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]

At which point, to be fair, you then have to create a people with a culture (probably more than one), determine their history and relationships with other cultures, and then find a place to put them on a world map not designed with a place for them to exist.

or... and just go with me on this... you do the amount of work you want to, cause "Oh, orcs live over there" is perfectly fine

Edit: and I can not stress enough it would change nothing of the setting or theme or adventure UNLESS the lack or orcs was in and of itself a plot point... but then the DM would be able to explain a reason.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

OK, I will admit I was wrong about them being allowed. But as I have said above, I doubt that most people would really care. Two of the three Greco-Roman 5e-based settings I know of allow them in just fine, and the only reason the third one doesn't is because it wasn't a world intended to be a D&D setting in the first place.

Thank you and respect for admitting that.

As for most people don't care, well, that might be true, or it might not be, I can't say, I'm not "most people" and nor are you.

But my reason for pointing this out is that Theros makes it very clear that 5E does not feature an inherent expectation that all races should be allowed in all settings, that WotC are totally happy to publish an official setting which doesn't do that.

lets try this again... you just have to answer...

You're kind of asking me to prove a negative here, which is a bit lame. I don't need to justify either to you, let's be clear.

I might want to justify either a player, if they were that keen. I have never in entire life come across a player THAT keen to play a specific race who wasn't in fact, some kind of ghastly individual who "only played vampires" or "only played elves" or the like, and frankly that's a huge red flag in a player. Like gigantic billowing banner of a red flag.

Personally, I can answer both for Dragonlance, to my satisfaction, so I will.

1) Because they're a boring-ass race that borings-up settings boringly, and they bring absolutely zero to a setting, being one of the most generic and overplayed races in existence. Does that apply to some other races? Oh yes! Absolutely! But they're established as parts of the Dragonlance setting so I'm happy to go with that. I'm not adding another one to the pile though. That pile is quite high enough!

Also in 5E official rules, they're still kind of racist-ly implemented, so unless we're using the much better 1D&D version... At least in the 1D&D version I can yes they're dumb and boring, but they've got good mechanics and removed racist implications - possibly unreasonably good mechanics!

2) Yes, because they're a distraction and change the nature of Krynn to be more generic, which it really doesn't need! It's already generic enough! Also I have multiple players familiar with Krynn, if I allowed Orcs, they'd be like "Wth?!". They know orcs don't exist on Krynn. Why vex them by adding them in?

Also just as an aside, it's not 2024 yet, no-one can make the "Orcs are in the PHB" argument lol. No time travel! If you want Half-Orcs you've creating even more complication by asking for a half-race of a race that doesn't exist lol.

If we're talking about for the official setting, I think it's important that D&D provides some backup for DMs who want to run a more trad take on what is a trad setting, and whilst I don't think they should go as far as Theros did, and just say "they're planar travellers" to other races, I do think they should say "X races are normally considered inhabitants of this part of Krynn, ask your DM if you want to play something else". I don't think that's like crazy stuff like you seemed to be making out.

EDIT - Personally I'm still intrigued to hear how they'll be making Clerics/Druids work in this setting, given like, explicitly and plot-centrally they don't. I can see how I'd do it in 4E, where Clerics has a like a tiny of the bit of the god in them, and it couldn't be taken away (so maybe you could get that from somewhere), but in 5E that rationale hasn't been used previously.

(As an aside, do I have it in for Orcs personally? Absolutely I do. They are pretty much always either "unfortunate racist implications" or "the most boring possible 'noble warrior race'" or somehow both (like in WoW), with the only real exception I can think of being Eberron. Next on my list? Elves, but there's no picking them out of the Krynn soup!)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You're kind of asking me to prove a negative here, which is a bit lame. I don't need to justify either to you, let's be clear.

if you don't want to talk about it, why respond?

I might want to justify either a player, if they were that keen. I have never in entire life come across a player THAT keen to play a specific race who wasn't in fact, some kind of ghastly individual who "only played vampires" or "only played elves" or the like, and frankly that's a huge red flag in a player. Like gigantic billowing banner of a red flag.

I have not known anyone that 'only' would play 1 race in years... like maybe since 2e. I don't see why that would be a red flag, but more power to you if you don't like it...

Personally, I can answer both for Dragonlance, to my satisfaction, so I will.

