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
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Today...you are right. D&D elves are just humans with pointy ears. Orcs are just Humans with pointy teeth.

It's a shame.

Originally, I'd say D&D elves had a LOT in similarities with Tolkien elves. They were supposed to be radically different than humans. This wasn't just physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. They had different aspects to them which is where they were resistant to charm and sleep in a natural manner. They might have lived forever in comparison to humans. However, as written, they also didn't have the attention span to focus like humans did, their entire emotional state was different. They could be the most powerful beings collectively (a bunch of fighter/magic-users) doing things no human could do, and yet, they were restricted in how far they could actually advance (level limits, and quite low comparatively to what people think of today in some aspects).

So originally, just like hobbits....er...halflings (look up the connection, it's not that hidden, in fact it was blatantly obvious at first), Ents...er...treants... and other things...elves and dwarves were definitely influenced by Tolkien in the TSR days.

Not so much with WotC...but the way people actually played them (humans that look a little different) instead of how they were originally meant to be played changed that over the years with TSR D&D as well. (And, one can look solidly at Dragonlance for examples of this where Elves acted more like humans that look a little different rather than alien creatures of a different psychology).

So today, I grant you that this is absolutely the case, elves and other races are little more than humans with slightly different looks.

But originally...it's more like Elric's as a being in comparison to humans if we are going for something different than Tolkien than anything...humanlike.
Where are you getting this? I've read 1e and Basic descriptions of elves and none of them seemed "radically" different, either physically, mentally, or emotionally.
 

I agree that elves are less now than they were in 1e D&D, but they were never Tolkien elves or even close to it.

Tolkien elves lived forever unless killed or they lost the will. D&D elves die of old age.
Tolkien elves have telepathy. D&D elves do not.
Tolkien elves can see in the dark. D&D elves(1e) cannot.
Tolkien elves didn't have infravision. D&D elves did.
Tolkien elves had no great resistance to charm or sleep. D&D elves did.
Tolkien elves would have a minimum of 22+ dex under the 1e system. D&D elves got +1 dex.
Tolkien elves had great endurance. D&D elves had a con penalty.
Tolkien elves had an innate constant pass without trace. D&D elves did not.
Tolkien elves had songs of power and healing. D&D elves not even close.
Tolkien elves had no flashy magic and didn't hurl fire. D&D elves had spells that were flashy, including hurling fire.
Tolkien elves were innately supernatural/angelic. D&D elves were not.
Tolkien elves could cast their vision very far away. D&D elves nope.
Tolkien elves had very keen hearing. D&D elves nope.
Tolkien elves had visions/foresight of the future. D&D elves again nope.
Tolkien elves were 6+ feet tall. D&D elves were very short.
Tolkien elves were very smart and wise(int and wis bonuses). D&D elves did not get those.
Tolkien elves were immune to sickness and disease. D&D elves suffered from both.
Tolkien elves were resistant to injury. D&D elves not so much.
Tolkien elves healed swiftly(fast healing) from the injuries they did receive. D&D elves did not.
Tolkien elves were resistant to natural elements. D&D elves were not.
Tolkien elves were resistant to the corruption of evil. D&D elves were not.

Tolkien elves and D&D elves have little in common other than the name and that Gygax got the inspiration for D&D elves from Tolkien.
And yet shockingly, they're both elves and both fulfill the same purposes within the narrative. Literally nobody besides the most fanatic of fans is going to care about these differences, especially when you consider that there's a difference between a game that is supposed to have some balance between characters and a novel where nobody cares about the balance.
 

In my opinion however Radiant Citadel was cool and Nu Ravenloft was better than the old version and I say that as a fan of the old one.

Like I said in my first post on this thread; WotC has largely judged their audience correctly...


I was probably 9 or 10 when I got my hands on the 1E AD&D core books, so me and my friends had a hard time making heads or tails of most of what EGG was trying to say due to his writing style let alone pick up on an obscure inferred reference to mass combat.

Gygax assumed a lot of underlying knowledge from his reader for sure. And he didn't help matters when the PHB came out edit a year before the DMG...

As someone who never played the original Battlesystem rules could you clarify this further?

