NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 8803168" data-attributes="member: 18182">Dude, I am an old-timer. Read Chronicles when I was in middle school, when the books were first released.And there are youngsters who care about canon and trivia. I have a buddy my age, whose son (currently in college) has a group that argues D&D canon all the time, stuff that goes back to the white box . . . .It's not about how old you are, or how long you've been a fan, or what entry point into a franchise you took . . . . it's simply some folks care about small, trivial setting details and some don't.How you enjoy Dragonlance is all good, and how you run your own modern DL campaign is all good . . . . but the official published game has to roll with the times. There is no good reason why WotC should cater to the fan subset who deeply cares about the trivial details . . . Of course, when we get down to the details . . . what NEEDS to be included (or excluded) and what is okay to jettison . . . that can get subjective and that's okay.In a War of the Lance campaign, having spellcasters be present in the adventuring party but brand-new to the setting is an important setting detail. Draconians being a major "bad-guy" opponents is important. Goblins vs orcs? Not important. No drow hanging out deep underground while the war rages on the surface? Not important. Spellcasting rangers and paladins? Why not, the "original" DL party (Companions of the Lance) had spellcasters, why couldn't rangers and paladins develop those powers as the gods return to Krynn?</blockquote>

Verification