Dragonlance Dragonlance: Solamnic Knights & Mages of High Sorcery Preview

WotC has shared another preview of the upcoming Dragonlance setting/adventure with a look at backgrounds and feats for Solamnic Knights and Mages of High Sorcery.

Feats include Squire of Solamnia and Initiate of High Sorcery. Interestingly, one prerequisite is "Dragonlance Campaign", which implies that the feats can't be used outside that setting.

Dragonlance Backgrounds and Feats: Answer the Call as Knights and Mages

Will you join the Knights of Solamnia or the Mages of High Sorcery? Each offers a unique background and feats for Dragonlance characters. Get a sneak pe...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I can't speak to Theros, but the worldbuilding for Ebrrron and Wildemount was primarily done by WotC. They have their own authors.

Eberron: Rising from the Last War had 3 lead designers, two of which are from WotC (James Wyatt and Jeremy Crawford). Keith Baker didn't singlehandedly write the whole setting, you know.

 

[Reynard]

Which is why "the Knights of Solamnia all have stupid mustaches" can't be a unifying theme anymore. Unlike "they ride dragons" and "are basically paladins except nonmagical".

You bias is showing.

There were those slave elves, right? I also doubt that this book will mention the difference unless the adventure goes to where the elves live. This isn't a setting book, it's an adventure book.

Yes. Exactly.

Please define "deep" worldbuilding. Do you mean stuff like listing the exports, laws, and taxes of every single country? Because 5e has stuff like that.

That's a weird set of things to choose. My point was that Wotc in this edition (as opposed to during the 3.x era) has eschewed following up their settings with more deeply detailed supplements -- a thing common through the first 30 years D&D, including in the WotC era.

I know it is attractive to defend everything WotC does as the obviously true and right thing, but it's treatment of legacy settings has been demonstrably poor from day 1. Of course, it's treatment of M:TG settings has been equally shallow and incidental, which just goes to show that neither WotC nor their primary audience care about detailed, developed, nuanced settings.

 

[Reynard]

Eberron: Rising from the Last War had 3 lead designers, two of which are from WotC (James Wyatt and Jeremy Crawford). Keith Baker didn't singlehandedly write the whole setting, you know.

Yes, that's what they said: "primarily done by WotC." It's right in the post you quoted. What's your point?

 

[dave2008]

That mage feat remains definitively weaker than Magic Initiate.

Is Magic Initiate a 1st level feat in '24 D&D? I think the Dragonlance 1st level feats are intended to mimic their plans for '24 D&D which are weaker than '14 feats.

 

[bedir than]

Is Magic Initiate a 1st level feat in '24 D&D? I think the Dragonlance 1st level feats are intended to mimic their plans for '24 D&D which are weaker than '14 feats.

Dragonlance is supposed to have big feats for big problems. The average encounter is more difficult.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You bias is showing.

That I think their mustaches look stupid? Because I do think their mustaches look stupid. And they are basically paladins. They're inspired by the same real-world archetypes/stories that inspired the Paladin class.

Yes. Exactly.

And the point is? This is an adventure book, not a setting book. I don't expect a Forgotten Realms adventure to explain the entirety of Toril. It just needs to give enough information to play the campaign.

That's a weird set of things to choose. My point was that Wotc in this edition (as opposed to during the 3.x era) has eschewed following up their settings with more deeply detailed supplements -- a thing common through the first 30 years D&D, including in the WotC era.

I know it is attractive to defend everything WotC does as the obviously true and right thing, but it's treatment of legacy settings has been demonstrably poor from day 1. Of course, it's treatment of M:TG settings has been equally shallow and incidental, which just goes to show that neither WotC nor their primary audience care about detailed, developed, nuanced settings.

You didn't answer my question. What is "deep" worldbuilding?

Yes, that's what they said: "primarily done by WotC." It's right in the post you quoted. What's your point?

I was responding to @Micah Sweet in that post, not you. It was a different point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is Magic Initiate a 1st level feat in '24 D&D? I think the Dragonlance 1st level feats are intended to mimic their plans for '24 D&D which are weaker than '14 feats.

I don't know. I'm going by what they're doing now, not by what they might do in the future. It's a new concept for me, I know.

 

[dave2008]

Dragonlance is supposed to have big feats for big problems. The average encounter is more difficult.

Compared to '14 D&D without feats (even if you use that option), getting a bonus 1st & 4th level feat is already a power up, even if that 1st level feat is weaker than the standard.

 

[bedir than]

Compared to '14 D&D without feats (even if you use that option), getting a bonus 1st & 4th level feat is already a power up, even if that 1st level feat is weaker than the standard.

But it's not weaker?

 

[cbwjm]

They changed the Knights of Solamnia to accept women into their ranks. That might have something to do with mustaches not being required for them anymore.

Pretty sure that's been a thing since 2e, at the very least they've had artwork depicting women in the knights of solamnia in the game book. I've no idea how they were presented in the novels, been ages since I've read through them, but at least as far as the game book is concerned, I never considered that women couldn't join since I bought the 2e boxed set back in the 90s.