Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stormprince" data-source="post: 987834" data-attributes="member: 2046">Okay, now put the shoe on the other foot... how do you think old school DL'ers felt about the whole 5th Age and SAGA products? Probably the same way you feel now. And just like you, they swore to never by another Dragonlance product... which is why Dragonlance was abandoned for Third Edition revision by Wizards of the Coast. Because SAGA sales never even approached the same numbers as the original Dragonlance products. Why is that, you might ask? Why, because Sorcery was nothing like the Wizards of High Sorcery... the Fifth Age was nothing like the Dragonlance people had known and loved.So, we at Sovereign Press decide that we want to try and heal the wounds between the two... to heal the rift. We put everything on the line to get the license. It's a license, which means that we have to play by certain rules established by the license owners: Wizards of the Coast. Which means that they took the sorcerer concept from the Fifth Age and converted it into Third Edition already. We did create all new sorcerer and mystic classes, unlike the versions that made it into the final draft. They were discarded for multiple reasons: A) Third Edition already had the sorcerer class and they felt that the Primal Sorcerer class and Mystic were just not compatable with the other classes.B) The system, no matter how streamlined we made it, bogged down game play. It required both the DM and the player know it backwards and forwards and even then it required calculations. There are already more than enough complications with 3rd Edition that we didn't want to add another permutation.C) We debated including the alternate primal sorcerer and mystic as classes in our own, non-WotC published, sourcebook, but then we decided that we could not in good conscious do so...every sorcerer and mystic and monster with such powers we then presented would have to be dual-stated for both those that preferred the "simpler" version to the complicated version. We decided, in the end, that we wanted to support Dragonlance as a roleplaying world, NOT a ruleplaying world...which adding yet another set of mechanics would do - Bog down gameplay. You'll probably argue that it never affected your games, I've heard that one a few times, but the vast majority of people I've spoken with didn't like the freeform system... it was too subjective.Even though I was not a big fan of the SAGA system, that didn't stop me from buying Dragonlance products. It was my way of supporting my favorite world. You're right, though, there will be some few people that are upset about the decision we were forced to make. Well, can't please all the consumers all of the time. There are only three of us working on Dragonlance full time right now. We feel rather satisfied with the work we have done thus far and will be continuing to do... and if you feel that because of the sorcery rules (or lack thereof) that you will be abandoning the future of Dragonlance, well that is your right... and you've already made it clear that pretty much nothing I say is going to sway you, so I shan't waste any more of your time, or mine, with pointless debate.Meanwhile, I'm sorry that you'll be missing out and I'm sorry that we were unable to please everyone...because we all know that other companies make consumers happy all of the time! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />ChristopherPS (EDIT) - Oh yeah, and remember, Dragonlance was a AD&D world long before it was a SAGA world... and our contract was to do Dragonlance d20 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification