Dragonlance Building a Dragonlance character, according to DDB.

[bedir than]

So Wizards did similar to what they did for Theros. A reasonable and expected position

 

[Remathilis]

Which is exactly the compromise that has mentioned, and shot down, several times in the DL threads. "Here are the traditional options, but you're not bound to them"

At the end of the day, it was one of two possible compromises: the Theros model (here is the classic options, ask your DM if you want something more esoteric) or the Don't Mention It model (the text doesn't outright say what is/isn't classic DL, but doesn't use any nontraditional DL options for NPCs or monsters). Further, the suggestions seem to only address races and all classes normally found in the PHB will be available.

 

[Velderan]

What am I missing? What's controversial about any of that?

I dunno.

The 100+ page DL thread had people arguing current WotC design philosophy wouldn't allow them to restrict races because D&D essentially. When the MtG settings were brought up, they were discarded because they're MtG. I just saved you 100+ pages of reading.

 

[Demetrios1453]

At the end of the day, it was one of two possible compromises: the Theros model (here is the classic options, ask your DM if you want something more esoteric) or the Don't Mention It model (the text doesn't outright say what is/isn't classic DL, but doesn't use any nontraditional DL options for NPCs or monsters). Further, the suggestions seem to only address races and all classes normally found in the PHB will be available.

There were still some (granted, relatively few) posts that stated that even the possibility of giving groups the option to have non-traditional DL characters and monsters would be a betrayal of the setting and shouldn't be allowed. As well as some who argued that the book should explicitly state all monsters and character races are indisputably allowed in the setting.

 

[Demetrios1453]

The 100+ page DL thread had people arguing current WotC design philosophy wouldn't allow them to restrict races because D&D essentially. When the MtG settings were brought up, they were discarded because they're MtG. I just saved you 100+ pages of reading.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Yeah what I expected and makes sense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

From the Article, when talking about races:

"The people of Krynn have faced unique—and let's face it, back-to-back—catastrophes that have shaped them and caused them to adopt different customs than brethren on other worlds. Let's take a walk through the most common folk you'll run into during your adventures on Krynn. Just keep in mind your DM has the final say on available player options. (So keep that harengon monk in your back pocket!)"

And then they go on to list the following options:

Kender, Dwarf, Elf (Silvanesti, Qualinesti, Kagonesti), Gnomes, and Human.

Link to full article: How to build a Dragonlance Character.

Hope that's in the book.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The dwarf write-up on DDB leaves out gully dwarves and doesn't refer to gnomes as tinker gnomes. Good choices, IMO.

 

[cbwjm]

So Wizards did similar to what they did for Theros. A reasonable and expected position

This was pretty much what I was expecting based on previous releases for other settings, specifically the MtG settings.

 

[DragonBelow]

The dwarf write-up on DDB leaves out gully dwarves and doesn't refer to gnomes as tinker gnomes. Good choices, IMO.

Tinker Gnome is the only way I would allow Artificers in Krynn