1) Because they're a boring-ass race that borings-up settings boringly,

now this is a red flag for me... you can't make a statement with refering to a bad word for a human body part... not somone I would generally like at my table if that is the go too...

and they bring absolutely zero to a setting, being one of the most generic and overplayed races in existence.

wait... you think half orc gets played more then half elf in general or in 5e specific?

2) Yes, because they're a distraction and change the nature of Krynn to be more generic, which it really doesn't need! It's already generic enough! Also I have multiple players familiar with Krynn, if I allowed Orcs, they'd be like "Wth?!". They know orcs don't exist on Krynn. Why vex them by adding them in?

yup that's alot of words for 'some dude said so back in the 80's said so'

Also just as an aside, it's not 2024 yet, no-one can make the "Orcs are in the PHB" argument lol.

well the discusion was about half orcs... I added (untill 2024 when they are replaced by orc)

If we're talking about for the official setting, I think it's important that D&D provides some backup for DMs who want to run a more trad take on what is a trad setting, and whilst I don't think they should go as far as Theros did, and just say "they're planar travellers" to other races, I do think they should say "X races are normally considered inhabitants of this part of Krynn, ask your DM if you want to play something else". I don't think that's like crazy stuff like you seemed to be making out.

I really hope wotc doesn't listen to fans like you,

EDIT - Personally I'm still intrigued to hear how they'll be making Clerics/Druids work in this setting, given like, explicitly and plot-centrally they don't. I can see how I'd do it in 4E, where Clerics has a like a tiny of the bit of the god in them, and it couldn't be taken away (so maybe you could get that from somewhere), but in 5E that rationale hasn't been used previously.

(As an aside, do I have it in for Orcs personally? Absolutely I do. They are pretty much always either "unfortunate racist implications" or "the most boring possible 'noble warrior race'" or somehow both (like in WoW), with the only real exception I can think of being Eberron. Next on my list? Elves, but there's no picking them out of the Krynn soup!)

 

[Micah Sweet]

or... and just go with me on this... you do the amount of work you want to, cause "Oh, orcs live over there" is perfectly fine

Edit: and I can not stress enough it would change nothing of the setting or theme or adventure UNLESS the lack or orcs was in and of itself a plot point... but then the DM would be able to explain a reason.

I don't run games without detailed settings, either my own homebrew or one provided for me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

now this is a red flag for me... you can't make a statement with refering to a bad word for a human body part... not somone I would generally like at my table if that is the go too...

Is this a joke? It's kind of a weird one. It really feels like a bad faith attempt to put me down, except it's too out there lol. Okay I guess? Maybe you can set a filter you don't have to see the worse ass? Or I could spell it arse if that helps? Really feeling like I accidentally jumped dimensions or something here lol, to one where ass is "the a-word" which no-one uses, not a relatively okay word for a part of the body everyone has.

I have not known anyone that 'only' would play 1 race in years... like maybe since 2e. I don't see why that would be a red flag, but more power to you if you don't like it...

It's a huge red flag and I think a number of DMs would agree, if they've had the bad luck to meet it.

Players who want to play a very specific race and only that race (and presuming it's not "human") often possess the following characteristics:

• Want to play a specific character, and play that regardless of setting/tone/atmosphere/other players.
• That specific character is an OC from free-form online RP and/or closely based on an anime/TV show/vampire movie
• They want to play that character regardless of setting/tone so they RP in a solipsistic way, and try and make the game about their character
• They aren't a good team player at all (unless that OC/character they're based on is - but they usually maximum "I work alone!!!")
• They get really excitable/frustrated when things don't go good for their character, to a very problematic degree

None of these are certainties, but this isn't a one-off. This a whole type of player, and usually the first sign of trouble is "I need to be race X!!!" when that race doesn't exist in the setting. This is the modern version note, there was an earlier version which was just as problematic but less online (and usually an elf not usually a vampire).

I really hope wotc doesn't listen to fans like you

Why? You still haven't explained any actual reasoning here, unlike @Faolyn who had more concrete reasons.

My suggestion harms no-one and empowers DMs who want to run a certain way, as well as those who don't. It's almost like you're against DMs having choice, and the reasoning seems to be "I want to run it this way, therefore all DMs should run like me!".

Like, I get liking to run things a specific way, but I don't get wishing all other DMs to be in the same situation. It seems weird too me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thank you and respect for admitting that.

