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

 

[Maxperson]

Good thing "the gods return" is literally day 0 of this module then.

I agree. Assuming it's day 0 and not day like 120 or something. Once the gods return, things like those other classes become possible, but then clerics would also be possible at that point, so you wouldn't need to go to those other classes for healing.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a tremendous difference. I'm really surprised you can't see it.

Okay. So explain to me why it matters if I play a setting that chooses 15 gods to match MtG colors vs. a setting made for D&D that has the same 15 gods. What's the "tremendous difference" that you are talking about?

Right--because you wrote your game to work in D&D.

Just like every other fantasy setting created.

No actually, it wouldn't. The way that magic works is incredibly different. Spell failure is but one small aspect of those differences. The fact that there's no such thing as "wizard magic" or "cleric magic" is another. All spellcasters work the same way, and the mere fact that any old wizard can cure your wounds, and any old cleric could fireball you, changes the face of the world.

This changes nothing about the Realms. Elminster's magic doesn't touch on what would be divine and spellcasters that follow say Kelemvor use magic that heals and deals with undead. Easy peasy. Nothing changes.

Unless, of course, you're using yet another type of GURPS magic, but most divine magic there is still totally different than D&D magic. The facts that there are very few permanent spells in GURPS, and enchantment is a lot harder and more time-consuming (and more dangerous, because of demons) is yet another difference. GURPS simply isn't equipped for the type of magic that runs willy-nilly throughout Faerun without resorting to a lot of GM handwaving. It's built for a more "realistic", lower-fantasy world. It's very well-known that GURPS tends to fail in high-power, splashy settings, whether that's high magic or super heroes.

The mechanics are irrelevant to the lore, which is the Realms setting.

 

[Maxperson]

So yeah, any DM willing to trash that much of the game is a DM I would run, not walk away from. But that is the same kind of design that keeps me away from any "low magic" setting or classic Dark Sun.

The rule is simple. Divine magic and healing magic is not present in the campaign world until the gods return. If you want to use it, you will need to be patient. Nothing is being "trashed."

So yeah, any selfish, entitled player who expects the setting to change to fit his desires is a player I would not DM for. It works both ways.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Really, the argument is whether WotC will bother to put such a list in the book at all.

As far as I can see, the argument is over whether WotC will state that a campaign can only run with classic DL rules, or whether they don't mention those at all and everything is up for grabs. There's very little discussion at all concerning the sane middle ground, of mentioning the classic rules, but stating that it can be run either that way or not, depending on what those playing the adventure want.

 

[Jaeger]

And my position that setting purists are bad for the game and should not be catered to over the newer community has not changed.

There is no reason a re-released setting cannot remain true to what has come before, and be presented in a digestible format that new players can grok.

There is no either/or here. Now if you didn't like the original setting to begin with - just say you don't like it. Changing it around so much that it is just a skinsuit trading on nostalgia, and not expecting older fans to point it out is a bit weak sauce.

Like I said earlier, the amount of older lore that actually did need to change is, and was, much, much smaller than the wholesale lore changes WotC ultimately did make.

 

[Faolyn]

Okay. So explain to me why it matters if I play a setting that chooses 15 gods to match MtG colors vs. a setting made for D&D that has the same 15 gods. What's the "tremendous difference" that you are talking about?

I never claimed the gods had anything to do with the differences.

But, if Magic: the Gathering has five colors that are Very Important, and that control aspects of the world(s), then any system that is used to play a MtG TTRPG with needs to have rules reflect those five colors. It's very likely, even certain, a non-D&D-based system would do a better job of it than D&D does, but that wasn't going to happen because WotC owns both MtG and D&D and isn't going to compete against itself.

Just like every other fantasy setting created.

You've created every fantasy setting? Or you only create fantasy settings that work in D&D? What is it?

Because I can think of lots of fantasy settings that wouldn't work in D&D. My personal favorite, the Discworld, wouldn't.

This changes nothing about the Realms. Elminster's magic doesn't touch on what would be divine and spellcasters that follow say Kelemvor use magic that heals and deals with undead. Easy peasy. Nothing changes.

Who cares about Elminster? He's one of a... lot of named NPCs in the Realms and probably millions of PCs. And as someone who is currently playing in a game with a cleric of Kelemvor, they very much know there's a difference between divine and arcane magic.

