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

 

[Remathilis]

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

Disagree with it all you like. It's the smartest design choice for everyone except a minority of hardcore purists.

 

[Alzrius]

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).

I don't know about literally unkillable; he's never been given stats that I'm aware of, but the implication is that he's simply too strong to be killed, rather than being immortal or anything like a god.

Also, in the original incarnation of the setting, Borys was eventually killed by Rajaat as the metaplot advanced. After that, Dregoth was moved into being the new overarching villain.

 

[Ixal]

Disagree with it all you like. It's the smartest design choice for everyone except a minority of hardcore purists.

Yeah, generic fodder for the mass market. Thats sadly what D&D has become.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't know about literally unkillable; he's never been given stats that I'm aware of, but the implication is that he's simply too strong to be killed, rather than being immortal or anything like a god.

All of the Sorcerer Kings working together couldn't kill him. The implication is that the party is never going to get strong enough to beat him. So he's not really the BBEG because he's not meant to be killed (wasn't given stats, had to be imprisoned instead of killed, it takes thousands of souls every year to keep him imprisoned, etc). In the practical sense he's immortal. He's more like a nuke that you need to feed souls every year to prevent from going off. Not really a true villain.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Disagree with it all you like. It's the smartest design choice for everyone except a minority of hardcore purists.

The company going to do what makes them the most money does of course make sense. They are here to make a buck and not to appease gamers, though the 2 usually synch up.

As a DL fans I think they are unnecessarily changing things that didnt need to be changed. And thats a real sticking point.

Never mention Gully Dwarvess sure, I get it. Add in Orcs and Drow, if you must. Always undiscovered islands out there. But fundamentally changing the Cataclysm, Kender, and Wizard Towers? Seems to go to far IMO. You are literally messing with the roots at that point.

But Ive expressed my feelings enough and corp gonna corp. Not like they can take me 2E DL box set (and core books) away from me.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

But here's the other problem. A lot of the changes that you quite possibly object to were also made because of problematic content.

Let's go with two simple domains: Dementlieu and Valachan. Dementlieu was ruled by a man who was not only a serial mind-rapist, but considering his powers and his obsession with women, was almost certainly a literal rapist as well (he way want romance, but he has total mind-control powers and is a noble with lots of female servants). Valachan was home to the Core's only dark-skinned Darklord, who was also a literal animal who was likewise obsessed with women and was a rapist as well (and yet, he was well-loved by the populace, thanks to vampiric charm). While both of these darklords were evil to everyone, they were especially evil to women. They were both domains where women, not men, were stripped of their free will and made into playthings for a man.

There is basically no way to remove this problematic behavior without either changing the entire story or making it problematic in a different way (TV Tropes has a page called "depraved bisexual," for instance, so merely making them equal-opportunity rapists merely falls into a different stereotype). What do you think is the solution here that would keep these darklords and their stories intact while removing all of the problematic elements and also not making their stories weak or boring? Seriously, I want to know. To me, the only way to do it is to start from the ground up. Saidra's backstory wasn't the best, perhaps, but it's a heap better than most of the pre-5e backstories for female darklords, which were inevitably either "hates all men" or "wants a man."

Or go with a third domain, Lamordia. Go reread Adam's backstory again. He canonically did nothing actually evil. He was convinced Eva loved him and wanted to run away with her. He went into her bedroom. She woke up, freaked out--reasonably enough, here's this flesh golem looming over her while she slept--and accidentally ran off the balcony. While he was trying to save her, Elise came in and misunderstood what was going on and stabbed him. He freaked out and lashed out, accidentally injuring Elise badly in the process. And he was so overwrought by his failure to save Eva and his lashing out at Elise he tried to commit suicide. This is why he was made a darklord. Since then, he spends the vast majority of his time alone and only is "evil" at people who actively try to disturb him.

