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

 

[mamba]

Allowing orcs in Dragonlance absolutely is canon. Just not the canon you happen to prefer.

No, it absolutely is not. Show me where in the DL modules or the setting guides orcs occur or are said to exist / be allowed as a player race.

If you cannot, then they are not canon. This is like saying Superman is canon in Star Wars because no one bothered spelling out that he is not in it in the first movie (or any other for that matter, unlike in DL)

 

[Velderan]

The orc discussion now has me wondering - where does the first mention of the exclusion of Orcs from Dragonlance occur? I’ve been looking through the old adventures and such and thought I remembered it either being mentioned in the first adventure (when Toede first appears) or in DL5 - Dragons of Mystery, but I can’t find any such notes. Other than the fact only goblins appear in the adventures, is there a place in the actual text (Dragon mag maybe?) that states “No orcs on Krynn” ? I’m almost certain there was one, but I can’t find it.

The first mention I am aware of is Dragonlance Adventures from 1987. I quoted it somewhere in the previous 56 pages of this thread, but basically it says half-orc PCs would be considered a magical freak because orcs don't exist on Krynn.

Swimming a few pages back upthread.

I think it's really, really telling that the "Dragonlance canon must be respected" crowd won't answer this. I've brought this up repeatedly that the whole "no orcs" thing is something that was added MUCH later. As in years after the modules dropped. I believe (although I don't have a quote) that it appears in the Dragonlance Adventures book, but, again, that's like two years after the modules wrapped up and was largely there to backfill restrictions that didn't exist and also to make sure that 1e D&D got cut out of the mix by not allowing half-orcs into the setting.

The point is though, for all people keep insisting that canon must be respected, as usual, there's a real selection bias as to what "counts" as canon or not.

They are apparently reverting Dragonlance back to it's original form. Which, to me, is about is good as you could want it for moving forward. You can always add that other stuff back in if you want, but, let's have the setting the way it was originally meant to be played first instead of playing "pin the tail on the canon" and try to guess which canon "counts" and which doesn't.

Somehow this just isn't the amazing clever point you seem to think it is. DLA was put together by Tracy Hickman and Margaret Weis and released the year after DL14 came out in 1986. I don't have the exact month DL14 came out, but it was the 4th DL module of that year so safe to say it came out in the 4th quarter? So less than a year later, them finally having the space to get into greater detail about the world they helped create isn't the huge retcon that you seem to be saying it is.

On a somewhat related note, does anyone know where the no drow thing came from? A quick Control+F on the DLA PDF doesn't show a mention of the word drow, which makes sense for PCs since drow weren't considered a PC race at that point but it also doesn't mention them as being something that can't be used as an enemy. Dark elves are described, but that's for a character like Dalamar who is cast out from elven society.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I feel you are missing the point. This was a hypothetical scenario in which the player insists on playing an orc in DL and the DM did not allow orcs. You do not need to convince me of anything here.

I think this is a very good illustration of why you are missing the point.

One thing I’ve noticed about this thread: the player advocates are always asking: Why? Why does the DM want to exclude the race?

Most of the player advocates have specifically stated that they will go along if it is a good reason, with a couple even giving examples of reasons that they find compelling.

So the why clearly matters. On the other hand, the more DM-advocates don’t seem to really care why a player wants to play a particular race. In their hypotheticals, the choice is always seems to be a whim, or the player is problematic.

This is part of why the hypotheticals don’t land for me. The players in them aren’t acting like real people, and questions about why they are acting the way they are get brushed off.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Swimming a few pages back upthread.

I think it's really, really telling that the "Dragonlance canon must be respected" crowd won't answer this. I've brought this up repeatedly that the whole "no orcs" thing is something that was added MUCH later. As in years after the modules dropped. I believe (although I don't have a quote) that it appears in the Dragonlance Adventures book, but, again, that's like two years after the modules wrapped up and was largely there to backfill restrictions that didn't exist and also to make sure that 1e D&D got cut out of the mix by not allowing half-orcs into the setting.

this is something we don't talk about enough... someone in the 80's could have bought the first 3 DL adventures, offered the pregens ben told that the players would rather make there own, and end up with 2 half orc PCs... and it fit the canon just fine.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It is not that the supposed DL canon must be respected crowd won't answer it is that you may not like the answer.
When the setting was finalised by the creators orcs were not included. I'm not interested in those 2 years (with just modules) you wish to stake your claim on - I'd rather follow the 40 years of no orcs that followed.

