Dragonlance Building a Dragonlance character, according to DDB.

cbwjm

Legend
I think nowadays (as well as back in the 3e days) the edgy loner was the red flag. I'm fine with original and luckily my group always makes PCs that work with others.

Actually, these characters probably existed earlier than 3e, but without the internet I'd have been unlikely to know of them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm old enough to remember when wanting to be a rip off of Drizzt was the red flag, not making a new character.
Same. I've played in several DL campaigns over the years and not once have I ever wanted to play as the Companions. I'd rather make my own character. We had 1 player in a DL campaign insist on playing Raistlin and he kept trying to steer things towards how they went in the books while the rest of us wanted to tell our own story. He eventually figured it out and the DM let him reroll his own character.

Edit: I'll play a pregen for a 1 shot though. Nothing wrong with that.
 


I would really love it if we could have just one Dragonlance thread that didn't degenerate into the same people having the same arguments about PCs races and character choice and setting history/integrity for hundreds and hundreds of posts.
Me too, but to be fair this topic is actually about creating a character so it's still somewhat on topic.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Not causation, but I have seen a strong correlation.
Self-important people will make unique characters to prove how awesome and creative they are. Min-maxers will sometimes do the same to take advantage of the rules.

But the overwhelming majority of people that like making new and unique characters are just people that don't like cliches and think creativity is a virtue. Not copying the popular thing.

There are also people that refuse to make new characters and instead play clones of any and all characters from any works of fiction they enjoy. Some people take this to an extreme and try to play Sonic the Hedgehog and Link in every D&D game they play. That doesn't mean that everyone that enjoys emulating or paying homage to their favorite fictional characters are uncreative hacks that just rip off any and all fictional material they come across. There's just a small, extreme portion of people that do participate in that problematic behavior.

There is nothing wrong with playing new character ideas. There is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from your favorite fictional characters. It's the two extremes that often lead to unhealthy playstyles.
 

Remathilis

Legend
That's a pretty extreme view, IMO. Restrictions on character creation are not the same thing as "play my character for me". I certainly wouldn't let any such restrictions prevent me from playing in a game I otherwise liked, no matter the reason.
OG and I went rounds on this before. To summarize.

Pregens for a one-shot is fine. But if you expect me to play your character for months if not years, no dice.

I'm tolerant of some race restrictions, but very leery of class restrictions. It's not an automatic deal breaker, but the tighter the restrictions, the less interested I am. (It's one thing to say "WotC stuff only" or "PHB only" or "no halflings and dragonborn", but around the time you're at "no monks, sorcerers, warlocks, paladins, druids and bards" I'm at the point your preferences have taken priority over mine).

AD&D style restrictions (ie no dwarf wizards) in an actual non-AD&D game is a deal breaker. The game has had no race/class limits for 23 years.

Random anything is an absolute deal breaker, unless it's a throw away dungeon crasher "let's see how many PCs we can toss at the Tomb of Horrors" joke one shot game. But you want a serious character off random rolls? Lol. No. I don't gamble with character generation. I've long abandoned rolling stats, gold, HP or spells, and there is No Way In Hell I'm rolling to see what race or class I am (either as a "roll a d12 to see what class you are from this table" or "roll to see if you get the ability score minimums to be the class you want".)

The more of these you stack together, the less I care. Put enough of them together and I'll have fonder memories of role -playing the Top Hat in Monopoly; at least I got to choose what token I wanted.

I played Basic and AD&D. I have good memories of it. I also have good memories about my ex and I don't want to go back to them either. Either you trust me to make a character that will work in your game or you can play them yourself.
 

Pregens for a one-shot is fine. But if you expect me to play your character for months if not years, no dice.
agreed my limit (both as a Player and DM) is an adventure... it doesn't have to be 1 night we might take 3-4 weeks to do it, but after that I want the option to make my own.
I'm tolerant of some race restrictions, but very leery of class restrictions. It's not an automatic deal breaker, but the tighter the restrictions, the less interested I am. (It's one thing to say "WotC stuff only" or "PHB only" or "no halflings and dragonborn", but around the time you're at "no monks, sorcerers, warlocks, paladins, druids and bards" I'm at the point your preferences have taken priority over mine).
my thought (again both player and DM) is it has to make sense... I will take your example: no monks sorcerers warlocks paladoms druids or bards sounds pretty random, but if I ask why and they had a whole lore theme reason I would be willing to give it a shot ESPECIALLY if they say "And if you tell me what you WANTED to play i promise I will make sure it will be okay in next campaign."

