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

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The second part about what's acceptable in 2022? That's extremely personal and implying your thoughts reflect a large enough group to imply a product isn't viable is what I was saying comes off as pretty arrogant.

I didn't say anything personal I said things acceptable at large in 198X are not in 202x... this is not an opinion it isn't even a judgement (I personally think there are many things we don't do in 2022 that I don't understand why) unless your arguement is nothing as a whole changed about what we do and do not find acceptable as a socioty in the last 30-40 years I don't see where you are going.

Ultimately a story needs a protagonist though and while I also have heard people I personally know say "I can't watch HotD because I just can't get behind either side", some people don't need that absolute moral alignment with a bit of media to enjoy it. 9.3m people were comfortable enough with the morally questionable characters to tune in the night the last episode aired.

again, no one is holding up these people as good... I can read about two monsters going at it and take a side, that isn't the same as reading about 2 monsters going at it and having to be told one is the exemplar of good.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How do you go up levels then, if the PCs in your game don't kill monsters that have done evil?

with XP... although I hear some groups do milestone.

why would I ever have to kill to get XP in modern D&D?

now I didn't say we never kill though to begin with... as I said in defense of self and defense of other we do.

SO if someone is trying to kill the town we may have to kill them, but we may talk them out of it... either way we over came the challange and get xp.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Remember Gary said it was good to immediately kill someone converted to Good from Evil so they don't backslide.

Surely this was said in jest? So funny if it is true.
Kinda like suggesting one should slay orc babies before they manifest evil through their actions.

 

[Maxperson]

with XP... although I hear some groups do milestone.

why would I ever have to kill to get XP in modern D&D?

now I didn't say we never kill though to begin with... as I said in defense of self and defense of other we do.

SO if someone is trying to kill the town we may have to kill them, but we may talk them out of it... either way we over came the challange and get xp.

Well, more power to you. If you guys are having fun, you're doing it right. It sounds boring to me, though. I like adventuring and going into dungeons and tombs. If we see a vampire or some wights, we're not going to walk up and wait to be attacked first.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say anything personal I said things acceptable at large in 198X are not in 202x... this is not an opinion it isn't even a judgement (I personally think there are many things we don't do in 2022 that I don't understand why) unless your arguement is nothing as a whole changed about what we do and do not find acceptable as a socioty in the last 30-40 years I don't see where you are going.

again, no one is holding up these people as good... I can read about two monsters going at it and take a side, that isn't the same as reading about 2 monsters going at it and having to be told one is the exemplar of good.

Can't you just look at the setting, think, "That's not good as I see it" and leave it at that? Why the insistence on changing it for everybody? Clearly there are plenty of folks who can accept the Cataclysm as written in the context of that story.

There are plenty of aspects of various settings I don't care for, even if I like the setting as a whole. I might change those things in my own game, or choose to ignore them in my enjoyment of that setting. I would never, however, advocate that those things be changed for everyone else.

 

[Maxperson]

how many times... you do realize that for every revelation there are 100s of times dictators last there whole life because no one dare oppose them...

I think you mean there was no organized opposition. One of the hallmarks of those dictators is that they murder lots and lots of people dare to who oppose them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Good held power for a long time in Krynn. It wasn't just the Kingpriest or what he did. In Krynn the cosmic balance was required and the good gods violated it either intentionally, or by negligence in allowing their followers to gain too much power and influence.

The evil of the Kingpriest did in the name of good was both the straw that broke the camel's back and the fuse used by the evil and neutral gods to rebalance the world via the cataclysm, and the good gods had no choice but to go along with it. Their last chance to rebalance the world without the cataclysm failed when Lord Soth went astray.

again this if anything IS balance, good was doing good then switched to evil and was doing evil (even if they still claim or even thought themselves good) at no point did 'too much good' do anything

 

[GMforPowergamers]

/shrug

It made sense to me. Too much good led the world to a bad place where people weren't free anymore to even have independent thoughts (which free will was a gift of the gods).

except the 'too much good' wasn't shown... it was all evil that caused that.

Evil had a way to swing things back towards the middle (obviously thinking longer term about how they might take control) and neutral looked at good as "we see where your ways have led things, this will at least center things again". It works enough for me to enjoy my fantasy game of elves, it doesn't have to work for you.

except it WASN'T good things... it was evil things

 

[Maxperson]

again this if anything IS balance, good was doing good then switched to evil and was doing evil (even if they still claim or even thought themselves good) at no point did 'too much good' do anything

It wasn't enough. He did evil in one city to some people. The world at large was greatly influenced by good people, the good gods and their priests. He would have needed to repent and scale things back in order to rebalance things without the cataclysm. He was not all that was good(or evil).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Surely this was said in jest? So funny if it is true.
Kinda like slaying orc babies before they manifest evil through their actions.

I am starting to think he may have had some issues