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]

I do have it. What exactly do you need?

Elf stats. Are they so super-powerful in comparison to everyone else?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

Then why complain when the product intended for mass appeal doesn't cater exactly to your own specific, restrictive needs? This is like complaining that a Mcdonalds' menu doesn't cater to your vegan, gluten-free, and low-carb diet.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I do have it. What exactly do you need?

Elf stats. Are they so super-powerful in comparison to everyone else?

yeah do they get the equivalent of a 24 dex in 2e (where remember that is god stat)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Elf stats. Are they so super-powerful in comparison to everyone else?

This is from Middle Earth Role Playing (MERP), 1986, pgs 94-96 (all numbers based on percentile system):

Races is determined randomly on a d%. 79 or higher indicates some variety of elf.

Half-elves: +5 strength, +5 agility, +5 constitution, +5 presence, +5 poison resist, +50 disease resist.
Special abilities: 4 hours rest/day, lifespan 260-300 years (for the mortal kind, like Elrond's brother Elros), immunity to disease and natural illness, +5 bonus (on d%) vs. Cold attacks, 500' vision under moonlight or starlight, 50-100' feet with a light source.

Noldor: +15 agility, +10 constitution, +5 intelligence, +5 intuition, +15 presence, +10 poison resist, +100 disease resist.
Special abilities: can travel 16-20 hours/day, trance for 1-3 hours/day, immortal, immune to disease and illness and cannot become scarred, +20 bonus (on d%) vs. Cold attacks, full range vision (to the horizon barring obstruction) under starlight or moonlight, 50-100' with a light source, triple hearing range, +20 (on d%) for Item Use.

Sindar: +10 agility, +5 constitution, +5 intuition, +10 presence, +10 poison resist, +100 disease resist.
Special abilities: same as Noldor, but Cold attack bonus is +15 and no Item Use bonus.

Sylvan: +10 agility, +5 intuition, +5 presence, +10 poison resist, +100 disease resist.
Special abilities: same as Noldor, but Cold attack bonus is +10 and no Item Use bonus. +10 to Bardic spell attacks, +10 for trickery an stalking/hiding maneuvers.

Elves are required to put a high stat in presence (highest if Noldor, one of two highest if Sindar, one of three highest if Sylvan).

All elves get fewer background points (which are used to buy stuff like special abilities and stat bonuses) than other races, as they are bound more tightly to Fate. Noldor get 2, half-elves and Sunday get 3, Sylvan elves get 4. By comparison, Dwarves get 4, Men and Hobbits get 5.

They are not balanced like 5e exactly, and they shortchanged elven sight from the books, but otherwise pretty comparable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then why complain when the product intended for mass appeal doesn't cater exactly to your own specific, restrictive needs? This is like complaining that a Mcdonalds' menu doesn't cater to your vegan, gluten-free, and low-carb diet.

I like what I like, and mass appeal isn't a concern for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is from Middle Earth Role Playing (MERP), 1986, pgs 94-96 (all numbers based on percentile system):

Races is determined randomly on a d%. 79 or higher indicates some variety of elf.

Half-elves: +5 strength, +5 agility, +5 constitution, +5 presence, +5 poison resist, +50 disease resist.
Special abilities: 4 hours rest/day, lifespan 260-300 years (for the mortal kind, like Elrond's brother Elros), immunity to disease and natural illness, +5 bonus (on d%) vs. Cold attacks, 500' vision under moonlight or starlight, 50-100' feet with a light source.

Noldor: +15 agility, +10 constitution, +5 intelligence, +5 intuition, +15 presence, +10 poison resist, +100 disease resist.
Special abilities: can travel 16-20 hours/day, trance for 1-3 hours/day, immortal, immune to disease and illness and cannot become scarred, +20 bonus (on d%) vs. Cold attacks, full range vision (to the horizon barring obstruction) under starlight or moonlight, 50-100' with a light source, triple hearing range, +20 (on d%) for Item Use.

Sindar: +10 agility, +5 constitution, +5 intuition, +10 presence, +10 poison resist, +100 disease resist.
Special abilities: same as Noldor, but Cold attack bonus is +15 and no Item Use bonus.

Sylvan: +10 agility, +5 intuition, +5 presence, +10 poison resist, +100 disease resist.
Special abilities: same as Noldor, but Cold attack bonus is +10 and no Item Use bonus. +10 to Bardic spell attacks, +10 for trickery an stalking/hiding maneuvers.

Elves are required to put a high stat in presence (highest if Noldor, one of two highest if Sindar, one of three highest if Sylvan).