Are you saying that all BS really was was just "have one orc battle one knight and then multiple those results by 100?" So each round instead of one orc or knight falling they'd be going down 100 at a time? Or is it not quite that simple, lol.

I'll do my best. There is of course a degree of interpretation here as Gygax never explicitly spells out how to do it. He assumed you had the wargaming knowledge to extrapolate things for yourself...

p.39 from the PHB, under DISTANCE - 4th paragraph:

"Distance scale and area effects for spells (and missiles) are designed to fit the game. The tripling of range outdoors is reasonable, as it allows for recreation of actual ranges of hurled javelins, arrows fired from longbows, or whatever. In order to keep magic spells on par, their range is also tripled. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT OUTDOOR SCALE BE USED FOR RANGE ONLY, NEVER FOR SPELL ARE EFFECT (Which is kept at 1"=10') UNLESS A FIGURE RATIO OF 1:10 OR 1:20 (1casting equals 10 or 20 actual creatures or things in most cases) IS USED, AND CONSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS BUILDINGS, CASTLES, WALLS, ETC. ARE SCALED TO FIGURES RATHER THAN TO GROUND SCALE. Not the the foregoing assumes that a ground scale of 1" to 10 yards is used."

Crystal clear right? So, by Figure ratio - he is assuming that you are using some type of minis at the table.

Lets assume Orcs AD&D MM p.76 No. Appearing: 30-300. So how do we deal with even 30 orcs?

Every monster in the DMG has the same HD - only the number changes to make monsters tougher. This is by design as you will be adapting the 1HD = 1 hit rule.

30 orcs adjusted to 1:10 Scale: You have 3 groups of 10 orcs each. So each orc mini or counter will represent 10 orcs. Each group has 10hp because you are scaling 1HD = 1 hit. These groups do 1-8 damage, or by weapon type.

1:10 Orc unit:
10 hp
1d8 dmg
Move 9"

To have them fight other units you just do combat as normal, just taking damage by unit. My interpretation: if a unit is at half strength it does 1/2 dmg until it has 2 or less orcs left in which case it will be folded into a bigger unit. (unless they flee earlier due to morale)

Notice how all movement in AD&D is given in inches, like a wargame... So you have the units moving across the table in inches when you zoom out to the mass combat level. You don't have to change that because you scaled to 1" = 10' for outdoor movement.

What about PC's - They are "Hero units", with 1hd = 1hit. So a 4th level PC would have 4 hits. Yes PC classes use different HD than 1d8. My interpretation: In mass combat some PC's will get a bump.

A 4th level fighter PC will have 4 hits but also get to do 1d8 sword damage against a group of ten orcs. Awesome right? Yes, it is, but they are also very vulnerable to being swarmed by orcs as well and dying in one round! So you make them part of a unit of good guys, where their 4 hp will be deducted last, or have them seek out the enemy "hero" units, and fight them in the 1:1 standard combat level where things are more in the PC's favor survival wise.

And yes, Magic users become absolute game changers on the battlefield as their spell effects are magnified from a single target to a figure of 10, and their area effects spells go from feet to yards.

Evidently stuff like AD&D's weapon speeds, and weapon AC adjustments have big effects on the unit level when you do this. Epecially if you have units with weapons that can hit from the 2nd rank like spears. So the 30 orcs can form ranks 3 deep and the first 2 ranks can attack the front rank of an opposing unit. Making polearms dominant on the 1:10 mass combat level.

The 1:10 or 1:20 abstraction is to make mass combat play fast at the table using the same to hit rolls as regular combat. And it's baked into the game from the PHB, to MM, to the DMG with it's siege rules.
 
Last edited:

Yes. Yes they are. They're huge.
No, they're not. They're minor differences. They fulfill the same purposes, they do the same thing.

Look, there are certain tropes that when you string them together, they make "elf." That's why I linked the TV trope page. Pretty? Otherworldly in a fey kind of way? Usually pretty? Long-lived? Magical? It's an elf. Often it includes things like "androgynous" and "looks down on 'mortal' races" and "in tune with natural forces."

Tolkien elves and D&D elves may have slightly different traits, but they're both elves and those slightly different traits don't actually matter to anyone.
 

