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

 

[bedir than]

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.

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

I've dealt with this in my home campaign. Two of three requests were approved, with the Warforged helping me build a massive amount of lore.

The Kenku, a personal favorite, was denied because the player had no desire to cooperate in building lore

 

[Cruentus]

Dark Sun is chock full of unique or semi-unique core. Defiling, psionics as the centerpiece, unique dragon types, avangions, unique elves, dwarves, etc., lack of metal, super harsh environment, unique classes/subclasses, and much more.

Towers if High Sorcery tied to robes/alignment (unique impact on how spells were cast depending on moon phase), dragons front and center/dragon riders/knights, Kagonesti/Qualinesti/et al (elves just as unique as Dark Sun), iron for coinage, constant war and no healing/gods (harsh environment), Knights of Solamnia/Takhisis (unique classes), etc. The things you point out as "unique or semi-unique" can equally be applied to any setting. And its all been done somewhere before, so none of it is all that unique... psionics has been done before, but YMMV. Dark Sun bounced off my group, they had zero interest in any of what you called unique, whereas Dragonlance saw a lot of play. May just be there are differing opinions.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Actually, Rajaat (the setting's big bad evil guy) is a pyreen, not a human.

I'm aware. But he's sealed away (for now) and is supposed to be literally unkillable. The setting's true "big bad evil guy" is Borys the Dragon because you can actually kill him. And he's human (well, he used to be).

Many settings are grimdark and apocalyptic, have vile humans and a ruined world. If Dragonlance has no core with its theme for balance, draconians, the war of the lance ect. then Dark Sun also has none.

Sure, plenty of settings are. But not plenty of D&D settings. That's one of the things that sets Dark Sun apart from the other settings in theme.

And sure, Dragonlance has that BS "there must be balance in the force" nonsense and a war, but they're not unique amongst D&D settings. Well, the "there must be balance between good and evil" is a theme unique to Dragonlance, but given that it's absolutely terrible, I choose to ignore it. And "draconians" are not a theme. They're unique monsters. That would be like saying "Dolgaunts" are core to Eberron because they only exist there.

 

[Remathilis]

You know what WotC learned about campaign settings during the their purchase of TSR and subsequent review of their sales data?

People became fans of settings, not D&D. TSR kept pumping out settings in the hope it would sell more copies of the PHB and all it did was fragment their audience because surprise existing people became attached to the settings they played in and didn't really care for stuff outside of that setting for the most part. I'd argue based on that attachment, going from playing a Forgotten Realms game to a Dragonlance game was much closer to going from Mortal Kombat to Street Fighter. The general concept is similar, but the approach to how it's handled is pretty different. You obviously see it differently, so it's clearly an agree to disagree situation.

Yes, the fragmentation of D&D was a huge problem in 2e, and WotC is taking steps to fix that.

The problem was that in 2e, D&D basically became several different, vaguely compatible RPGs that used a few common resources. Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, they all had their own character rules, their own monster books, their own magic rules, etc. And despite being built on the same Core Rules, they were not even compatible with each other. It's not like you could put an Athasian gladiator in the same game as a Ravenloft Acanist, they were wildly unbalanced. Likewise, you could buy a module or monster supplement for Faerun, but good luck making it make sense in Krynn.

TSR figured out too late that by making every setting only vaguely compatible with each other, they were cannibalizing their own sales of other settings and even generic supplements. A Dark Sun player doesn't care about a book of Faerunian magic or a generic book of kits; none of that stuff would work in Dark Sun so no sale. He needs Dark Sun products and the rest of TSR's catalog could hang. So WotC learned the three important rules:

1. Settings should encourage, not discourage, purchasing and use of other supplements.
2. Settings should keep the clear "D&D first" element so most material is compatible with it.
3. Setting material should be balanced with each other so it can be mixed and matched or used out of the setting if desired.

And thus we have what we have now: settings serve to expand the game with new options rather than control what the game is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really? "Things that have been defined should stay that way"? So the Vistani should stay as racist caricatures of the Romani people? Absolutely nothing should be done to remove the problematic elements of Dragonlance? The tropes that didn't age well shouldn't be fixed to modern audiences? Because all of those things are "defined", and many settings benefit from having "defined" things change.

And I'm not saying Eberron isn't "coherent". I just think that it doesn't have a true "core" because of its built-in customizability.

The problematic lore points you mentioned have been (or can be) adjusted in such a way as to make them less problematic while not erasing parts of the setting that already exist. In your Vistani example, they combined an expansion of what Vistani are with the idea of inaccurate information about them. Broadly speaking, the setting's history hasn't changed. This sort of thing happens all the time in long-running franchises and can be done well when the writers are thoughtful and not ham-fisted.