the thing is the real red flag when you ALWAYS have that set of rules.
AD&D style restrictions (ie no dwarf wizards) in an actual non-AD&D game is a deal breaker. The game has had no race/class limits for 23 years.
I made the mistake of accepting "I made this world in 1e so all the lore fits that" as a 'why' and it really was just an excuse for 'I want to complain about 'modern' D&D'.
Random anything is an absolute deal breaker, unless it's a throw away dungeon crasher
again I am mostly with you here.
I played Basic and AD&D. I have good memories of it. I also have good memories about my ex and I don't want to go back to them either. Either you trust me to make a character that will work in your game or you can play them yourself.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Actually, wait. Krynn doesn't have Bards? Huh. That strikes me as odd. Though thinking about it, it probably has to do more with 1e Bards being associated with Druids (and there was only one Druid running around during the War of the Lance) than any particular problem with the class. I mean heck, 1e Rangers were perfectly acceptable according to Dragonlance Adventures, and they could even cast magic-user spells (makes you wonder what the Towers of High Sorcery thought about that).

Dragonlance, by the way, since I saw a comment about this, isn't a low magic setting in reality. There's powerful magic all over the place. And magical items as well. There's just less of an emphasis on unimportant trinkets like rings of protection and the like; if there's going to be a magic item, it has a name or a purpose in the narrative (orbs of dragonkind, Nightbringer, dragonlances, the ring that let Tasslehoff turn into a mouse, etc. etc.). Epic spells and artifacts are often invoked in the stories (flying castles, the Timerender spell, the Silver Arm, the Graygem, etc.).
 

Libertad

Hero
Depending on the edition, Krynn did have bards. Here's how 3rd Edition did it:

Pre-Chaos War bards couldn't cast spells, although they still had their bardic music, knowledge, and the like. But after the Chaos War and primal sorcery began popping up among the mortal races, bards could cast spells. Arcane magic that didn't need to be prepared with a spellbook was considered primal sorcery. Otherwise, a bard who could work magic was either a Wizard of High Sorcery trained in the Perform skill, or a Cleric who often incorporated hymns into their faith. The War of the Lance sourcebook had the Chorister, a prestige class for divine spellcasters who weaved magic into their music.
 


Actually, wait. Krynn doesn't have Bards? Huh. That strikes me as odd. Though thinking about it, it probably has to do more with 1e Bards being associated with Druids (and there was only one Druid running around during the War of the Lance) than any particular problem with the class
More to the point, to be a bard in 1st edition, your character would need to be around 12th level or above, and even if you didn't use the pregens the Dragonlance adventures started at level 4.

Bards weren't explicitly written out, but you couldn't play one in the original adventures anyway.
 

OG and I went rounds on this before. To summarize.

Pregens for a one-shot is fine. But if you expect me to play your character for months if not years, no dice.

I'm tolerant of some race restrictions, but very leery of class restrictions. It's not an automatic deal breaker, but the tighter the restrictions, the less interested I am. (It's one thing to say "WotC stuff only" or "PHB only" or "no halflings and dragonborn", but around the time you're at "no monks, sorcerers, warlocks, paladins, druids and bards" I'm at the point your preferences have taken priority over mine).

AD&D style restrictions (ie no dwarf wizards) in an actual non-AD&D game is a deal breaker. The game has had no race/class limits for 23 years.

Random anything is an absolute deal breaker, unless it's a throw away dungeon crasher "let's see how many PCs we can toss at the Tomb of Horrors" joke one shot game. But you want a serious character off random rolls? Lol. No. I don't gamble with character generation. I've long abandoned rolling stats, gold, HP or spells, and there is No Way In Hell I'm rolling to see what race or class I am (either as a "roll a d12 to see what class you are from this table" or "roll to see if you get the ability score minimums to be the class you want".)

The more of these you stack together, the less I care. Put enough of them together and I'll have fonder memories of role -playing the Top Hat in Monopoly; at least I got to choose what token I wanted.

I played Basic and AD&D. I have good memories of it. I also have good memories about my ex and I don't want to go back to them either. Either you trust me to make a character that will work in your game or you can play them yourself.
My table long ago abandoned rolling stats and just uses the point buy system since it more or less keeps things even and you can build the type of character you want pretty easily. It also eliminates someone showing up with 4 stats that are 16+ "but it's totally cool because my brother saw me roll them". They also generally make it so at least 1 of your stats is lower and gives you a flaw to build around.

