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]

there was nothing before the DLA book, it has been shown before. if this 'no half orcs' mattered before 87 why would they let people play DL for 2 years with half orc as an option?

of course there was, there was Hickman pitching the world, there were design sessions for the adventures… they knew they would not have orcs in DL before DL1 was written

As I wrote before, the rule always existed, you just were not aware of it, and the first chance the authors got (DLA), they told you about it.

 

[Velderan]

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

Somehow I don't think the word retcon means what you seem to think it does. There was no continuity for orcs in DL1-14 for them to retroactively correct and say they didn't exist.

Saying in DL1 players can make their own PCs if they choose without specifically saying anything about races beyond elves being Qualinesti, Dwarves being Hill Dwarves (I think, might be off on that one), and Halflings being Kender and then later providing ADDITIONAL info in DLA that says half-orcs are considered magical freaks because orcs don't exist here is not a retcon because it doesn't contradict anything they had previously said about orcs. DL1 does not feature the word "orc" once. If WotC decided Tanis would be more interesting if he was a drow, then that would be a retcon since the established lore clearly says he's a half-elf.

You know what seperates what I did and this no orc rule? I can give a reason other then 'cause I said so'

They did provide a reason, they said a half-orc would be considered a magical freak because orcs are not native to Krynn. The book does not say "because we said so".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

of course there was, there was Hickman pitching the world, there were design sessions for the adventures… they knew they would not have orcs in DL before DL1 was written

then why was that information withheld form DMs for 2 years? It seems like restricting a phb option should be a high priority in a new adventure.

 

[Velderan]

then why was that information withheld form DMs for 2 years? It seems like restricting a phb option should be a high priority in a new adventure.

Because it wasn't needed for a product that they assumed most people would follow the suggestion of using the characters provided?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Somehow I don't think the word retcon means what you seem to think it does. There was no continuity for orcs in DL1-14 for them to retroactively correct and say they didn't exist.

they are in the PHB, you can make a character from the PHB... then retroactively they added the continuity that said you can't and 'never could'
You are most likely misunderstanding that retcon is not good or bad, it is just retroactive. Batman wont carry a gun is a retcon. Superman being poisoned by kryptonite is a retcon.

so the continuity IN story is that batman ALWAYS didn't use a gun, and superman ALWAYS could be poisoned by kryptonite (or in this case there are no orcs on krynn) but OUT of story that isn't true it was Retroactivly inserted.

Saying in DL1 players can make their own PCs if they choose without specifically saying anything about races beyond elves being Qualinesti, Dwarves being Hill Dwarves (I think, might be off on that one), and Halflings being Kender and then later providing ADDITIONAL info in DLA that says half-orcs is not a retcon because it doesn't contradict anything they had previously said about orcs.

where batman not carrying a gun IS a contradiction, superman being poisoned by radioactive rocks from his home planet is not... both are retcons.

now I used these as (I hope) examples of GOOD retcons we don't mind. the fact that it was retroactively true and then included in reimagining's back when superman was a boy (see smallvile) still makes it a retcon.

DL1 does not feature the word "orc" once. If WotC decided Tanis would be more interesting if he was a drow, then that would be a retcon since the established lore clearly says he's a half-elf.

yes, it would, and if it was a good or bad one we could debate but it would be retroactive yes.

They did provide a reason, they said a half-orc would be considered a magical freak because orcs are not native to Krynn. The book does not say "because we said so".

it actually is quite backwards... half orc would be considered a magical freak because retroactively they included the lore there is no such thing as a half orc... and again anyone playing in DL as a half orc would find this to be a at least annoying if not hostil retcon.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because it wasn't needed for a product that they assumed most people would follow the suggestion of using the characters provided?

so for 2 years they just assumed no player lost a character and made a new one, that no one made a character using the PHB that has a portion of the rules needed to run the adventure, and that no one had inserted there own adventurers

edit: I only played 1 or 2 sessions of short run games with 1e, I started with 2e and by the time I tried 1e it was with the anniversary reprints... but I can't imagine many played for 2 years with 0 PC deaths, even 2e and 3e that is a hard ask.

 

[Velderan]

so for 2 years they just assumed no player lost a character and made a new one, that no one made a character using the PHB that has a portion of the rules needed to run the adventure, and that no one had inserted there own adventurers

Basically. They reference the "obscure death" rule where you either pretend the character survived somehow or replace them with a nearly identical character.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Again, why are there many long posts arguing about all this when there's almost certainly be a sidebar or page discussing what a traditional Dragonlance campaign would be like, but also stating that the adventure can be played either like that or not, depending on what everyone agrees on. All this back and forth over what will likely be meaningless in the end seems like a waste of time and internet storage if you ask me...

 

[Velderan]

they are in the PHB, you can make a character from the PHB... then retroactively they added the continuity that said you can't and 'never could'
You are most likely misunderstanding that retcon is not good or bad, it is just retroactive. Batman wont carry a gun is a retcon. Superman being poisoned by kryptonite is a retcon.

I don't care about Batman or Superman, please stay on topic. Now I understand why your table ended up arguing so much in your superhero game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Basically. They reference the "obscure death" rule where you either pretend the character survived somehow or replace them with a nearly identical character.

oh the old "I'm bob 2, I'm bob's brother" joke... I wondered where that started, I didn't know it was a TSR rule