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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've seen players disappointed that a setting doesn't support a race that they wanted to use for a character idea.

I hate to say this, but I would consider that poor quality play. A player should try their best create a character that is a good fit for the setting and storyline. They are there to make sure everyone in the group has fun, not just themselves, and helping to maintain the integrity of the fictional world is part of that.

There will always be another campaign, you should save your character ideas for where they fit best.

For example, the character I created for the Witchlight campaign was an elven toymaker.

But that's just my opinion. Play styles will vary.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I hate to say this, but I would consider that poor quality play.

Being disappointed by something disappointing is poor quality play. Not arguing, not complaining, not leaving the game -- just being disappointed is poor quality play.

That's where we are now? Not having the right emotions.

 

[Xamnam]

. . . How in the world is it a bad thing that DMs would add a race/monster that they like to the world?

I have always preferred having additional information about a world, even if it runs counter to my expectations, so that I can have a more complete picture of the setting and make sure that I'm not unconsciously contradicting established facts. Informed decisions are more satisfying to me than assumptions. To me, it would be bad if I did that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've seen players disappointed that a setting doesn't support a race that they wanted to use for a character idea.

So save the idea for future? I mean, there's also a big line between "mild disappointment", which is perfectly understandable and literally every long-time, multi-game, multi-campaign RPGer has experienced, and throwing a strop and/or behaving like Violet Elizabeth Bott like some players do when they don't get their way.

Being mad about the former, is, as @Vaalingrade points out, pretty much "thought police" stuff. Being mad about the latter, or any kind of serious sulking is much more reasonable.

Not every character idea is suitable for every campaign. If you can't handle that fact, you shouldn't be playing group RPGs at all, frankly. That's regardless of DM restrictions. Plenty of times, you may have a character idea you like that just doesn't fit with the other PCs, or the campaign's general intended tone, even though the DM hasn't restricted you. If you're genuinely cooperative person, that is not going to be a problem for you.

I have never, not once in my life heard anyone say anything remotely similar to "wow! It's cool that X setting goes out of its way to ban Y part of the game! That's awesome!"

Either you have a lot less RPG-life-experience than you think, or you definitely weren't around in the '90s, like 100%, or you're just not thinking about this very hard.

Because loads of people said stuff like that.

You yourself were JUST TALKING about and praising Dark Sun for god's sake! Loads of people loved it that Paladins were banned, that Clerics were drastically changed and basically turned into a whole different class, that Druids were essentially gone, and so on. Loads of people loved it that the PHB races were entirely deleted and replaced by other races! They were GENUINELY PLEASED. It was exciting. How are you missing that?

And you're saying that never happened? You are I'm afraid, very wrong.

I've seen people upset that a DM strongly restricted player options without a good reason.

What is a "good reason"? Rhetorical question because it's literally impossible to answer. There are some players out there who are deeply entitled, and there aren't a few of them either (and some of them aren't bad players aside from the entitlement, either!). Some players think unless they get to play their awesome vampire katana-wielding badass in every campaign, it's a totally unjustified restriction. And like I'm not opposed to vampires with katanas (indeed, I've argued for them, lol), but they don't fit every campaign. That some player felt entitled to an option they weren't allowed isn't new, and doesn't mean anything.

3.XE and PF1 are absolutely peak for this. They're completely chock-full of totally broken options. Races, classes, Prestige Classes, weapons, Feats, spells and so on. Loads of them broken as hell, or just really obvious inappropriate to a campaign, but do people complain and get sad because they didn't get to use them? They do. Sometimes they even used to post here about it, back in the day. And usually they didn't get the reception they hoped for lol.

I can give specific examples if you like, I've played long enough I've seen a few.

But again, not every character concept is suitable for every campaign, and if you can't handle that, don't play group RPGs. Play solo ones, play online free-form, or just DM and make people put up with your awful GMPC. You got options!

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Wait a moment, please! If you are going to play Dragonlance, are you going to respect totally and 100% all the canon and the lore of the novels, or are you going to add your own homemade retcons?

In your game, is going to happen the summer chaos and the age of mortals?

And how are the link between Absalon and the rest of the planet, the Krynnspace and D&D multiverse? Are your PCs going to travel to another planes?

Are there genies in Krynn?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Being disappointed by something disappointing is poor quality play. Not arguing, not complaining, not leaving the game -- just being disappointed is poor quality play.

That's where we are now? Not having the right emotions.

I didn't say I was disappointed. It's guilt I feel, because I also don't believe it's right to criticise how other people choose to have fun. So I'm apologising for being hypocritical.

What I actually do is in session zero I give players guidance about what sort of characters would be a good fit for the campaign. And they listen to me because they trust that I am trying to make sure everyone has the best possible experience. If someone has a particular character concept that is not a good fit then I will try and plan the next campaign as one in which that character does fit.

 

[mamba]

From my understanding, the setting purists wanted it to be clear that Orcs were banned on Dragonlance. @Micah Sweet did eventually settle for a compromise like Theros, but there were still people saying that Orcs should be banned from the setting.

I feel this is directed at me, if you were thinking of someone else, just ignore it

All I focused on is that in 1e, 2e and 3e orcs do not exist on Krynn and as far as we know never did (unlike Dark Sun where they existed but were wiped out). With zero implications for 5e.

At no point in time did I say they should be banned in 5e. In fact I even said I do not care either way as I can always do whatever I want with them as DM (remove them if they are in, add them if they are not).

 

[Velderan]

I feel this is directed at me, if you were thinking of someone else, just ignore it

All I focused on is that in 1e, 2e and 3e orcs do not exist on Krynn and as far as we know never did (unlike Dark Sun where they existed but were wiped out). With zero implications for 5e.

At no point in time did I say they should be banned in 5e. In fact I even said I do not care either way as I can always do whatever I want with them as DM (remove them if they are in, add them if they are not).

I mean has anyone actually used the word banned? I feel like the traditionalists are more asking for something similar to 1E DLA saying a half-orc would be a magical freak because orcs don't exist natively on Krynn and a few of us have pointed to recent precedent WotC has set with Theros and Ravnica. Nowhere does the word banned appear in even 1E, it just doesn't provide a helpful suggestion on how to implement one because the game overall was much more rigid in those days and some of the means to connect worlds just didn't exist (Spelljammer for example).

 

[mamba]

Wait a moment, please! If you are going to play Dragonlance, are you going to respect totally and 100% all the canon and the lore of the novels, or are you going to add your own homemade retcons?

what difference does that make, no one is preventing you from making yours

In your game, is going to happen the summer chaos and the age of mortals?

my campaign will not last 20+ in game years so, no

And how are the link between Absalon and the rest of the planet, the Krynnspace and D&D multiverse? Are your PCs going to travel to another planes?

no, I hate planar travel. You can argue they maybe go to the Abyss or so, but this is this world’s hell, not a different plane to me. There certainly is no Toril floating out there somewhere

Are there genies in Krynn?

if you want them to

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? Why does that need to be clear? That's not necessary. It just doesn't need to mention them. None of the recent setting/adventure books mention any of the races and their roles in the setting. The book doesn't need to say anything about them.

Define recent. Does Theros count as recent? Is this a before or after Tasha's situation, because that definitely seems to be an era shift.