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]

Half-orcs / orcs are never in the setting of DL, only in the more generic PHB / MM. I understand why 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

it is a retcon

it is a rule that while it made sense in TSR back in the 80's doesn't fit D&D in 2022. When reimagining the setting WotC would need a reason to restrict a PHB class or race

 

[Faolyn]

this is the perfect analogy of this argument I have ever seen (not sarcastic) and @Micah Sweet just won this thread...

imagine 5 players sit down to play star wars. (In this scenario SW isn't like a part of pop culture owned by Disney mega corp I guess, so lets say in 1980)

DM having seen all the movies knows that luke is vader's son, 2 players have never seen the movies but have heard about laser swords and psychic knights, 1 player has seen only return of the jedi, and 1 player has only seen the first one (now retconed to be named a new hope)

the player that has only seen the first one says "I have an idea, I want to play an alien jedi who was the son of Vader back when he was apprentice to obiwan, I will be Teial Vader. I have the same type of environmental suit since I come from the same planet but not black mine is red and grey... and even though I am his son I hate him."

the player that has only seen return of the jedi is like "I want to play an ewak"

the 2 players that never saw any of it are like "Those sound cool but I want to be ______"

the DM knowing that luke is vader's son and that under that helmet is a human

if that game was run in 1978 before empire only the ewok wouldn't work.

In this particular case, it's very easy to say things like:

"Ewoks don't have space travel. How did your character join the party?"

or

"I'm sorry, but I'd rather people didn't play as direct relations to the bad guys, because I have plans for that. If you want to play someone who thinks that they're the son of Vader, you can, but your character couldn't actually be a relative."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In this particular case, it's very easy to say things like:

"Ewoks don't have space travel. How did your character join the party?"

or

"I'm sorry, but I'd rather people didn't play as direct relations to the bad guys, because I have plans for that. If you want to play someone who thinks that they're the son of Vader, you can, but your character couldn't actually be a relative."

okay you missed my point. everyone is coming with good intent

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Probably. Like I said upthread, an acknowledgement in the book by WotC for the setting purists would be good gesture and in line with how they handled the core.

And my position that setting purists are bad for the game and should not be catered to over the newer community has not changed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And my position that setting purists are bad for the game and should not be catered to over the newer community has not changed.

Nor has mine. Use homebrew, or do whatever you want at your own table.

 

[Maxperson]

it is a rule that while it made sense in TSR back in the 80's doesn't fit D&D in 2022. When reimagining the setting WotC would need a reason to restrict a PHB class or race

They could easily create one in order to stay true to the old setting. It wouldn't be hard to come up with lore to explain it.

 

[mamba]

it is a retcon

I don’t care, call it a retcon because it was not published before, if you like. I consider it a rule clarification, we are used to getting these after the fact.

Either way there are no orcs in the DL setting, not today and not for the past 35 years at a minimum. It is also clear that they never were intended, even if this was not mentioned in the first adventures (oversight, not intent…). If you have a campaign going since 1986 that had a half-orc in it, by all means, keep that guy around

Either way it is an awful argument to introduce orcs in DL 5e. If you cannot think of a better one, just leave them out.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don’t care, call it a retcon because it was not published before, if you like. I consider it a rule clarification, we are used to getting these after the fact.

Either way there are no orcs in the DL setting, not today and not for the past 35 years at a minimum. If you have a campaign going since 1986 that had a half-orc in it, by all means, keep that guy around

i guess we just need to wait a little bit to see if that is still true (my bet is no, there will be no restrictions, maybe suggestions)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Nor has mine. Use homebrew, or do whatever you want at your own table.

And you do not have any more right to define what Dragonlance is or how it should be approached in 5e than newer players or WotC. Their own interpretations of the setting are just as valid as yours and changing minor aspects of it does not change the setting. You want to be upset about settings changing a ton? Like removing the Core from Ravenloft and making it better at running Horror campaigns (which is the point of the setting)? Fine. But changing the setting so little that Orcs are not explicitly banned is not anywhere near the same amount of "ruining/changing the setting", and you keep insisting that your view of the setting is somehow more important or valid than the view of others.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And you do not have any more right to define what Dragonlance is or how it should be approached in 5e than newer players or WotC. Their own interpretations of the setting are just as valid as yours and changing minor aspects of it does not change the setting. You want to be upset about settings changing a ton? Like removing the Core from Ravenloft and making it better at running Horror campaigns (which is the point of the setting)? Fine. But changing the setting so little that Orcs are not explicitly banned is not anywhere near the same amount of "ruining/changing the setting", and you keep insisting that your view of the setting is somehow more important or valid than the view of others.

No one's vision is more important than others in their own games, this is true.