Dragonlance DRAGONLANCE LIVES! Unearthed Arcana Explores Heroes of Krynn!

The latest Unearthed Arcana has arrived and the 6-page document contains rules for kender, lunar magic, Knights of Solamnia, and Mages of High Sorcery.

In today’s Unearthed Arcana, we explore character options from the Dragonlance setting. This playtest document presents the kender race, the Lunar Magic sorcerer subclass, the Knight of Solamnia and Mage of High Sorcery backgrounds, and a collection of new feats, all for use in Dungeons & Dragons.

Kender have a (surprisingly magical) ability to pull things out of a bag, and a supernatural taunt feature. This magical ability appears to replace the older 'kleptomania' description -- "Unknown to most mortals, a magical phenomenon surrounds a kender. Spurred by their curiosity and love for trinkets, curios, and keepsakes, a kender’s pouches or pockets will be magically filled with these objects. No one knows where these objects come from, not even the kender. This has led many kender to be mislabeled as thieves when they fish these items out of their pockets."

Lunar Magic is a sorcerer subclass which draws power from the moon(s); there are notes for using it in Eberron.

Also included are feats such as Adepts of the Black, White, and Red Robes, and Knights of the Sword, Rose, and Crown.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I see it as being as disadvantageous as not being able to feel pain. I definitely see being literally fearless as a huge evolutionary disadvantage. Being fearless would mean that you don't even recognize that something IS dangerous because recognizing danger just IS what fear is.

Yeah this is a definitional distinction that you won’t find universal agreement on. Fear is IMO absolutely very distinct from recognition of danger.

I say this as someone who has a limited capacity for normal immediate fear, but who feels anxiety basically all the time.

But put me in danger, and I am not going to be afraid. Excited, probably, but very much in a dopamine enducing, “playing a sport” sort of way. But there is no sensation similar to shock, or immediate visceral aversion.

And that is somewhat deleterious, but not so much that I can’t believe it could survive as a trait in the wild.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I see Gully dwarves as similar to the caste-less dwarves of Dragon Age. The caste system of D.A is quite similar to the social hierarchy of DL. Gully Dwarves are just the ones to poor or too unlucky to be born into a good Clan and kept in abject poverty far from any power in their society. They are considered as less than human, not even good at being canon-fodder or servants, but to any exterior onlooker...there's no real difference between an Hylar and Aghar outside their clothes.

No need to be magically inferior....societies have many efficient ways of creating poverty, both in knowledge and political/financial power, for those they consider less than.

Bonus: that makes Aghar much more interesting as a player option, too.

 

[cbwjm]

Seems every time I look back over the document I find something else I'd change. The Knight of the Sword and (I think) Knight of the rose feats already have limiters based on expending hit dice (KotR feat mentions a roll of a hit die but not expenditure) built into their feats so I think I'd remove the proficiency bonus per day or the once it has succeeded you need to rest before using it again limits. The Knight of the Crown I'd also remove the limit and just let it be another thing they can spend their reaction on. I think the more I play 5e the more I think there are too many needless limits on things.

I'd probably also change the Knight of the Rose feat to target a number equal to their Charisma modifier instead of just 3.

 

[humble minion]

I see Gully dwarves as similar to the caste-less dwarves of Dragon Age. The caste system of D.A is quite similar to the social hierarchy of DL. Gully Dwarves are just the ones to poor or too unlucky to be born into a good Clan and kept in abject poverty far from any power in their society. They are considered as less than human, not even good at being canon-fodder or servants, but to any exterior onlooker...there's no real difference between an Hylar and Aghar outside their clothes.

No need to be magically inferior....societies have many efficient ways of creating poverty, both in knowledge and political/financial power, for those they consider less than.

That would make gully dwarfdom a background rather than a race though. Which ... may not be an entirely bad thing.

The real problem for a re-invention of gully dwarves as a race is that their stupidity (in the novels) is pretty much their defining characteristic, and their entire culture (despised, filthy, collecting worthless knick-knacks etc) is predicated on that. What else is there, to old gully dwarf canon, if you take that away? It's HARD to reinvent gully dwarf culture as presented in old DL material and have their culture still make sense. Gully dwarves presumably roll 3d6 for their stats like everyone else, so where do the int 18 or cha 18 gully dwarves fit in? Probability says there'd be just as many of them as there would be for any other type of dwarf. Sure, you may argue 'they're the adventurers' - but in that case why has nobody ever seen them out adventuring?

One way you could do it is that gully dwarves were actually once a race of dwarves who lived very deep, who fought an apocalyptic secret war against vile aberrations down there (are tentacley aberrations a thing in Dragonlance? Cos you know WotC will be wanting to squeeze them in somehow...) and won, but were afflicted by a hereditary brainphage that the aberrations released as an act of vengeance as their empire finally fell and burned. This makes the race as a whole tragic PTSD veterans rather than That Unpopular Kid Who Picks His Nose - but it's pretty clear that WotC will never introduce any race that have any sort of mechanical disadvantage on mental abilities (or increasingly, any abilities whatsoever) regardless of how that disadvantage came about.

