Dragonlance Lunar Sorcery: A Preview from Shadow of the Dragon Queen

WotC has posted a preview from the upcoming Shadow of the Dragon Queen on D&D Beyond, diving into the Lunary Sorcery subclass.

Traditionally magic in Krynn has been represented by the Wizards of High Sorcery, who owe their allegiance to one of the black, red, or white moons (and gods) of magic. Sorcerers weren't around in D&D when Dragonlance was created.

Lunar Sorcerers also draw power from the moons, based on the moon's phase (Full, New, Crescent). You choose the phase each day (though at later levels you can do so more often). The subclass gets a lot of spells (15 additional spells!)

Lunar Sorcery Sorcerer Preview From Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen

Harness the power of the moon with the Lunar Sorcery sorcerer! Here's a look at the versatile features granted by this celestial subclass.

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Teemu]

The new Mages of High Sorcery is a good solution to recontextualizing Dragonlance’s arcane magic in 5e. I was never a huge fan of the Summer of Chaos aftermath—if you thought that the Spellplague was drastic, the Age of Mortals in DL was an order of magnitude more severe. All gods gone, magic revamped, new kaiju dragons ruling the lands, etc. It’s almost a different setting. The 3.5 era compromise between the original and the SAGA Dragonlance was okay, but the setting lost its focus.

I don’t see a need to create elaborate world events to justify new classes. WotC’s approach with this new take on DL is good because it focuses on the core Dragonlance experience (the big war) without needlessly complicating things by trying to explain sorcery vs wizardry vs warlocks. They’re all mages, and mages typically belong to an arcane order called Mages of High Sorcery. The moons can influence the magic of mages.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I wish WotC had the guts to just say hey Dragonlance doesn't have Sorcerers. Not try to force every option into every world.

As the DM, I can simply say "no sorcerers" in DL.

However, I wouldn't mind a blurb in a sidebar for settings like Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, etc. that references the "way things were done," something cool about the history of the development of the setting, and "if you wish to make your game resemble gameplay from when the game was originally released, here's some optional tips." Might satisfy old-school gamers like me, intrigue those looking to make the setting more distinguishable than vanilla Realms, and remain completely optional for those who don't need to satisfy that itch that way.

But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[Remathilis]

As the DM, I can simply say "no sorcerers" in DL.

However, I wouldn't mind a blurb in a sidebar for settings like Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, etc. that references the "way things were done," something cool about the history of the development of the setting, and "if you wish to make your game resemble gameplay from when the game was originally released, here's some optional tips." Might satisfy old-school gamers like me, intrigue those looking to make the setting more distinguishable than vanilla Realms, and remain completely optional for those who don't need to satisfy that itch that way.

But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

"Dragonlance was originally released in 1984 by Margaret Weiss and Tracy Hickman. If you wish to play the setting as originally envisioned, please consider the following optional rules:

• The following races aren't known on Krynn naturally: halflings, drow, orcs, half-orcs, dragonborn, tieflings, and all optional races from Monsters of the Multiverse unless the DM allows it.
• The following classes are not considered native to Krynn: artificer, bard, druid, monk, sorcerer and warlock.
• Humans should have a racial traits removed. All other races are limited to only 10th level maximum. Humans can go to 20th level.
• Humans can be any class. Elves and half-elves cannot be paladins or barbarians. Dwarves cannot be wizards, rangers or paladins, kender cannot be wizards, rangers, paladins, or barbarians. Any race can be a fighter, rogue or cleric.

These rules will allow you to experience Krynn as it was 38 years ago.

- WotC staff"

 

[Weiley31]

"Dragonlance was originally released in 1984 by Margaret Weiss and Tracy Hickman. If you wish to play the setting as originally envisioned, please consider the following optional rules:

• The following races aren't known on Krynn naturally: halflings, drow, orcs, half-orcs, dragonborn, tieflings, and all optional races from Monsters of the Multiverse unless the DM allows it.
• The following classes are not considered native to Krynn: artificer, bard, druid, monk, sorcerer and warlock.
• Humans should have a racial traits removed. All other races are limited to only 10th level maximum. Humans can go to 20th level.
• Humans can be any class. Elves and half-elves cannot be paladins or barbarians. Dwarves cannot be wizards, rangers or paladins, kender cannot be wizards, rangers, paladins, or barbarians. Any race can be a fighter, rogue or cleric.

These rules will allow you to experience Krynn as it was 38 years ago.

- WotC staff"

They said that all in one of the video previews? neat.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm gonna keep sorcerers out of dragonlance during the war of the lance era, but if I play in the 5th Age, then I'll include them. I'm thinking it would be more interesting to keep them distinct from wizards of high sorcery, perhaps even creating an academy sorcerer background for them which focuses on the realms of sorcery. Might also do similar for the mystics, but just use the sorcerer and replace their spell list with that of the cleric or perhaps I'll use the bard as the mystic since I'm not intending to include them as is.

 

[Remathilis]

They said that all in one of the video previews? neat.

Yup. Right here.

[LINK=youtube.com/dQw4w9WgXcQ[/LINK]

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I wish WotC had the guts to just say hey Dragonlance doesn't have Sorcerers. Not try to force every option into every world.

Nah that’s dumb and needlessly limiting

 

[Jiggawatts]

A lot of SAGA system fans would disagree. It's an innovative, flexible narrative RPG system that could have used more playtesting, but overall it's a real shame that it didn't last longer - it was great for both fantasy roleplaying and for the Marvel Superhero game - the biggest issue was it was too much of a change for a lot of the 1E/2E Dragonlance fans - one of my friends at the time complained that he'd spent so much money on dice, he didn't want to switch to a system with cards. Had it just been offered with a brand new fantasy setting, not a new system for Dragonlance, it would have likely done very well.

This is absolutely a fair point, my apologies. It is possible that SAGA could have thrived under completely fresh IP and different stewardship that wasnt late stage TSR. What was foolish was trying to shoehorn Dragonlance into such, which is apropos given the topic at hand.

Simultaneously, I think 4th Edition could have been a game with sustained success if it had not been named Dungeons & Dragons. If they had called it Magic the Gathering: The Roleplaying Game, or something completely new, it would have been received entirely differently.

 

[Faolyn]

"Dragonlance was originally released in 1984 by Margaret Weiss and Tracy Hickman. If you wish to play the setting as originally envisioned, please consider the following optional rules:

• The following classes are not considered native to Krynn: artificer, bard, druid, monk, sorcerer and warlock.

Shouldn't gnomes be allowed to be artificers? Or would that be making it so gnomes aren't completely useless and can actually make things that work?

 

[cbwjm]

Shouldn't gnomes be allowed to be artificers? Or would that be making it so gnomes aren't completely useless and can actually make things that work?

Gnomes in dragonlance were tinkers, not artificers. They made items based on technology rather than magic.