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

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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?
Why should such a spoilt, insensitive crybaby be allowed to ruin anothers enjoyment when they could just go olay an orc somewhere else or respecfully and POLITELY agree to play something else?
Who wants or needs players like that at their table?

I've played with DMs with this ideology. That's a mistake I don't care for repeating.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why should such a spoilt, insensitive crybaby be allowed to ruin anothers enjoyment

Because they're the DM and say they worked ~so hard~ at the job they volunteered for providing enjoyment to the players. And because the ancient, outdated culture makes them feel entitled because they get a title, apparently.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know it. I tried to get my group to be open to Level Up, but the most influential(stubborn(other than me)) member of the group likes 5e's simplicity. All I have is the Monstrous Menagerie, since monsters are what I control.

You have my sympathies. WotC's constant preaching for "simplicity" is the main reason I've mostly moved on.

 

[Maxperson]

You have my sympathies. WotC's constant preaching for "simplicity" is the main reason I've mostly moved on.

I have one player who wants simplicity. One who wants to go back to 3.5. And two who are fence wobblers and would be happy no matter which way. The one who wants simplicity, though, has the stronger personality.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I will just add that If Dragonlance had originally come out during say 3 or 4e then lots of the stuff the conservatives don't want in it would have been in from the start.
A bunch of stuff just was not in it because it did not exist at the time.

 

[Stormonu]

You have my sympathies. WotC's constant preaching for "simplicity" is the main reason I've mostly moved on.

For me, it's kind of like Apple - I've let myself get used to using D&D Beyond, and if its not there it tends to get forgotten about/not used.

Also, I'd like more depth to some of the rules, options and scenarios - but once I actually try to implement something more involved, I quickly understand why they aren't complex and am apt to fall back to "what was".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I will just add that If Dragonlance had originally come out during say 3 or 4e then lots of the stuff the conservatives don't want in it would have been in from the start.
A bunch of stuff just was not in it because it did not exist at the time.

Dragonlance had a major series of releases during third ed, and they found a way to include the 3e stuff that made sense, and it worked.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Dragonlance had a major series of releases during third ed, and they found a way to include the 3e stuff that made sense, and it worked.

I talking about had it been made then originally.

 

[Maxperson]

I will just add that If Dragonlance had originally come out during say 3 or 4e then lots of the stuff the conservatives don't want in it would have been in from the start.
A bunch of stuff just was not in it because it did not exist at the time.

And even more wasn't in 1e Dragonlance because the creators removed the vast majority of monsters.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Dragonlance was an experiment. It was the first setting to change ANYTHING. And yes it did add stuff (kender, draconians). But it was conservative in what it did. It only removed things that where rubbish and didn't matter, like orcs. If you want to say "Dragonlance was bad" because of that, fair enough. But it was an innovative prototype that paved the way for all the diverse campaign setting we have now. I could come up with a long list of other reasons Dragonlance was bad too, but the absence of orcs doesn't make the list.

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.

This is a completely different setting, nothing like Krynn. Sounds more like Pern. Why not replace Takhisis with a Red Star whilst you are at it?

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.

Again, this is a completely different setting, nothing like Krynn. You don't get to call a setting Dragonlance if you change everything about it, down to the fundamentals of how magic works.

Maybe your setting would be a be better setting - but it wouldn't be Dragonlance.

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."

How about "orcs are humans in cheap looking rubber masks". Which is actually the truth about them.