As for most people don't care, well, that might be true, or it might not be, I can't say, I'm not "most people" and nor are you.

But my reason for pointing this out is that Theros makes it very clear that 5E does not feature an inherent expectation that all races should be allowed in all settings, that WotC are totally happy to publish an official setting which doesn't do that.

You're kind of asking me to prove a negative here, which is a bit lame. I don't need to justify either to you, let's be clear.

I might want to justify either a player, if they were that keen. I have never in entire life come across a player THAT keen to play a specific race who wasn't in fact, some kind of ghastly individual who "only played vampires" or "only played elves" or the like, and frankly that's a huge red flag in a player. Like gigantic billowing banner of a red flag.

Personally, I can answer both for Dragonlance, to my satisfaction, so I will.

1) Because they're a boring-ass race that borings-up settings boringly, and they bring absolutely zero to a setting, being one of the most generic and overplayed races in existence. Does that apply to some other races? Oh yes! Absolutely! But they're established as parts of the Dragonlance setting so I'm happy to go with that. I'm not adding another one to the pile though. That pile is quite high enough!

Also in 5E official rules, they're still kind of racist-ly implemented, so unless we're using the much better 1D&D version... At least in the 1D&D version I can yes they're dumb and boring, but they've got good mechanics and removed racist implications - possibly unreasonably good mechanics!

2) Yes, because they're a distraction and change the nature of Krynn to be more generic, which it really doesn't need! It's already generic enough! Also I have multiple players familiar with Krynn, if I allowed Orcs, they'd be like "Wth?!". They know orcs don't exist on Krynn. Why vex them by adding them in?

Also just as an aside, it's not 2024 yet, no-one can make the "Orcs are in the PHB" argument lol. No time travel! If you want Half-Orcs you've creating even more complication by asking for a half-race of a race that doesn't exist lol.

If we're talking about for the official setting, I think it's important that D&D provides some backup for DMs who want to run a more trad take on what is a trad setting, and whilst I don't think they should go as far as Theros did, and just say "they're planar travellers" to other races, I do think they should say "X races are normally considered inhabitants of this part of Krynn, ask your DM if you want to play something else". I don't think that's like crazy stuff like you seemed to be making out.

EDIT - Personally I'm still intrigued to hear how they'll be making Clerics/Druids work in this setting, given like, explicitly and plot-centrally they don't. I can see how I'd do it in 4E, where Clerics has a like a tiny of the bit of the god in them, and it couldn't be taken away (so maybe you could get that from somewhere), but in 5E that rationale hasn't been used previously.

(As an aside, do I have it in for Orcs personally? Absolutely I do. They are pretty much always either "unfortunate racist implications" or "the most boring possible 'noble warrior race'" or somehow both (like in WoW), with the only real exception I can think of being Eberron. Next on my list? Elves, but there's no picking them out of the Krynn soup!)

Orcs in Eberron at least benefit from having a culture, which shores up their lack of otherwise identifying characteristics. In the PH? No culture allowed.

 

[humble minion]

Personally I'm still intrigued to hear how they'll be making Clerics/Druids work in this setting, given like, explicitly and plot-centrally they don't.

Am I misremembering, or did I read somewhere WotC saying that the adventure was set after Goldmoon had discovered the Disks and clerical magic was coming back?

 

[mamba]

Am I misremembering, or did I read somewhere WotC saying that the adventure was set after Goldmoon had discovered the Disks and clerical magic was coming back?

I assume you are misremembering, haven’t heard that at least and as far as I can tell this is 6-9 months before Goldmoon finds the disks

 

[JEB]

5e does make any distinction between things in the PHB and things in any other part of the rules. Classes, races, spells, monsters, they have exactly the same status no matter which supplement they come from. Check out how they are organised on D&D beyond.

Interestingly, the Squire of Solamnia and Initiate of High Sorcery feats are specifically restricted to "Dragonlance Campaign", per previews. So that may be changing.

 

[Maxperson]

Krynn was created with 1st edition rules. And under those rules in order to be a bard you first had to gain dual class levels as a fighter and thief. Thus, bards were forced to be incredibly rare by the game mechanics.

But you don't have to be a bard in order to make music. The existence of music in no way implies the existence of bards.

1e called them bards by title.