 

[Maxperson]

Towers if High Sorcery tied to robes/alignment (unique impact on how spells were cast depending on moon phase),

They aren't for 5e Dragonlance. That used to be unique, but is no longer.

dragons front and center/dragon riders/knights

Dragon riders are not unique to Krynn.

Kagonesti/Qualinesti/et al (elves just as unique as Dark Sun)

Wait. Seriously? You think that normal high and grey elves with new names are as unique as elves with all new mechanics?

iron for coinage

Yes! Metal coins are unique!

constant war

There is no constant war. There was one big war that ended in a year.

and no healing/gods (harsh environment)

This doesn't exist The gods and healing returned a few weeks or months into the war and are in the game. I did say that if it had continued that it would be a core aspect, but alas they didn't retain it and so it never was core.

Knights of Solamnia/Takhisis (unique classes)

That's just a fighter subclass, like purple dragon knight. Templars, druids working differently, magic using defiling, clerics working differently, etc. Those are actually unique.

The things you point out as "unique or semi-unique" can equally be applied to any setting.

False.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, the fragmentation of D&D was a huge problem in 2e, and WotC is taking steps to fix that.

The problem was that in 2e, D&D basically became several different, vaguely compatible RPGs that used a few common resources. Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, they all had their own character rules, their own monster books, their own magic rules, etc. And despite being built on the same Core Rules, they were not even compatible with each other. It's not like you could put an Athasian gladiator in the same game as a Ravenloft Acanist, they were wildly unbalanced. Likewise, you could buy a module or monster supplement for Faerun, but good luck making it make sense in Krynn.

TSR figured out too late that by making every setting only vaguely compatible with each other, they were cannibalizing their own sales of other settings and even generic supplements. A Dark Sun player doesn't care about a book of Faerunian magic or a generic book of kits; none of that stuff would work in Dark Sun so no sale. He needs Dark Sun products and the rest of TSR's catalog could hang. So WotC learned the three important rules:

1. Settings should encourage, not discourage, purchasing and use of other supplements.
2. Settings should keep the clear "D&D first" element so most material is compatible with it.
3. Setting material should be balanced with each other so it can be mixed and matched or used out of the setting if desired.

And thus we have what we have now: settings serve to expand the game with new options rather than control what the game is.

What we also have now are a number of fans who, as you intimated, were encouraged to become fans of the settings as they were presented in 2e and are now disappointed with what WotC wants to make or has made of them in the current edition.

 

[Remathilis]

Would you want them to do that? If any setting supports the subtraction theory of worldbuilding, it's Dark Sun.

I will assume you haven't read any of my posts for the last six years, so I'll repeat it: yes I would.

I've always held that settings are there to support the core game, not to be their own game. If Dark Sun can't play nice with D&D's assumptions, then Dark Sun needs to be its own game with its own rules. I've preached this assumption that WotC feels setting should serve the game and not the game twisting to fit the setting, and with every "classic setting" released (Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, now Dragonlance) I've been proven right. Each setting has removed excessive rules that inhibit play (such as power checks or spell loss when jamming) and opened the setting to more options. Based on 4e Dark Sun, I have no doubt they would do the same there.

WotC wants you playing Dragonlance. They also want you using Xanathar, Tasha, MotM, and whatever other supplemental books. They aren't going to design settings that intentionally sabotage the sale and use of those books.

And they are right for doing that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've dealt with this in my home campaign. Two of three requests were approved, with the Warforged helping me build a massive amount of lore.

The Kenku, a personal favorite, was denied because the player had no desire to cooperate in building lore

Good deal. I have no problem with this in a homebrew setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I will assume you haven't read any of my posts for the last six years, so I'll repeat it: yes I would.

I've always held that settings are there to support the core game, not to be their own game. If Dark Sun can't play nice with D&D's assumptions, then Dark Sun needs to be its own game with its own rules. I've preached this assumption that WotC feels setting should serve the game and not the game twisting to fit the setting, and with every "classic setting" released (Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, now Dragonlance) I've been proven right. Each setting has removed excessive rules that inhibit play (such as power checks or spell loss when jamming) and opened the setting to more options. Based on 4e Dark Sun, I have no doubt they would do the same there.

WotC wants you playing Dragonlance. They also want you using Xanathar, Tasha, MotM, and whatever other supplemental books. They aren't going to design settings that intentionally sabotage the sale and use of those books.

And they are right for doing that.

That is definitely what WotC wants. I disagree that they are right to do so.