconian. Only, that was changed in 3e. Nor could you play a dwarven wizard. Oh, but, that was changed TEN YEARS after the setting was released. On and on and on.

Why are you invalidating my play experience?

The original Ravenloft setting was Barovia. Full stop. There was nothing else, and Barovia could be set in any setting. Again, why are you insisting on invalidating my play experiences?

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, it absolutely did invalidate earlier ones. There was no reason you couldn't have orc, say, in the original modules, nor any reason you couldn't play a half-orc. And, you absolutely could not play a draconian. Only, that was changed in 3e. Nor could you play a dwarven wizard. Oh, but, that was changed TEN YEARS after the setting was released. On and on and on.

Why are you invalidating my play experience?

The original Ravenloft setting was Barovia. Full stop. There was nothing else, and Barovia could be set in any setting. Again, why are you insisting on invalidating my play experiences?

Play what you want. But the setting should reflect the work that has been put into it over its history, or it should explicitly, in the text, say that it doesn't. Ravenlift didn't do that. Soelljammer didn't do that. There is every possibility that Dragonlance won't do that either.

 

[mamba]

Play what you want. But the setting should reflect the work that has been put into it over its history, or it should explicitly, in the text, say that it doesn't. Ravenlift didn't do that. Soelljammer didn't do that. There is every possibility that Dragonlance won't do that either.

If they simply jump back in time, then nothing that happens later is invalidated, e.g. the whole Heroes of the Lance and Age of Mortals stuff can happen regardless.

Bringing the setting up to 5e standards on top of that is pretty much a given, anything else would be a surprise. So if that is your problem, because now we have Sorcerers and Bards and what have you, then maybe you should go back to 1e or 2e altogether. You cannot reasonably expect them to not properly support their own current version of the game.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Every new version of a setting is a reimagining. Let's take Ravenloft. No, not that one. The one that added native PC rules, four new classes, a never before heard of race, and then removed three classes from playable options. That was Domains of Dread, made in 1997 by TSR, that reimagined Ravenloft from a bunch of weekend in Hell places to a place PCs could actually be from, a radical notion that people claimed ruined the original intent of the setting.

People said that of From the Ashes. For the Revised Dark Sun box. For the 3e Dragonlance book with by Weiss. For the 3e Ravenloft books by Arhaus, or the 4e Dark Sun books. Every setting gets reimagined. If it didn't, why would we need to rebuy the books?

You seriously think anyone has a problem with a sort of "reimagining' that is 100% compatible with what goes before? Let's not get all facetious here, we all know what Micah Sweet is referring to and what is objection is.

Let's take the book that WoTC put out recently with the word Ravenloft on it.

Falkovnia and Valachan, to name two domains are so completely different from what they were before they literally share nothing in common with their previous incarnations than their names. The amount of work to use any previous edition lore in those places is so total that you might as well not bother. Particularly egregious since Valachan had more adventures set in it than any other Domain (thanks to Dungeon magazine) but the chances of Felkovic's Cat being playable in 5E Valachan and making any sense at all are basically nil.

The only WoTC employee to have experience in classic Ravenloft, ironically is Chris Perkins, but his 2E adventure, Horror's Harvest, is likewise set in a version of Falkovnia that no longer exists. Sort of funny, I guess.

Sure, maybe you think this "doesn't matter". That's your perogative. Others disagree. What I seem to be seeing here is a willful decision to not even understand the objection Micah_Sweet is making! Strip away what was there before and go for an in-name-only Dragonlance...why bother?

 

[vecna00]

Play what you want. But the setting should reflect the work that has been put into it over its history, or it should explicitly, in the text, say that it doesn't. Ravenlift didn't do that. Soelljammer didn't do that. There is every possibility that Dragonlance won't do that either.

I honestly don't think that it ever will. For better or for worse. Not everyone will get what they want, but there is plenty of material already written if that's what you want to use.

As you say, "Play what you want."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Strip away what was there before and go for an in-name-only Dragonlance...why bother?

This is the problem. It’s isn’t “in name only”, it’s Dragonlance. It’s the dragon armies of Takhisis invading the lands of Ansalon as the first act of an active and present god since the Cataclysm, to be opposed by the Knights of Solamnia, and someone really needs to try and convince the damn elf kingdoms and the dwarves to help but barring that we need heroes and we need to find or reforge the one weapon that allowed mortals to defeat dragons in ancient days, the Dragonlances.

All the cultures are the same. The gods are the same. The history leading up to the war is the same. You could build the heroes using the 5e rules.

Like…they’re maybe not going to state explicitly that there aren’t orcs or Drow, and they likely won’t mention fully dwarves at all, and maybe they’ll “Star Wars EU” the gods coming back and add in that this or that god called some clerics and paladins around the same time as Goldmoon was called.

None of that lessens how much it’s Dragonlance!

 

[Hussar]

Play what you want. But the setting should reflect the work that has been put into it over its history, or it should explicitly, in the text, say that it doesn't. Ravenlift didn't do that. Soelljammer didn't do that. There is every possibility that Dragonlance won't do that either.