All elves get fewer background points (which are used to buy stuff like special abilities and stat bonuses) than other races, as they are bound more tightly to Fate. Noldor get 2, half-elves and Sunday get 3, Sylvan elves get 4. By comparison, Dwarves get 4, Men and Hobbits get 5.

They are not balanced like 5e exactly, and they shortchanged elven sight from the books, but otherwise pretty comparable.

Humans get a +5 to strength and that's it.

 

[GreyLord]

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 have an original, but the argument against the Original D&D elves being based on Tolkien is being made in bad faith.

#1 - Tolkien never specifies that elves jump out of their mothers fully formed and able to do great deeds, in fact, from the stories presented it seems MANY of them were weaker than Sam and died to their first Orc in battle.

#2 - The named Elves are normally the GREAT ones amongst the Elves. The ones that stand out already. Most of these were already hundreds of years old at a minimum, meaning that in levelling terms, we are talking about 11th level or higher Magic-Users (probably max levelled Fighter/Magic-users...or something like 100/11 Thief/Magic-users...etc). In 5th edition, they'd probably be something like 20th level characters with around 100 epic boons. The named elves in history are basically your mega heroes already. They've been around a LONG time.

#3 - Comparing Ultra High level characters (and with the above elves, in 5e, that means they probably also have all their stats at 30, meaning you can't even GET their stats as a starting character...even as an Elf) with your basic starting character in D&D is nonsense.

#4 - And yet, that's what the argument is trying to argue in relation to D&D elves not being based on Tolkien. Granted, I don't feel 5e elves are like that in any way, but Gygax expressed some rather distinct idea on human central D&D and why Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and Gnomes were different. Seeing how many of the other things were based on Tolkien (even if Gygax claimed otherwise...Hobbits don't just pop up as a random name out of nowhere), including the animosity between Elves and Dwarves (just for starters...that's basically directly found from Tolkien)...It should be obvious that originally the D&D elves WERE highly inspired by the Tolkien elves (also a reason why the Elves and Dwarves are not 1 inch tall or less than 2 feet, because they weren't based on the traditional fairy tale elves).

Today, obviously, they are played as funny looking humans, but that wasn't the original intent...IMO. It started changing as soon as people started playing the game, and it's gone the entire way that now when people are playing Orcs they see them as a parallel as being discriminated against because to them...Orcs are just people who look different rather than the Tolkien type origins (or even the mythical origins, though that has more that Orcs are the bodies of the dead) they came from.

Which means I can agree 5e elves are nothing like Tolkien, but originally...definately based on Tolkien Elves in OD&D, BX, BECMI, AD&D, and to a lesser degree...AD&D 2e.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I like what I like, and mass appeal isn't a concern for me.

But what you like is very restrictive and specific (whether or not a single race is playable/available in the world) you want to restrict the mass-appeal product to your tastes. So you're demanding that the Mcdonald's stop serving food that you can't/choose not to eat (saying that you want the book to say Orcs don't exist in the world, even if the book makes no mentions of Orcs).

 

[Micah Sweet]

But what you like is very restrictive and specific (whether or not a single race is playable/available in the world) you want to restrict the mass-appeal product to your tastes. So you're demanding that the Mcdonald's stop serving food that you can't/choose not to eat (saying that you want the book to say Orcs don't exist in the world, even if the book makes no mentions of Orcs).

I can compromise. I'd rather they mention the restrictions, but as long as they're not actually in the adventure as NPCs I guess I'd be ok with that. But I'm not going to advocate for change I don’t like. Why would I?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I can compromise. I'd rather they mention the restrictions, but as long as they're not actually in the adventure as NPCs I guess I'd be ok with that.

And we don't have any signs that Orcs do exist in the setting yet, so unless you're clairvoyant, you're complaining about nothing. You're complaining about the possibility of something being included in the book that wouldn't affect your table even if it was in it. The sensible thing to do would be to stop whining about something that we have no evidence for and to wait until the book actually comes out to see if Orcs are in it or not. If they are, complain away. If they aren't, you'll feel pretty silly for making a mountain out of a molehill and tilting at windmills, just like you did for the Radiant Citadel.

But I'm not going to advocate for change I don’t like. Why would I?

You don't have to advocate. You just have to be fine with it being available for other people (newer players that aren't setting purists and don't give a crap about your view of the world).

If the option of other people allowing orcs in the book is not going to affect your table, why are you complaining? You can choose to ban Orcs at Krynn in 5e just like you can choose to ban Warforged from the Forgotten Realms. The book saying that Orcs are banned would do nothing to affect your table and your nostalgia for the setting is compelling you to try and restrict the product for other people for no other reason other than how you like to play the setting (which, again, isn't affected by this book's stance on the playability of Orcs in the world at all).