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

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Just a few posts ago you complained about page sizes and now you want to add suggestions for all races that do not appear in Dragonlance for no real reason.

No. I suggested a catch-all like the Anvilwrought and Nyxborn Boons or a quick mention of the fact that the D&D Multiverse exists. Not an itemized list of which races from 5e do and don't exist in the setting.

Hey, we finally got @Levistus's_Leviathan comprising. I'm content at this point.

Maybe there was some miscommunication, but that was my position from the beginning.

Also, you've been making quite a few personal attacks during this tangent that I'm not comfortable with. If we're going to converse again in the future, you're going to need to stop.

 

[Remathilis]

Theros.

Guest setting using the D&D rules. Interesting that the only settings with any sort of restriction are based on non-D&D IPs?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Using the lore to support the argument that Orcs have been theoretically able to travel to Krynn for decades does not contradict my stance that the setting can and should change to fit a more modern audience.

It's not just a "preference" if it's proven that it can be done well.

I purposely didn't mention the "can sentient creatures be restricted in alignment by race" debate on purpose to avoid further derailment of the thread. To be clear, I do have a problem with Draconians being sentient if they're meant to be hoards of always hostile monsters, but I was pointing out that the primary role of the Orcs of Lord of the Rings and early D&D was filled with Draconians. I wasn't remarking on the ethics of that decision.

I don't know I wasn't the one that started the specific tangent about Orcs.

Almost all of those depend on the Cosmology. If they're using the 5e Great Wheel, I see no reason why Genasi, Tiefling, Aasimar, Gith and possibly Aarakocra wouldn't exist (but still be very rare). Yuan-Ti need snake gods/cults to exist, which I don't think exist on Taladas. Giff can get there through the Astral Sea.

Personal preferences have absolutely nothing to do with whether they have been "proven that they can done well".

 

[Remathilis]

What if the DM doesn't want that character concept to exist in their campaign? It seems to me that you're saying they should do it anyway if the players (or even one player) wants it..

Then the DM has to put on their big boy/big girl pants and tell the player "no" rather than hide behind WotC's skirt and say "according to the sidebar on page 229, no orcs, aarakroca or tabaxi in Krynn. Not my fault, blame WotC."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd agree that doesn't make much sense in a 224 page 5E book just because there's so much more to cover. Back in 1E, it was much more concise to have 2 sentences explaining the PHB stuff that isn't known.


That probably makes more sense to at least give DMs an idea of what is typcal in the region SotDQ takes place in. Schneider mentions an optional scenario where the party encounters draconians for the first time and people might not believe them until it's too late. If dragonmen are strange and unbelievable, why wouldn't the same logic apply to tabaxi, tiefling, or orcs?

Well, draconians do have an established origin and place in the world, which your other examples lack. They could certainly be one-of-a-kind oddities, but then the player has to deal with the social implications of that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In D&D, settings are additive. They take the base vanilla game and add options and themes. Eberron adds magi-tek and dragonmarks. Ravenloft adds dark fantasy and horror options. Etc.

Subtractive design, where things are defined by what is removed from the base game, is a style that has gone out of fashion. And that makes sense; would you buy a video game that removes characters from the game? Would you buy a board game that explicitly forbids you to use other expansions with it? No. That's silly. And to prove it, ask anyone to describe what makes Dragonlance what it is, and I guarantee that "no orcs or drow" won't be in the top 10.

Settings support the core game, not vice versa.

I'd buy a video game that didn't include every character from every other video game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

What if the DM doesn't want that character concept to exist in their campaign? It seems to me that you're saying they should do it anyway if the players (or even one player) wants it.

Well, ideally the player would have chosen to make a character geared towards the setting the table agreed on playing. But if that doesn't happen, then you compromise. You meet in the middle. One of my players wanted to play a Strength-based Sumo-Wrestler Firbolg Monk in my Eberron campaign, which doesn't really fit the setting (Firbolg have no canon origin, there's not really an Eberron equivalent of Sumo-Wrestling, Monks are practically forced into focusing on Dexterity), but we eventually found a middle-ground that fit the world better and was mechanically feasible for a monk.

I'm fine with adding a weird one-off PC to an established setting (although it is NOT my preference)

So, you're not fine with it, based on that all-caps "NOT" there.

but that PC is going to have a hard row to hoe socially, and not every player wants to deal with that. I want the setting to stay as it was, but include a couple sentences explaining that the table can add whatever they want. I really don't see that as a big ask.

So, Theros. Do you own Mythic Odysseys of Theros? Because that's basically how they do it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Baker is very clear that there's a difference between his canon and the game's canon and your own table's canon.

To be fair, he doesn't own Eberron, so he's legally required to be clear. If he did, it would just be his Eberron and your table's Eberron.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Spelljammer was always going to be a tight fit with the way they released it. I would've swapped out the Light of Light of Xaryxis for more detailed setting information and used that freed-up space in the Astral Adventurer’s Guide to, I don't know, have better ship-to-ship combat rules. And only then if I had the space remaining, add an adventure that covered just one level.

Shadow of the Dragon Queen is likely only concerned with the region of Solamnia at most. That's a whole lot less to worry about than Spelljammer. Considering the number of products that came out for it in 2e, a 5e return was always going to be a tall order considering how relatively spartan their release schedule is. Planescape, likewise, is going to be another test.

My skepticism is based on their statements, which may prove to be different once the setting is released, and the size of the product. 244 pages to give is 6 small intro adventures, one big war adventure, and a setting equates to setting lore equal to or worse than Spelljammer.

I get more use out of my 2e Spelljammer products for 5e than the 5e setting.

If this is going to be the size of their setting products, I'd rather they not release the old settings and ruin them.

I get it, I do. I grew up loving the stories and setting of Dragonlance. I'm not entirely unworried that Shadow of the Dragon Queen will make me sad. But I also am hopeful, and excited that I'll get to share this setting I care a whole lot about with a new generation. And for that to happen, things perforce must change. Wizards would rightfully get dragged if they released a book that depicted Aghar the way they were in the past, or Kender getting rounded up and put in jail en masse.

My emotional response to Dragonlance is actually the problem here, so it seems.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Theme is a combination of genre and style. Horror is a theme. War is a theme. Noir is a theme. "No orcs" isn't a theme. It's not even part of a theme. What theme has a cornerstone of "no orcs?" What genre can't support them by definition?

There is no reason orcs couldn't exist on Dragonlance thematically. The only reason they don't is someone thought they were "too Tolkien" and excluded them. It's a silly artifact from when D&D settings were ashamed of being D&D and did everything in their power to distance themselves from the base game.

No one is required to respect the past, but you're not required to disrespect it either.