Dragonlance Check Out Shadow of the Dragon Queen's Table of Contents!

Courtesy of Fryminis who shared it on Twitter, here's a look at the table of contents from Shadow of the Dragon Queen!

The 224 page book has 7 chapters and 5 appendices:

• Character Creation
• Prelude to War
• When Home Burns
• Shadow of War
• The Northern Wastes
• City of Lost Names
• Siege of Kalaman

Appendices:

• Gear and Magic Items
• Friends and Foes
• Sidekicks
• Story Concept Art
• Maps

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Is that not true if us all?

Exactly. Their viewpoint is not valid because they have no authority in speculating this. WotC has the answer. Taking baseless speculation as fact is bad. That's true whether that baseless speculation is in favor of WotC's actions or against them.

And in any case, WotC's version of Spelljammer supports the theory as far as I'm concerned.

No, it doesn't. Disliking a book does not support a theory that WotC is expecting the community to do the work for them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly. Their viewpoint is not valid because they have no authority in speculating this. WotC has the answer. Taking baseless speculation as fact is bad. That's true whether that baseless speculation is in favor of WotC's actions or against them.

No, it doesn't. Disliking a book does not support a theory that WotC is expecting the community to do the work for them.

Disliking a book because, to my mind, it is far too bare bones to support a campaign setting absolutely supports a theory.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Disliking a book because, to my mind, it is far too bare bones to support a campaign setting absolutely supports a theory.

So your opinion is evidence that your other "theory" is correct? Sorry dude, but that's not how "theories" and "evidence" work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So your opinion is evidence that your other "theory" is correct? Sorry dude, but that's not how "theories" and "evidence" work.

Have a look at the reviews. I am not the only person feels this way.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nonsense. They didn't include monsters that weren't going to appear in the adventure. And Dragonlance doesn't have that many unique monsters compared to the settings that do need huge bestiaries (Spelljammer, Theros, Ravnica, Ravenloft), anyways. Its main ones are the Draconians, which this book does have.

Dragonlance is supposed to be a grounded setting. Aside from the dragon armies, it shouldn't have monsters around every corner like the FR.

The desire to churn out splat books in the late TSR era led to an explosion in "dragonlance monsters" but really, the fewer unnatural elements you have in your Krynn, the more flavourful it is.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Have a look at the reviews. I am not the only person feels this way.

Appeal to popularity. Something being a common or popular opinion doesn't make it evidence, either.

And it's not like this is the first time WotC have published short setting books. Their first one, the SCAG, is even shorter. That doesn't mean that WotC was planning on having people on DMsGuild do the rest of the FR for them.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That doesn't mean that WotC was planning on having people on DMsGuild do the rest of the FR for them.

Whether they were planning to or not, that IS what is going to happen.
And WotC would have definitely thought about that before opening up the DMsGuild for DL content.
If they did not want the community to do the work for them they would not be opening up the DMsGuild.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Wrong thread.

 

[Scribe]

Have a look at the reviews. I am not the only person feels this way.

I looked, and was surprised to see some negative reviews regarding the lack of depth.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I looked, and was surprised to see some negative reviews regarding the lack of depth.

The were certainly ppl on this forum that complained that SCAG came out after the ToD storyline.
So it is a no-brainer that people will look to others to fill the gaps that WotC purposefully leaves for this DL campaign.