EDIT: It is safe to assume not all the setting details had been spelled out or defined in those initial 2 years.

on it's base this ALMOST seems fair... after all batman had a gun in his first stories, but most would scream if they had one in a modern story... BUT it falls apart when you realize the REASON batman doesn't like guns is what matters to these people... no one can say how having orcs be small rare tribes but not unknown changes anything.

the restriction doesn't add anything

 

[FrozenNorth]

You said the player forms their own game with the other players where they're not restricted from playing whatever they want. Since you included the other players who didn't initially object, the implication is that the DM is wrong for wanting restrictions, and players should be free to play anything. If that's not what you meant I apologize.

As @Stormonu says, it was mostly a tongue-in-cheek comment, but to me, it is the natural consequence of the “DM’s decision is law” playstyle.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The issue, of course, is 40 years is a long time to remember something. I wouldn't be surprised if it's in DL1, but I can't be sure since I haven't read it for four decades. What I can say is there are no orcs actually appearing in that adventure, or any of the subsequent DL adventures, nor in the novels.

If I wrote a detailed account of the first 25 years of my life there are PLENTY of things that both exist, and I didn't run intodirectly

 

[Velderan]

We're still at orcs?

What's gonna happen when it's confirmed that Bards are also Mages of High Sorcery? The forums will just implode...

That's one part of Dragonlance that never made sense to me. I can't recall what DLA says about mages in regards to testing, but I seem to recall in 2E Tales of the Lance the requirement was for mages to test at 3rd level before they can access greater power. A bard eventually gets access to magical power greater than a 4th level mage and yet somehow it was never called out for them to need to test or be risked being branded a renegade. At my table, we handled bards comparably and had them test before they reached whatever level gave them equal casting ability to a 4th level mage.

I think this is a very good illustration of why you are missing the point.

One thing I’ve noticed about this thread: the player advocates are always asking: Why? Why does the DM want to exclude the race?

Most of the player advocates have specifically stated that they will go along if it is a good reason, with a couple even giving examples of reasons that they find compelling.

So the why clearly matters. On the other hand, the more DM-advocates don’t seem to really care why a player wants to play a particular race. In their hypotheticals, the choice is always seems to be a whim, or the player is problematic.

This is part of why the hypotheticals don’t land for me. The players in them aren’t acting like real people, and questions about why they are acting the way they are get brushed off.

It works both ways in this thread honestly, many of the people advocating on the player's behalf come off as though the DM is some tyrant just saying no because they're on a power trip and many of the people advocating on the DM's behalf are acting like the player is selfishly demanding to play something that doesn't fit the campaign the DM (and other players presumably) want to run. Either case is a pretty good reason to not play at that table for me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, it absolutely is not. Show me where in the DL modules or the setting guides orcs occur or are said to exist / be allowed as a player race.

If you cannot, then they are not canon. This is like saying Superman is canon in Star Wars because no one bothered spelling out that he is not in it in the first movie (or any other for that matter, unlike in DL)

the first 2 years of the adventures let all PHB options in if your phb was the 1e one it allows half orcs heck half orc assassins

 

[AnotherGuy]

on it's base this ALMOST seems fair... after all batman had a gun in his first stories, but most would scream if they had one in a modern story... BUT it falls apart when you realize the REASON batman doesn't like guns is what matters to these people... no one can say how having orcs be small rare tribes but not unknown changes anything.

the restriction doesn't add anything

Maybe. My discussion with Hussar wasn't about the value the orc restriction, only in what may/should be considered canon. Everyone has their own ideas on that, including the creators of the setting.