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

 

[Stormonu]

More fuel to fan the orcish flames - this is from the 2006 Dragons Of Autumn adventure

Appropriate Races
Most standard player character races can be used without difficulty. Humans, making up the majority of the residents of Abanasinia, are the obvious choice. Half-elves, kender, and half-kender are almost as easy to work in. Neidar (hill) dwarves are very appropriate, but any of the mountain dwarf clans need an explanation of why the character isn’t in Thorbardin. Similarly, a full-blooded elf (of any of the nations) or a gnome needs a backstory explaining why he’s not at home with his people.

More exotic and monstrous races are more difficult to explain but certainly not impossible. Because the adventure begins at a higher level, it presents a good opportunity for a player who wants to try a race with a level adjustment, such as a centaur. Half-ogres have potential. Full-blooded ogres, minotaurs, and sea elves are extremely unusual in this part of Ansalon at this point in time. A goblin is a playable, if weak, character. A hobgoblin would make an interesting foil for one of the villains in the story.

Only a few races are completely inappropriate. Tarmak are unknown on Ansalon at this time. Draconians are the enemy and could not possibly be a hero at this point in history.

Considering this is from 3(.5)E where half-orcs are in the PHB, the lack of mention of half-orcs/orcs is noteworthy, I feel.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

More fuel to fan the orcish flames - this is from the 2006 Dragons Of Autumn Twilight adventure



Considering this is from 3(.5)E where half-orcs are in the PHB, the lack of mention of half-orcs/orcs is noteworthy, I feel.

Yeah but I think the expectation is that players are using the core Dragonlance rule books for that edition, which lay out the races. Note the only races mentioned here are Dragonlance ones, like Tarmak.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Honestly, I don't want a company I don't particularly trust to change a setting I have emotional investment in.

Why does that freaking matter? You play the setting how you want. Ban orcs if you want. Don't give a crap about WotC does with their product, because it' won't affect you. You'll play the game with or without Orcs regardless of what WotC says. It will not have an impact on your game.

But how the book is written will affect the vast majority of people that buy it, because the vast majority of players haven't been playing the game for that long compared to you and this product will be extremely influential on how they play the setting.

I also hate the idea of changing established facts. How you do or do not use the material at your table is none of my business.

And, as demonstrated, not all changes to "established facts" in settings are bad and not all of them are equal. This is a tiny change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. No one's vision is more correct than others. Period.

Some are more important. The most important one is the view that will appeal to the most people. And that's the one WotC will and should go for.

Hard disagree. Popularity of a perspective does not equal importance, unless all you care about are dollar signs.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Hard disagree. Popularity of a perspective does not equal importance, unless all you care about are dollar signs.

Popularity does equal importance to a company. 5e is designed around appealing to the most people as possible. That's why UA playtest and surveys exist. They want to make the most people happy. And, IMO, making the most people happy isn't just important for money, but also because the happiness of the whole is more important than the disapproval of a handful of traditionalist players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why does that freaking matter? You play the setting how you want. Ban orcs if you want. Don't give a crap about WotC does with their product, because it' won't affect you. You'll play the game with or without Orcs regardless of what WotC says. It will not have an impact on your game.

But how the book is written will affect the vast majority of people that buy it, because the vast majority of players haven't been playing the game for that long compared to you and this product will be extremely influential on how they play the setting.

And, as demonstrated, not all changes to "established facts" in settings are bad and not all of them are equal. This is a tiny change.

You think the changes are tiny, and you think playability for people unfamiliar to the setting is more important than narrative fidelity. I disagree.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

They have already stated that they don't feel bound in any way by past cannon.

Good. A lot of past canon was either completely useless and a waste of space or absolute garbage and a waste of space. Revising the canon to try and improve the ideas introduced in older products is a good thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Popularity does equal importance to a company. 5e is designed around appealing to the most people as possible. That's why UA playtest and surveys exist. They want to make the most people happy. And, IMO, making the most people happy isn't just important for money, but also because the happiness of the whole is more important than the disapproval of a handful of traditionalist players.

Again, they're doing what they're doing because they think it will make them the most money. I've seen nothing that indicates otherwise.

 

[Stormonu]

Again, they're doing what they're doing because they think it will make them the most money. I've seen nothing that indicates otherwise.

I agree they're definately trying to maximize the money they'll get from this, but I haven't seen anything yet (to me) that it's disrespecting the material.

To me, (using Star Wars again), it's the difference between Mandalorian and The Last Jedi. I consider the former respectful, despite the occasional retcon, but the other ... well, I'll leave it at the fact it's the only Star Wars movie/show I don't own.

 

[Remathilis]

Good. A lot of past canon was either completely useless and a waste of space or absolute garbage and a waste of space. Revising the canon to try and improve the ideas introduced in older products is a good thing.

Less harshly, I agree. If this is a 5e product, it needs to reflect what D&D in 2022 is, not what D&D in 1984 was. That's not too say that what was then was bad, but the game has moved on. It's like wanting a Greyhawk book with level limits and race/class restrictions since that's what Gary intended; the settings need to be updated to what the game is now or left in the past.