There's maybe room to re-interpret them as being a sort of dwarven subculture that consciously rejects the sort of gold-and-axes materialism and militarism of 'typical' dwarfdom, and looks to humility over the obsessive pride, the arrogant perfectionism, the poring over ones lineage and ancient grudges that have cause dwarves so much trouble in the past. Almost a deliberately ascetic view of things? You're not born gully, you CHOOSE to be gully (though the kids of gully dwarves are probably more likely to take after their parents than non-gully dwarves are to adopt the lifestyle). This way of looking at gully dwarves would mean that probably gully dwarf monks and underdark druids would likely be the most common adventurers - and it kinda raises the possibility of interesting plotlines where a dwarf clan is horribly embarrassed when one of their scions argues with his parents and 'goes Gully'

It doesn't fix the incompatibility with how gully dwarves have always been written in the lore, but a race of comic relief filthy developmentally handicapped people just ain't gonna pass muster these days.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

One way you could do it is that gully dwarves were actually once a race of dwarves who lived very deep, who fought an apocalyptic secret war against vile aberrations down there (are tentacley aberrations a thing in Dragonlance? Cos you know WotC will be wanting to squeeze them in somehow...) and won, but were afflicted by a hereditary brainphage that the aberrations released as an act of vengeance as their empire finally fell and burned. This makes the race as a whole tragic PTSD veterans rather than That Unpopular Kid Who Picks His Nose - but it's pretty clear that WotC will never introduce any race that have any sort of mechanical disadvantage on mental abilities (or increasingly, any abilities whatsoever) regardless of how that disadvantage came about.

I think it would be possible to make them close to Derros from other setting, the clan forgotten in the depth of the earth, afflicted by a casi-psionic madness. But that would make the Aghar more dangerous and less comical relief.

But yeah, I dont think each clan needs to be its own race. A clan is a social construct, not a biological fact.

But, for a race, I'd to something like this:
Aghar Dwarf

Size: Small

Fury of the Small. When you damage a creature with an attack or a spell and the creature's size is larger than yours, you can cause the attack or spell to deal extra damage to the creature. The extra damage equals your proficiency bonus.
You can use this trait a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, regaining all expended uses when you finish a long rest, and you can use it no more than once per turn.

Nimble Scuttle. You can take the Disengage or Hide action as a bonus action on each of your turns. In addition, without squeezing, you can move through and stop in a space large enough for a tiny creature.

Darkvision. Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.

Dwarven Resilience. You have advantage on saving throws against poison and diseases, and you have resistance against poison damage.

Confusing Minds. You are immune to any effect that allows other creatures to sense your emotions or read your thoughts. Wisdom (Insight) checks made to ascertain your intentions or sincerity have disadvantage.

 

[JEB]

Finally, the problem with the D&D settings is the same problem that comic books universes and the Star Wars EU have had: decades of poor organization leading to contradictory lore that creates partisan camps for each lore position. The ONLY way to resolve this is with a hard reboot.

Marvel Comics has never had a hard reboot, and it does just fine. (Closest they got was the 2010s Secret Wars storyline, and all that did was reset their alternate universes and bring Miles Morales into 616.) They manage it with a floating timeline and liberal use of retcons. (By contrast, DC keeps shaking up its canon every few years, and seems to have shakier support than Marvel as a result.)

Doctor Who's 2005 relaunch carried on the old continuity, and it's still chugging along today - again, with the use of retcons, reinterpreting past events, rather than starting everything from scratch.

And a more pertinent example: the Forgotten Realms has also avoided a hard reset, just some retcons over the years. They even consider the 4E era part of the 5E canon.

Corporations certainly can and do choose the hard reset, but it's far from an obligation.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Marvel Comics has never had a hard reboot, and it does just fine. (Closest they got was the 2010s Secret Wars storyline, and all that did was reset their alternate universes and bring Miles Morales into 616.) They manage it with a floating timeline and liberal use of retcons. (By contrast, DC keeps shaking up its canon every few years, and seems to have shakier support than Marvel as a result.)

Doctor Who's 2005 relaunch carried on the old continuity, and it's still chugging along today - again, with the use of retcons, reinterpreting past events, rather than starting everything from scratch.

And a more pertinent example: the Forgotten Realms has also avoided a hard reset, just some retcons over the years. They even consider the 4E era part of the 5E canon.

Corporations certainly can and do choose the hard reset, but it's far from an obligation.

Last time DC did the hard reboot they lost me as a customer. Just ruined everything I liked about The Bat Family comics. Not to mention Wonder Woman and Superman. And I know they’ve tried real hard to walk back Superman.

 

[darjr]

Has there been a successful hard reboot? Even Star Trek is kinda walking it back and mixing in aren’t they?

 

[Parmandur]

Has there been a successful hard reboot? Even Star Trek is kinda walking it back and mixing in aren’t they?

Bond. James Bond.

 

[JEB]

Has there been a successful hard reboot? Even Star Trek is kinda walking it back and mixing in aren’t they?

Battlestar Galactica is probably the major example that comes to mind. Maybe the new She-Ra and DuckTales?

But failed hard reboots are much more common.