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

 

[Dire Bare]

Have there ever been any words or text actually addressing the Knights of Solamnia's facial hair grooming standards or are we just basing this on artwork from a time where mustaches were far more common than they are in our contemporary society?

Handlebar mustachios were not common in the 80s. They were associated with the Solamnic knights because they were old-fashioned IRL at the time. The knights were originally depicted as stodgy, old-fashioned, and out-of-touch. Sturm is the hero who makes the old-fashioned tradition WORK.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

no I didn't swear at you I expect the same respect. I realize that enworld is no longer the 'grandma friendly' site I joined years ago but I see no reason to use words like that especially with people I don't know.

I think useing vulgur words that are just passable enough to get past the censors is bad form...

we have to disagree here.

I am going to come back to this

yeah I know plenty of new players that base there ideas off of anime tv shows and vampire movies... and I have known them since the 90's. What is wrong with wanting to play your OC from the free from online RP ideas? That is my fiancé calls role playing (neither likes doing the other but we respect that we are more or less doing the same)

this is way more of the thing I said I would come back to... it's not that there character doesn't fit the setting/tone it's that they are SHOWING YOU whate setting tone and style they are looking for... and by the sounds of it you are annoyed at them doing so.

this is so against EVERY freeform role player I have ever met... they work together better then most. It almost feels like this one is the batman/wolverine sub set and has little or nothing to do with the rest of this.

this is again the reverse of free from role players that LOVE to torture there characters for angst.

it almost seems to me you took every bad experience and tried to lump it in together here. I am hopeful that you never have to put up with role players that bring you characters you don't like.

I have repeated my reasoning over and over and even quoted them back... I have no problem with restrictions I just think that the bare minimum is you need a reason and 'cause I or someone else said so' isn't a compleing one (IMO)

you can run however you like... but I think (and hope) wotc doesn't default to restrictions for no reason.

yet again my version is... wotc should just not put art or npcs in of the races and let the group decide...

This is just not something that's in any way worth responding to in detail, sorry mate. I can't take it remotely seriously. If you've never seen problematic play of this type, count yourself lucky.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is just not something that's in any way worth responding to in detail, sorry mate. I can't take it remotely seriously. If you've never seen problematic play of this type, count yourself lucky.

if it's not worth responding to, what is this I am responding to?

 

[Fifth Element]

I wonder if there's anything interesting being discussed in that Dragonlance thread. Oh, complaining about moustaches? Never mind then.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Here is your quote

Maybe you meant 'some' with 'these', I took it differently

That was intended to mean "some".

 

[Dire Bare]

I wonder if there's anything interesting being discussed in that Dragonlance thread. Oh, complaining about moustaches? Never mind then.

Oh, it gets even better. Check out the other DL threads going on right now.

WotC is just RUINING Dragonlance, without the staches, and without telling DMs they have to ban orcs at their tables.

 

[Remathilis]

So you object to Theros suggesting that you should by default use only specific races?

The trouble is that this isn't a rational argument on your part, it's just an impassioned speech with an explicit demand, which is nice and all, but doesn't actually get us anywhere. There's no logic to what you're saying, it's just "I'm right, you're wrong!" or rather "I'm right and WotC is not allowed to release a setting that doesn't contain every single race/class and carefully avoids any suggestion any might not be present!!!!!".

Theros is being discussed elsewhere, but I'll say my opinion is that the MTG settings are guest settings. At best, it's an attempt to approximate playing in that setting without needing to make a whole new RPG to properly do it justice. Ravnica and Theros (and to an extent Exandria) are about as official D&D settings as Kalamar or Rokugan were.

A D&D setting was a setting designed for D&D first. It should reflect what is in D&D at the time it is being updated. There are a few reasons for that.

1. WotC wants to maximize profit. They do that by making their books as compatible as possible. They want you to buy Everything books and use them in Ravenloft, Spelljammer and Dragonlance. They want you to run Radiant Citadel adventures in Eberron or Greyhawk. It is not in their interest to sell you books that forbid or exclude other books from being used.

2. They want settings to have a light touch. Ravenloft got rid of Powers Checks and dozens of changes to spells and classes. Spelljammer got rid of the rules for losing spellcasting while jamming. Krynn's moons no longer affect spell power. A setting gets a few added options, but almost never anything that requires a second book modifying a different book. You can make a character using the only PHB and play them in any D&D world with only an additional option (like Dark Gifts or Bonus feats) added via the setting.

3. A small one, but settings with consistent options make organized play (Adventurer's League) easier to manage. Especially with players who drop in and out and aren't necessarily keyed into a settings particular nuance.

4. It creates a unified brand appearance. Certain design principles and assumptions remain constant across all settings. When the book says "D&D" you're getting a large collection of assumptions already baked into it. It's just up to the setting to flavor them (War. Space. Horror. Pulp/noir.)

Now you're probably going to say none of that matters to you, the DM of your own game. Those are concerns for WotC as brand manager and publisher. And you're right! They don't matter to your table. WotC doesn't care if you ban everything but humans and fighters at your table. But they care what is going to go in their books, and if you think there is any incentive for them to tell you to ban anything, you're insane.

The era of TSR, who made a bunch of completing RPGs that used some common resources but were otherwise unique games, is over. The trend has been towards the notion of unified game rules and options since 3e. There may be an exception on occasion (like kender replacing halfling) but the overall trend is settings that complement but don't compete with the core rules.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It is a D&D setting. That it came to D&D from MtG doesn't change that.

It's a Magic: the Gathering setting. You can play it in D&D, but the system and universe that it was originally designed for are important to the point I was making.

Dragonlance is originally a D&D setting, much the same way that Theros was originally an MtG setting. If MtG makes a set of cards that is Dragonlance in the same way that they made a Forgotten Realms set, then that set will be an MtG set, not a D&D setting. The origin/inspiration doesn't change that.

Which is completely irrelevant and pointless pedantry.

The Forgotten Realms is a D&D setting. Sure, there's a M:tG set for the Forgotten Realms. That doesn't mean that it's at its core a "M:tG" setting.

 

[humble minion]

Oh, it gets even better. Check out the other DL threads going on right now.

I had a perfectly good thread about the integration of d&d-style magic and adventurers into medieval social and economic structures locked a few days back because it turned into an argument about orcs in dragonlance.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Oh, it gets even better. Check out the other DL threads going on right now.

WotC is just RUINING Dragonlance, without the staches, and without telling DMs they have to ban orcs at their tables.

The arguing over hypotheticals and minutiae, and the leaping to conclusions with extremely minimal (or even no) evidence, is just ridiculous. This thread alone is over 1500 posts long, and most of it is arguing over something that in the book will almost inevitably be "Here are the options if you want to play a traditional DL campaign - but if you don't, feel free to ignore them", rendering all that discussion null and void.