The mechanics are irrelevant to the lore, which is the Realms setting.

That's very sad for your version of the Realms, then.

 

[Remathilis]

No, that's wrong. Is an addition that doesn't run contrary to what came before. A retcon changes something previously established. The races of Eberron, including the "other races." was established in the first book. Dragonborn and Tieflings were not among the "other races."

I know you would rather die than admit you're wrong, but try to keep up.

Lets stat by reading the first thing you should know: Page 8 of the ECS.

1. If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron.
A monster or spell or magic item from the core rulebooks might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron’s tone and attitude, but otherwise everything in the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual has a place somewhere in Eberron. Also, this is the first D&D setting built entirely from the v.3.5 rules, which enabled us to blend rules and story in brand-new ways.

See how it specifically calls out the PHB, DMG, and MM? Good.

Now, we look at the v3.5 Monster Manual, and what do we see?

Half-dragon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Tiefling (planetouched). . . . 209

Now, I'll grant that half-dragon isn't exactly a dragonborn. Half-dragon was a popular concept and a highly sought-after one, but the fact it was a template AND had a LA of +3 made them not particularly good PCs. In response, WotC created a race which effectively created a LA +0 version of half-dragons, which they called the Dragon Born of Bahamut. That was later simplified down to 4e version of dragonborn who (like tieflings) were given a collective racial identify rather than half-fiends and half-dragons. Nevertheless, they are both canonically part of Eberron per Rule 1 in letter, and certainly in spirit. The Player's Guide to Eberron went on to discuss them further. Adding additional info is not a retcon. They were always intended in the setting. The only thing that changed was their prominence as later editions moved them from MM to PHB.

I get you want to find some artificial limitation to Eberron because the fact that it's a kitchen-sink setting that is distinct from Forgotten Realms destroys your argument and you are desperate to cling to it, but please, just admit you are wrong on this one and drop it.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree. Assuming it's day 0 and not day like 120 or something. Once the gods return, things like those other classes become possible, but then clerics would also be possible at that point, so you wouldn't need to go to those other classes for healing.

Really, it's a nothingburger except to point out a campaign with "no clerics/magic healing" effectively neuters a good 70% of the game, and such restrictions (without something to compensate for the loss) tend to cause massive problems over the life of the campaign.

I wonder, would a 4e game set before the Return of the Gods still allow a Warlord's martial healing? If not, why not?

 

[Maxperson]

But, if Magic: the Gathering has five colors that are Very Important, and that control aspects of the world(s), then any system that is used to play a MtG TTRPG with needs to have rules reflect those five colors. It's very likely, even certain, a non-D&D-based system would do a better job of it than D&D does, but that wasn't going to happen because WotC owns both MtG and D&D and isn't going to compete against itself.

Okay, but this isn't the argument being made here. The argument being made here is that the design that went into Theros as a MtG setting makes a difference in the Theros made for D&D. It doesn't. It can't. None of those decisions matter in the least or has any effect on how the Theros D&D setting plays.

You've created every fantasy setting? Or you only create fantasy settings that work in D&D? What is it?

Name a fantasy RPG setting that I can't easily play in with the D&D rules.

Because I can think of lots of fantasy settings that wouldn't work in D&D. My personal favorite, the Discworld, wouldn't.

Sure it would. Vancian casting. Clerics. Barbarians. Rogues. All the classes are there, as are multiple forms of magic. Monsters to kill. Quests to be had. All you have to do is run D&D as a comical style game on that world. I can easily run Discworld using D&D rules.

 

[Maxperson]

I know you would rather die than admit you're wrong, but try to keep up.

Lets stat by reading the first thing you should know: Page 8 of the ECS.

1. If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron.
A monster or spell or magic item from the core rulebooks might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron’s tone and attitude, but otherwise everything in the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual has a place somewhere in Eberron. Also, this is the first D&D setting built entirely from the v.3.5 rules, which enabled us to blend rules and story in brand-new ways.

See how it specifically calls out the PHB, DMG, and MM? Good.

Now, we look at the v3.5 Monster Manual, and what do we see?

Half-dragon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Tiefling (planetouched). . . . 209

Has a place =/= is present in the world. It just means that if you want to put it there as the DM, it works for the setting. Then it tells the DM and players multiple times that the DM has say on if an unusual race is in the campaign.