100% agree on classes being more of a problem restriction over race. I have an easier time making race restrictions make sense in a campaign due to a specific event happening that wiped them out or simply they just never were. Class restrictions carry a much heavier impact on game mechanics imo which in turn carries a heavier impact on actual gameplay. To me, races are more fluff with minimal impact on mechanics. I realize not everyone sees it that way and that's fine, we don't really need to argue for 100+ pages about that. lol

Race/class combos.. I get implying that culturally a civilization in a setting might not gravitate towards a particular class type typically but a flat out ban is pretty lame. Sure dwarves tend towards crafting and brewing and whatever other tropes you want to toss in, but is it impossible that a dwarf that is determined to learn magic can't put their mind to it and go against the trend of their society? Isn't there an implicit "PCs are already exceptional people" based on their decision to leave their homes to pursue adventure to begin with? Why would it be so far-fetched to say that exceptional person did something atypical to their culture?
 
Last edited:

Depending on the edition, Krynn did have bards. Here's how 3rd Edition did it:

Pre-Chaos War bards couldn't cast spells, although they still had their bardic music, knowledge, and the like. But after the Chaos War and primal sorcery began popping up among the mortal races, bards could cast spells. Arcane magic that didn't need to be prepared with a spellbook was considered primal sorcery. Otherwise, a bard who could work magic was either a Wizard of High Sorcery trained in the Perform skill, or a Cleric who often incorporated hymns into their faith. The War of the Lance sourcebook had the Chorister, a prestige class for divine spellcasters who weaved magic into their music.
2E Dragonlance doesn't mention anything specific to how bards are handled so they're playable exactly as they are in the 2E PHB. Under the class section, it has this for Rogues:
Every world has its rogues-those who operate on the fringes of society. In addition to the common bards and thieves, Krynn supports two other unique types of rogue.

It then goes on to describe the mechanics for Handlers and Con Artist/Prestidigitators.
 

All this is basically why you don't build a setting around incredibly specific implementations of the rules you're using.
I think most reasonable people get that WotC was never going to open up DLA 1E and say "let's directly convert this to 5E". MOoT and GGtR have already shown people generally will take racial setting restrictions without much fuss, but from what Jeremy Crawford has said about 5E mechanics needing to be 5E mechanics in a setting I'd think most reasonable people recognize class restrictions were never going to fly in SotDQ.

I know some of the old DL fanbase flipped out at the thought of a sorcerer or warlock being in SotDQ. Luckily for them, they don't have to buy the book and can just keep using the same books they've used for the last 30 years.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
2E Dragonlance doesn't mention anything specific to how bards are handled so they're playable exactly as they are in the 2E PHB. Under the class section, it has this for Rogues:


It then goes on to describe the mechanics for Handlers and Con Artist/Prestidigitators.
Ah, yes, I didn't look at any of the 2e products, I just flipped open my copy of DLA and noticed nary a word was said about Bard (or Monks or Psionics, but those are very different kettles of fish). No Cavaliers either (we have the Knights of Solamnia for that!). But Thief-Acrobats are ok!

I do like how DLA says all Druids are heathens, but in the adventures, you encounter a Druid, Waylorn Wyvernsbane.
 



Libertad

Hero
There so many of these inconsistencies in the DL products.

By the time the party encounters Waylorn, Goldmoon has retrieved the Discs of Mishakal and knowledge of the non-evil gods is returning to the world.

Additionally, Waylorn was placed into suspended animation well before the Cataclysm so he wasn't around for the reign of the Kingpriest.

Of course, that doesn't mean this isn't an inconsistency. There's no explanation for why he wasn't raptured along with all of the other divine spellcasters during the Age of Might. It would've been easily justified as "Waylorn wasn't a Cleric when he was put into suspended animation, but after Goldmoon's prophecy he got divine visions which is how we woke from his slumber by the time the PCs find him."
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
By the time the party encounters Waylorn, Goldmoon has retrieved the Discs of Mishakal and knowledge of the non-evil gods is returning to the world.

Additionally, Waylorn was placed into suspended animation well before the Cataclysm so he wasn't around for the reign of the Kingpriest.

Of course, that doesn't mean this isn't an inconsistency. There's no explanation for why he wasn't raptured along with all of the other divine spellcasters during the Age of Might. It would've been easily justified as "Waylorn wasn't a Cleric when he was put into suspended animation, but after Goldmoon's prophecy he got divine visions which is how we woke from his slumber by the time the PCs find him."
Or how DLA says all Druids are heathens by default, and if you join the Holy Order of Stars you become a Cleric, when Waylorn exists as a Druid who totally serves a local deity.
 

Libertad

Hero
I checked the book in question, and those limitations seem to only exist for druids planar travelling from other settings. I don't see anything mentioned as there being "no druids, period." The text is confusedly worded, as it is only talking about the process for clerics and doesn't explain how a heathen druid would un-heathenize themselves.

uuci02Z.png
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top