Why? Is someone going to be surprised that they don't explicitly describe the changes? Seriously? You think someone's going to come into 5e Dragonlance, and expect it to be nothing more than an updated restatement of 40 years of lore? Why would I bother buying that? I HAVE that.

And, again, why are you insisting that people must only have the same experience as you? Someone coming into Dragonlance new doesn't give a toss about Taladas. They've never heard of it. It doesn't exist as far as they know. So, not talking about it in the remake doesn't change their experience. Why are you insisting that people need to read thousands of pages of setting lore before they can play in an existing setting?

You seriously think anyone has a problem with a sort of "reimagining' that is 100% compatible with what goes before? Let's not get all facetious here, we all know what Micah Sweet is referring to and what is objection is.

Let's take the book that WoTC put out recently with the word Ravenloft on it.

Falkovnia and Valachan, to name two domains are so completely different from what they were before they literally share nothing in common with their previous incarnations than their names. The amount of work to use any previous edition lore in those places is so total that you might as well not bother. Particularly egregious since Valachan had more adventures set in it than any other Domain (thanks to Dungeon magazine) but the chances of Felkovic's Cat being playable in 5E Valachan and making any sense at all are basically nil.

The only WoTC employee to have experience in classic Ravenloft, ironically is Chris Perkins, but his 2E adventure, Horror's Harvest, is likewise set in a version of Falkovnia that no longer exists. Sort of funny, I guess.

Sure, maybe you think this "doesn't matter". That's your perogative. Others disagree. What I seem to be seeing here is a willful decision to not even understand the objection Micah_Sweet is making! Strip away what was there before and go for an in-name-only Dragonlance...why bother?

What's a "Falkovnia"? What's a "Valachan"? These words do not appear in my Ravenloft adventure that I played back in the 80's. Why are you insisting that I have to learn about thirty year old material that I never bothered with back in the day in order to play in a Ravenloft that is acceptable to you?

Again, WotC reset the setting. They did EXACTLY what people wanted them to do - no meta-plot, not changing lore, nothing. They reset the setting. If you want to run adventures set in Falkovnia, go right ahead. Nothing is stopping you. In fact, a very quick Google Search on DM's Guild shows that there are setting guides for Falkovia for sale right now. You get 100% what you want and I get what I want. What's the problem here?

WotC has been very clear all the way along. Right since day 1 of 5e. They are resetting the game to it's baseline. That's why no settings have advanced a timeline. That's why there aren't any setting guides any more. Because all the setting guides do is create great big barriers and walls with canon police guarding the gates to make sure that any change is met with endless finger wagging.

People WANTED D&D to go back to the beginning. They rejected 4e's changes and insisted that D&D get back to its roots. Well, you don't get any more root than this. THIS is how D&D worked back in the early days. No setting guides (remember that the actual setting guide for Dragonlance came out years after the setting was first produced), same with Ravenloft. The settings are presented in modules. That's how Greyhawk was presented. That's how what would become the Known World was presented. That's how Dragonlance, Ravenloft and every other setting was presented.

Welcome to the new days, same as the old days.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? Is someone going to be surprised that they don't explicitly describe the changes? Seriously? You think someone's going to come into 5e Dragonlance, and expect it to be nothing more than an updated restatement of 40 years of lore? Why would I bother buying that? I HAVE that.

And, again, why are you insisting that people must only have the same experience as you? Someone coming into Dragonlance new doesn't give a toss about Taladas. They've never heard of it. It doesn't exist as far as they know. So, not talking about it in the remake doesn't change their experience. Why are you insisting that people need to read thousands of pages of setting lore before they can play in an existing setting?


What's a "Falkovnia"? What's a "Valachan"? These words do not appear in my Ravenloft adventure that I played back in the 80's. Why are you insisting that I have to learn about thirty year old material that I never bothered with back in the day in order to play in a Ravenloft that is acceptable to you?

Again, WotC reset the setting. They did EXACTLY what people wanted them to do - no meta-plot, not changing lore, nothing. They reset the setting. If you want to run adventures set in Falkovnia, go right ahead. Nothing is stopping you. In fact, a very quick Google Search on DM's Guild shows that there are setting guides for Falkovia for sale right now. You get 100% what you want and I get what I want. What's the problem here?

WotC has been very clear all the way along. Right since day 1 of 5e. They are resetting the game to it's baseline. That's why no settings have advanced a timeline. That's why there aren't any setting guides any more. Because all the setting guides do is create great big barriers and walls with canon police guarding the gates to make sure that any change is met with endless finger wagging.

People WANTED D&D to go back to the beginning. They rejected 4e's changes and insisted that D&D get back to its roots. Well, you don't get any more root than this. THIS is how D&D worked back in the early days. No setting guides (remember that the actual setting guide for Dragonlance came out years after the setting was first produced), same with Ravenloft. The settings are presented in modules. That's how Greyhawk was presented. That's how what would become the Known World was presented. That's how Dragonlance, Ravenloft and every other setting was presented.

Welcome to the new days, same as the old days.

Well, I never wanted that, for my part.

If you're right about what they're doing, it is essentially ignoring decades of progress. I never wanted that.