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

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I skipped it because it adds nothing to the discussion.

it is entirely my point (and I would bet the owners of the IP mindset based on interviews). That a rule to exclude something with no in story reason for it should no longer be there.

Here is my take, you could probably gather it from my other posts too

1) you are correct, adding orcs to DL does not drastically alter the setting from a mechanics perspective
2) orcs are definitely not part of the DL canon
3) how important the official lore is to you is something only you can decide, so if you add orcs to DL, more power to you. That does not make anyone wrong who decides that not having orcs is important to them.

 

[Maxperson]

Probably Sturm's death.

For me it was the flashback history of Berem the Everman and his sister, as well as how that history shaped the current conflict.

 

[mamba]

how?show me were before thst book that rule exsisted? it was retcon to begin with

How? because the authors had made that decision before writing the adventures. They then told you about it in the DLA

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How? because the authors had made that decision before writing the adventures. They then told you about it in the DLA

I'm sorry but no. They did not. There is nothing to show that they would not have had orcs had one of the players sat down and said "I am playing a half orc assassin out of the PHB" the first time it comes up is 2 years later. it is a retcon

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Oh definitely. I'd say it also ties back to the Cataclysm. They are these relics of a long-lost time, clinging to old ideals. To honor and nobility (Sturm), or vainglory and arrogance (Derek).

For me there was always something about the Kinghts of Solamnia, the whole Crown/Sword/Rose thing. And as you mention Soth.

I am here for a bard taking the Test of High Sorcery and basing it on Fantasia.

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...

I think it's important to realize that as the demographics have skewed younger in D&D's fan base, they don't have these same touchstones or attachments. I can talk to a player that's just 5-10 years younger than I am, let alone one even younger, and it can be like I'm talking a foreign language when I talk about level limits, dwarf as a class, Castle Greyhawk having a bowling alley, or Krynn using steel pieces as a currency. And those people are by far a bigger audience than the percentage of old fans that love Dragonlance.

no the argument is if the rule makes sense... the rule exisists after a few years... but WHY. does it help or add to the game? See getting rid of dumb rules that serve no purpose but to frustrate players is a thing for the last 20ish years. It's why we don't have level limits and class requireing stats... and it's why 'no orcs' doesn't pass the mustard to many of us.

The official version that's about to come out could change that.

As I've said before, I'm neutral on the matter - if they have orcs, sure, if they don't, fine. Neither way puts me out. In the hypothetical situation that there aren't any orcs in 5e Dragonlance and a player wants to play an orc, I presume I'd say something like "there aren't any orcs in Dragonlance, and while I'd prefer you pick something else, if you really want to play an orc, let's work together to figure out a way to incorporate an orc into the story."

They absolutely do not exist in the official version however, whether you agree with the rationale or not.

 

[Maxperson]

There are a lot more DMs than players.

That's simply not possible. The nature of the game is 1 DM for multiple players. You don't see 5 DMs DMing for one player, it's one DM DMing for 5 players. You may be in an area where you have enough DMs that you can shop around, but you are still in the vast majority of those playing the game.

 

[mamba]

it is entirely my point (and I would bet the owners of the IP mindset based on interviews). That a rule to exclude something with no in story reason for it should no longer be there.

still going for the ‘but is it a good rule’ angle. I am only arguing the ‘is it canon’ angle because the other is entirely subjective. As I wrote in the post you were quoting

 

[DarkCrisis]

okay then that is easy, they were canon and retconted in 87, and now look to being reset to basic.

You keep saying this but seeing as how the DL1 module came out 7 months before the novel, I'd think Weis and Hickman had a firm grasp on their world. Not to mention the actual 1E DL sourcebook (87) says "No Orcs".

But sure if you want to go by ONLY the very first module that makes no mention one way or the other about Orcs (and Half-Orcs) then sure.

But I'll take the actual creators of Krynn's word on what does and does not exist on it.

Of course any DM is free to change whatever they want, but thats not really "back to basic" IMO.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

still going for the ‘but is it a good rule’ angle. I am only arguing the ‘is it canon’ angle because the other is entirely subjective. As I wrote in the post you were quoting

and again, then that's fine... but 'it was cannon 20 years ago' isn't a good (IMO) argument for a new reimagining to keep it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You keep saying this but seeing as how the DL1 module came out 7 months before the novel, I'd think Weis and Hickman had a firm grasp on their world. Not to mention the actual 1E DL sourcebook (87) says "No Orcs".

again, this means for 2 years we(the entire community) played DL without worrying if someone played a half orc... but now it's aHUGE deal if someone plays one.

I'll take the actual creators of Krynn's word on what does and does not exist on it.

and I am going to take a more modern look and the creators of Krynn are not in any way part of this reimagining. Your argument is good for someone who wants to use the DLA book from 1e, but doesn't hold water for someone useing the original adventures+PHB, or the modern PHB+ adventure... now COULD wotc say "no orcs" sure but I dubt they will unless they feel there is a reason.

Of course any DM is free to change whatever they want, but thats not really "back to basic" IMO.

how is PHB+ 1st adventure nothing else NOT back to basics?