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

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Well, as you know, I'm against a reimagining anyway.

 

[Stormonu]

I cannot answer that, but the decision to not have orcs and have draconians fill in instead was most likely made in 1982. That certainly is when draconians were part of the original pitch (which is the closest I came to finding anything about 'no orcs')

https://trhickman.com/dragonlance-selling-dream/

https://trhickman.com/dragonlance-legacy-proposal/

Interesting. I was reading the proposal in the 2nd link, and it got me wondering "What if someone were to play Descent Into Avernus and change the adventure's city to Istar? Perhaps, instead of Zariel (and the redemption arc), use the Kingpriest instead? Assume the Kingpriest had attempted to subsume the gods of good to go on a crusade against evil, and it ended in his descent instead?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Where are you getting 2 years? Are you saying with the release of AD&D? Between DL Module 1 and the DL novel is 7 months. Then a few years until the source book

the first release of an adventure to the first time we are told no orcs (I read the first tow trilogies 1 before I played D&D... orcs are not mentioned as not living there)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Maybe, maybe someone did play a half-orc in DL in 1986. Does that make orcs or half-orcs canon ? No, it definitely does not.

Canon is what is explicitly included, not what is not explicitly excluded (in the first year publications at that), otherwise Superman is also DL canon.

superman is not in the books you need to play the first 2years of adventures... half orcs are.

 

[Maxperson]

So basically, then, there's no problem whatsoever. If you were to run Dragonlance, your players agreed to play Dragonlance, you said no orcs, and one player said "but I wanna!" you'd be able to find a compromise or something. An irda, maybe, or a minotaur.

Player: "I'd like to play an orc."
DM: "This is Dragonlance and there are no orcs in the setting."
Player: "Then I'd like to play a scro."
DM: "...."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You don't think the creators of a setting hold any weight? Keith Baker isn't important to Eberron? Ed Greenwood and the Realms? Is it just who legally holds the IPt o you?

i take what they say into consideration, but no keith baker doesn't hold some 'extra' weight over WotC for eberon (especially 2 editions later) and Ed Greenwood hasn't had any special weight in my eyes EVER.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If it doesn't change history, it's not a retcon.

it DOES change what was allowed in the setting (aka the history). when the first set of adventures came out we had only the PHB DMG MM and adventures to go by. Later changes "These MM and PHB options should not have ever been here" is retroactively continuity a retcon

 

[Maxperson]

I'll be perfectly honest; I'm willing to accept race restrictions as long as there are alternatives. No orcs but minotaurs? Fine. No tabaxi but shifters? Acceptable. No tritons but sea elves? I can work with that. I'm a lot more defensive when a DM takes away options without offering an alternative. If your game bans orcs, dragon born, tieflings and gnomes and you don't allow any additional races (homebrew or supplements) then my alarm bells go off for what kind of game I'm getting into.

Why? Why does there need to be more options added in? If I have a vision for a setting and want that includes PHB races minus dragonborn and tieflings, there's no reason why that should trigger any alarm bells. There are plenty of racial options.

I put a hard limit though on classes. If you are banning PHB classes, I'm gonna walk. Normally, that's the sign of a controlling DM who has very specific tastes and if you don't play the way they want, you're going to have a miserable time.

It's not a sign of a controlling anything. It's a sign of a DM with a vision for a setting. There's no good reason to think that the DM is going to be controlling in other ways.

And believe me, if your rationale is "low magic" or "the gods are dead", I'm already sure you and I have incompatible tastes.

And that's perfectly valid. Incompatible tastes is a good reason not to play in someone's game. If your tastes are must have all or most options and someone has more limited options, don't play in that game. Limited options just don't equate to or even imply a controlling DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

it DOES change what was allowed in the setting (aka the history). when the first set of adventures came out we had only the PHB DMG MM and adventures to go by. Later changes "These MM and PHB options should not have ever been here" is retroactively continuity a retcon

I think part of the issue here is that you are looking at Dragonlance from a mechanics first perspective, it seems to me. I think the narrative of the setting is much more important than what rule set we're using.

 

[mamba]

superman is not in the books you need to play the first 2years of adventures... half orcs are.

Half-orcs / orcs are never in the setting of DL, only in the more generic PHB / MM. I understand how in 1986 you can come to the mistaken assumption that they are in (unlike Superman), that does not mean they were (just like Superman).

I do not understand why you still consider this a good argument when at the latest in 1987 it was clear that they are not You being mistaken for a year does not change DL canon.