No, they're not. They're minor differences. They fulfill the same purposes, they do the same thing.
Not even close. They don't at all fulfill the same purpose. The purpose of D&D elves is to give players a very weak elf to play a character with. That is not even remotely close to the purpose of elves in Middle Earth. From there what you are saying goes even more wrong.

The difference is literally the difference between a rock and a mountain.
Tolkien elves and D&D elves may have slightly different traits, but they're both elves and those slightly different traits don't actually matter to anyone.
Hugely different traits as I spelled out clearly in a post upthread. And as for not mattering, if you gave those traits to a D&D elf in 3e, it would be an ECL+10 or more. They matter quite a bit.
 

Not even close. They don't at all fulfill the same purpose. The purpose of D&D elves is to give players a very weak elf to play a character with. That is not even remotely close to the purpose of elves in Middle Earth. From there what you are saying goes even more wrong.

The difference is literally the difference between a rock and a mountain.

Hugely different traits as I spelled out clearly in a post upthread. And as for not mattering, if you gave those traits to a D&D elf in 3e, it would be an ECL+10 or more. They matter quite a bit.
@GMforPowergamers I don't know why you are laughing.

If you gave a 3e elf the following traits, the ECL would skyrocket

+2 strength, minimum of 12, +8 Dex, minimum of 22, +5 Con, Int, Wis and Cha with minimums of 15
Immortality
Telepathy
Low Light Vision
The endurance feat
Constant pass without trace
powerful songs of power and healing(all elves, not spellcasters)
Innate holy aura that made them anathema to undead
The ability to see farther away than an eagle at will
The ability to hear several times as well as a human
The ability to get visions about the future
Immunity to sickness and disease magical or otherwise
Resistance to injury
Fast healing
Improved movement speed
+20 to acrobatics(see Legolas and other elves)
Constant endure elements
Resistance to corruption which would translate to resistances to energy drain, strength drain and other undead abilities.

What ECL would you assign that in 3e? I think +10 might be conservative. Whatever it is, it absolutely far outstrips any basic D&D elf.
 


Not even close. They don't at all fulfill the same purpose. The purpose of D&D elves is to give players a very weak elf to play a character with. That is not even remotely close to the purpose of elves in Middle Earth. From there what you are saying goes even more wrong.

The difference is literally the difference between a rock and a mountain.

Hugely different traits as I spelled out clearly in a post upthread. And as for not mattering, if you gave those traits to a D&D elf in 3e, it would be an ECL+10 or more. They matter quite a bit.
You are also comparing a book to a game and trying to derive stats so as to compare them. As anyone who has ever tried to stat up a preexisting character using D&D knows, that's a fools errand. Conan might have been the inspiration for the barbarian class, but using the class to build Conan will never work because Conan has the abilities of a literary protagonist like "plot armor". Yet when people use Conan as the archetypical barbarian, only the most NdGT pedants would stand up and say "well actually..."

I think controlling for their different roles as literary characters and RPG race, Tolkien elves share enough in common with D&D elves to be viewed as having similar roles. I've seen TORs take on elves and they are pretty similar.
 

@GMforPowergamers I don't know why you are laughing.

If you gave a 3e elf the following traits, the ECL would skyrocket

+2 strength, minimum of 12, +8 Dex, minimum of 22, +5 Con, Int, Wis and Cha with minimums of 15
Immortality
Telepathy
Low Light Vision
The endurance feat
Constant pass without trace
powerful songs of power and healing(all elves, not spellcasters)
Innate holy aura that made them anathema to undead
The ability to see farther away than an eagle at will
The ability to hear several times as well as a human
The ability to get visions about the future
Immunity to sickness and disease magical or otherwise
Resistance to injury
Fast healing
Improved movement speed
+20 to acrobatics(see Legolas and other elves)
Constant endure elements
Resistance to corruption which would translate to resistances to energy drain, strength drain and other undead abilities.

What ECL would you assign that in 3e? I think +10 might be conservative. Whatever it is, it absolutely far outstrips any basic D&D elf.
I think they're laughing for the same reason I am: you seem to think that Tolkien elves pop out of their moms with all those abilities. Did it ever occur to you that maybe they all have levels in classes that gave them those abilities? Seriously, if they're all mostly hundreds or thousands of years old, they probably have levels in just about every class possible.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top