Where's the evil here? Mistaking friendship for romance? Having an automatic reaction to being stabbed? Trying to commit suicide? No. Adam was a poor attempt to create a Frankenstein's monster darklord, and by doing so, they didn't even properly capture the idea that the doctor is the true monster. Plus, you know, it's another setting where the women were the playthings of the men--Mordenheim keeps Elise alive by replacing her with mechanical parts, despite her begging him to let her die. Unlike with Dementlieu and Valachan, the main premise of the domain wasn't unsalvageable. It just needed tweaking by making the actual bad guy into the darklord. Doing a gender flip doesn't change the story, and neither does making Viktra a lesbian.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Disagree with it all you like. It's the smartest design choice for everyone except a minority of hardcore purists.

Its the most financially viable choice, I agree.

 

[mamba]

The Realms didn't have other things to worry about, yet each new edition moved time, but not technology forward. Technology does not generally advance in D&D campaigns. That's what D&D modern is for.

Ignoring all the other points for a second time I see. I assume there is a reason for that

 

[Micah Sweet]

But here's the other problem. A lot of the changes that you quite possibly object to were also made because of problematic content.

Let's go with two simple domains: Dementlieu and Valachan. Dementlieu was ruled by a man who was not only a serial mind-rapist, but considering his powers and his obsession with women, was almost certainly a literal rapist as well (he way want romance, but he has total mind-control powers and is a noble with lots of female servants). Valachan was home to the Core's only dark-skinned Darklord, who was also a literal animal who was likewise obsessed with women and was a rapist as well (and yet, he was well-loved by the populace, thanks to vampiric charm). While both of these darklords were evil to everyone, they were especially evil to women. They were both domains where women, not men, were stripped of their free will and made into playthings for a man.

There is basically no way to remove this problematic behavior without either changing the entire story or making it problematic in a different way (TV Tropes has a page called "depraved bisexual," for instance, so merely making them equal-opportunity rapists merely falls into a different stereotype). What do you think is the solution here that would keep these darklords and their stories intact while removing all of the problematic elements and also not making their stories weak or boring? Seriously, I want to know. To me, the only way to do it is to start from the ground up. Saidra's backstory wasn't the best, perhaps, but it's a heap better than most of the pre-5e backstories for female darklords, which were inevitably either "hates all men" or "wants a man."

Or go with a third domain, Lamordia. Go reread Adam's backstory again. He canonically did nothing actually evil. He was convinced Eva loved him and wanted to run away with her. He went into her bedroom. She woke up, freaked out--reasonably enough, here's this flesh golem looming over her while she slept--and accidentally ran off the balcony. While he was trying to save her, Elise came in and misunderstood what was going on and stabbed him. He freaked out and lashed out, accidentally injuring Elise badly in the process. And he was so overwrought by his failure to save Eva and his lashing out at Elise he tried to commit suicide. This is why he was made a darklord. Since then, he spends the vast majority of his time alone and only is "evil" at people who actively try to disturb him.

Where's the evil here? Mistaking friendship for romance? Having an automatic reaction to being stabbed? Trying to commit suicide? No. Adam was a poor attempt to create a Frankenstein's monster darklord, and by doing so, they didn't even properly capture the idea that the doctor is the true monster. Plus, you know, it's another setting where the women were the playthings of the men--Mordenheim keeps Elise alive by replacing her with mechanical parts, despite her begging him to let her die. Unlike with Dementlieu and Valachan, the main premise of the domain wasn't unsalvageable. It just needed tweaking by making the actual bad guy into the darklord. Doing a gender flip doesn't change the story, and neither does making Viktra a lesbian.

They're horrible beings to be sure, but they're also the bad guys. How is mass murder and enslavement not as bad?

I can understand not wanting to tell that story though. How about...not using those domains? There are plenty that they didn't use, or they could have made their own.

As for Lamordia, I agree that the monster isn't actually evil. Switch the darklord to Dr. Mordenheim, and that issue is solved.

Finally, I have to note that Gothic horror is absolutely rife with these problematic stories and characters. Since Ravenloft is the setting for Gothic horror, maybe it was a poor choice to resurrect for 5e.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Whereas removing the Tinker Gnomes or Solamnic Knights changes the world dramatically.

Remind me again why the Tinker Gnomes changed the world dramatically? It has been over 20 years since I read the old DL novels and besides the prelude Light and Darkness I cannot recall a significant thing they did.