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

 

[Faolyn]

They matter to me. But then, I'm a pretty serious Tolkien enthusiast.

And for the vast majority of people who aren't--who like it but aren't obsessed or who don't really care about it one way or another--it doesn't matter.

 

[Faolyn]

Considering the only weakness a classic Mary Sue has is that it is her curse to be so perfect and misunderstood, I say that still tracks.

Actually, a lot of Mary Sues do suffer from tragedy after tragedy, just so the other characters can either be amazed at her ability to withstand them or rush to provide love and comfort.

So yeah, still tracks.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Anything else also would make zero sense

Not sure what a mix of Harry Potter and Dune even means, and given that the test was always custom to the PC taking it, I see no harm in having a discussion

The Harry Potter part would presumably be that all the participants are "sorted" into various rival groups - although 3 groups instead of 4, and the "sorting" process is a bit more deadly...

 

[mamba]

I really wish this philosophy was still around. Nowadays, game designers are too frightened of imbalance for my tastes.

I don't know, asymmetric balance (one char is good at one thing, the other at another) is ok, but actual imbalance is awful. It's not that designers are afraid of it, it is that they know better.

Why would I want to be a halfling if elves are so much better at everything ? So balance is achieved by everyone being an elf

 

[Hussar]

I don't know, asymmetric balance (one char is good at one thing, the other at another) is ok, but actual imbalance is awful. It's not that designers are afraid of it, it is that they know better.

Why would I want to be a halfling if elves are so much better at everything ? So balance is achieved by everyone being an elf

This is how I generally define imbalance. If one option is clearly better than all other options, then it's imbalanced. It's okay if one thing is better at this and that thing is better at that - after all, a longbow is better than a short bow, but balance is achieved because of class limitations - rogues can't use a longbow, for example, but they can use a short bow - and their damage is balanced out by sneak attack vs the fighter's more attacks with a longbow. It all gets close enough.

But if this class is just flat out better than that class, then there's no reason to play that class. It just makes the game really easy to break and leads to all sorts of problems down the line. Far better to have actual parity between game elements so no single option is clearly better than other options.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Actually, it might be better to look at the original Middle-Earth RPG. But I don't have a copy of it and there don't seem to be any wikis dedicated to it. Anyone hear have a copy?

I don'tt have that one, but I have the one out a few years ago

 

[R_J_K75]

Not if you consider that BX was out already, so the first two books essentially give the DM new options

Im assuming you are referring to the Holmes D&D Basic Set that came out in 1977? Sure people used D&D and AD&D books interchangeably but technically D&D is not the same game as AD&D, so to me it seems odd to not have released the PHB first, the DMG, and then the MM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And for the vast majority of people who aren't--who like it but aren't obsessed or who don't really care about it one way or another--it doesn't matter.

Yeah, I don't expect anyone to be as into that stuff as I am outside of a Tolkien convention or fansite.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know, asymmetric balance (one char is good at one thing, the other at another) is ok, but actual imbalance is awful. It's not that designers are afraid of it, it is that they know better.

Why would I want to be a halfling if elves are so much better at everything ? So balance is achieved by everyone being an elf

The issue I have is being so concerned about balance that elements end up undertuned. Several 3rd parties i know about do this, making sure their options are under WotC's imaginary bar.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don'tt have that one, but I have the one out a few years ago

I do have it. What exactly do you need?