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

 

[Micah Sweet]

Star Wars is a D&D setting.
World of Warcraft is a D&D setting
Diablo is a D&D setting
Kalamar is a D&D setting
Middle Earth is a D&D setting
Rokugan is a D&D setting
Westros is a D&D setting
World of Darkness is a D&D setting
Doctor Who is a D&D setting

And to be perfectly frank, I'm tired of WotC's lack of support for Brujah, Jedi, samurai, Time lords, and so on.

A setting is a setting is a setting.

You know there are legal reasons why none of those are supported by WotC currently right? Apples and oranges.

 

[Faolyn]

All I know is that I can play any fantasy setting with any fantasy RPG without much fuss.

Can you show me the difference between Theros and my Greekish homebrew that was designed for D&D? Because I can't see it.

There's a huge difference. One of them was commissioned by WotC to be written specifically for D&D. The other was a setting that you chose to use with the D&D system. As you say earlier, you could run the Realms using GURPS, sure. I've both played in and run D&D/Pathfinder settings using GURPS. But if you had written the Realms for GURPS, it would look different than it currently does, because the systems work differently. For instance, magic. You can make assumptions using D&D spells (which always work as intended) that you can't with GURPS spell-magic (where not only is failure always a possibility, but there's a slight chance that a failure on any spell, even one of cantrip-level, will summon a demon). And if you use one of the other GURPS magic systems instead of spells, then it would be even more different. And all these things would affect how the rest of such a magic-heavy world would look and feel.

Even if you use the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy line, which is designed to mimic D&D, you would end up with a very different-feeling game (I've also played in, and run, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy games).

 

[Maxperson]

Star Wars is a D&D setting.
World of Warcraft is a D&D setting
Diablo is a D&D setting
Kalamar is a D&D setting
Middle Earth is a D&D setting
Rokugan is a D&D setting
Westros is a D&D setting
World of Darkness is a D&D setting
Doctor Who is a D&D setting

And to be perfectly frank, I'm tired of WotC's lack of support for Brujah, Jedi, samurai, Time lords, and so on.

A setting is a setting is a setting.

A setting is a setting is a setting. So first, we can eliminate Star Wars, World of Darkness and Doctor Who from that list, since I said fantasy for a reason. Sci-fi and modern are different genres, so you can't just toss fantasy rules into one of those settings and expect them to easily work.

As for the rest, do you really think that I can't grab literally any of those settings and run a D&D game in it with no problems?

A setting is a setting is a setting. Official support is not required for my statement to be true.

 

[Maxperson]

There's a huge difference. One of them was commissioned by WotC to be written specifically for D&D. The other was a setting that you chose to use with the D&D system.

That's not a relevant difference. We're discussing how the settings play with the various systems and if design affects it. While my design and WotC's design differed and one is official and one isn't, to the players playing in the two games, there is no difference as far as whether they are D&D settings or not.

Both Theros and my game are using D&D rules with zero issues. Both mesh perfectly with said rules. Play runs smoothly and enjoyably. Where the Theros setting originated vs. my D&D originating settting just doesn't matter. It's literally a distinction without a difference.

As you say earlier, you could run the Realms using GURPS, sure. I've both played in and run D&D/Pathfinder settings using GURPS. But if you had written the Realms for GURPS, it would look different than it currently does, because the systems work differently. For instance, magic. You can make assumptions using D&D spells (which always work as intended) that you can't with GURPS spell-magic (where not only is failure always a possibility, but there's a slight chance that a failure on any spell, even one of cantrip-level, will summon a demon). And if you use one of the other GURPS magic systems instead of spells, then it would be even more different. And all these things would affect how the rest of such a magic-heavy world would look and feel.

How does the magic failure of GURPS change anything with the Realms setting? Would there still be Elminster? Yes. Would he be a chosen of Mystra? Yes. Would there be gods? Yes. Would the history remain the same? Yes.

What changes with the design?

Even if you use the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy line, which is designed to mimic D&D, you would end up with a very different-feeling game (I've also played in, and run, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy games).

That different feel stems from the mechanics, though, NOT the setting which is what we are discussing here. Nobody is arguing that different RPG rules would not yield different feels. I'm saying that the setting itself can be plugged into any fantasy rule set without any difficulty.

 

[mamba]

No they can't. The DM can say I can't be an orc, but he cannot make me play anything else.

This seems to simply be you not understanding how words work. You not playing an orc <> you playing anything else.

Also, the rest of my post said exactly the same thing you are saying…

 

[Faolyn]

Sure, there are other ways to make a setting distinctive. But since Dragonlance doesn't have those, removing orcs is a good way to go. It's not like orcs add anything, it's simple, and it works the same in 5e as it did in 1st.

Then that's a problem. If the only thing a setting has going for it that it lacks some stuff, then it's not a good setting. It's just a setting that removes things for the sake of being different.

Instead, maybe Dragonlance should be playing up what it does have. Maybe dragons should be really emphasized and more common, with dragonriders being a more prominent thing--it doesn't even have to be true dragons; it could be drakes or wyverns. Maybe the moon-based magic should be less of a rare thing for only a handful of casters in their towers, but something that actually affects the whole world, and whatever moon is full literally causes the world to change for that night.

Whilst it doesn't actually ban any races, it does reskin them to suit the setting. You could argue that Dragonlance doesn't ban orcs, it reskins them as draconians.

There's a bit of a difference between "orcs aren't always evil and some of them have dragonmarks" and "orcs are actually literally dragon-born creatures."

 

[Maxperson]

What kind of disrespectful,rude player would insist the DM bend the knee to their self-entitled spoilt demands instead of respecting that the DM does so much hard work and investment and deserves to enjoy themselves too?

The same kind as the rude and disrespectful DM who insists players bend the knee.

Neither has power over the other. The DM has authority over the game world, but not one iota of authority over the players. The players have authority over their PCs, but not one iota of authority over the DM.

If either side asserts some sort of authority, that side is being a douche. If it's the DM, the players should leave him holding his world and go elsewhere. If it's the players, the DM asks them to leave and finds new players.

 

[Maxperson]

This seems to simply be you not understanding how words work. You not playing an orc <> you playing anything else.

I can opt to go to a different game and play an orc there. The DM cannot keep me from playing an orc or force me to play something other than an orc. He can only say no orcs in his game, which doesn't force me to do anything.

 

[Remathilis]

Could you imagine? Player sits at table: what are you playing?
DM: Dragonlance.
Player: cool! I want to play a cleric.
DM: you can, but we are playing in the days there was no magical healing and clerics had no spells.
Player: well, I want to play a cleric who has magic healing spells.
DM: we are not allowing that here. Sorry.
Player: You can't force ne to play something else. (Proceeds to take out his cleric).
DM: please leave this table.
Player: My cleric worships the Klingon god ...
DM: Security. Can you escort this person away from here?

Cool. I can't play a healing cleric. I'll play a divine soul sorcerer. Or a redemption paladin. Or a Celestial warlock. Or a shepherd druid. Or a mercy monk. Or just a lore bard with a bunch of healing spells. Maybe I'll do an aasimar and take the Magic Initiate feat...

Shall I keep going or are going to ban the whole Player's Handbook?

 

[mamba]

It's not semantics, because forced vs. not forced is literally the difference between night and day. If you say day and I say it's night, it's not a semantical disagreement.

He ‘forced’ you to not play an orc, he did not force you to play an elf instead, he did not even force you to play at all.

If you rather call this ‘he cannot force anything’ be my guest, hence semantics