Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Hussar]

There's no reasonable way to explain it, true. But the only reason to call it "Dragonlance" is financial. They're welcome to do that, of course, but I agree with it.

That's certainly one interpretation. A pretty insulting and narrow focused one, but, it's an interpretation. It could never be that they are simply taking an older setting, one with lots of fans and recreating it so that it fits with the new game that the setting is now being used for.

But hey, "WotC are all about the money" is a long standing trope.

Exactly. Chalk it up with Barbarians in the Knights of Solmania. Why even ask how that makes sense as it pertains to the old lore?

I know that was rhetorical, but, I actually rather agree. Why worry about the old lore at all? This is an INSPIRED BY setting. It is not a re-release. They are taking elements from the original and making a new setting instead of, for a fifth time, regurgitating the same old lore that's been around for forty years.

Because they can’t. It makes no sense in the old lore during the War of the Lance. They simply didn’t exist and those that did we tracked down as renegades and either taken for formal training or slain.

Magic And it’s users where tightly controlled. Think if it like you have to have a gun permit and training to ever use a gun. That was Magic on Krynn.

It’s considers to powerful to simply let untrained and unknown people wander around able to blow up towns.

Except of course where they ignored it. Like Gilthanis being a fairly high level MU who never took the test.

 

[pukunui]

Warlocks are "people who bargained with supernatural beings for arcane power" and can fit into any setting where such beings exist to bargain with.

And as I mentioned upthread, I reckon Raistlin has a fairly warlock-ish vibe to start with in terms of his relationship with Fistandantilus.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's certainly one interpretation. A pretty insulting and narrow focused one, but, it's an interpretation. It could never be that they are simply taking an older setting, one with lots of fans and recreating it so that it fits with the new game that the setting is now being used for.

But hey, "WotC are all about the money" is a long standing trope.


I know that was rhetorical, but, I actually rather agree. Why worry about the old lore at all? This is an INSPIRED BY setting. It is not a re-release. They are taking elements from the original and making a new setting instead of, for a fifth time, regurgitating the same old lore that's been around for forty years.


Except of course where they ignored it. Like Gilthanis being a fairly high level MU who never took the test.

I will admit the Gilthanis thing is a little baffling. It's all a matter of degree though.

 

[Haplo781]

People can't see your character class in-universe. They're mechanical abstractions with fluff.

A barbarian (the class) can be a nobleman from a "civilized" nation just as easily as a "savage" warrior from a plains tribe. You just have to do a little bit of refluffing.

 

[Haplo781]

And as I mentioned upthread, I reckon Raistlin has a fairly warlock-ish vibe to start with in terms of his relationship with Fistandantilus.

If warlocks had existed in 1983, Raistlin would have been one.

 

[Faolyn]

I mean, good grief. You've got 1e/2e Dragonlance. Then you've got 3e Dragonlance. You've got SAGA Dragonlance. You've got the latest from Dragonlance Nexus with Tasslehoff's. FOUR versions of the same setting.

Why on earth would I want a fifth one that does the same stuff that's been done four times before?

That's exactly how I feel about Ravenloft. Two somewhat different versions in 2e and then 3e that continues what the second 2e version did. I would have zero need for a book that just kept things the same-but-updated. And because 5e made some radical changes, I now have multiple different sets of ideas that I can go through for my own Ravenloft games, which don't follow any sort of canon. (And couldn't; my players got Vallaki destroyed in Curse of Strahd.)

 

[DarkCrisis]

I will admit the Gilthanis thing is a little baffling. It's all a matter of degree though.

I'd assume being a high ranking member on the Elven Nations, the Towers probably decided it wasn't worth getting into a row about it. Different rules for the upper crust and all that.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think we are agreeing. They will (and are) retcon/reimagine it or simply never explain it

I guess we agree, then. I objected to your "they won't explain it", which isn't possible to know without actually reading the book.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I guess we agree, then. I objected to your "they won't explain it", which isn't possible to know without actually reading the book.

Half the book is adventure and the other half focuses mainly on Solomnia and the War (and a bit about the rest of the world). I'm betting any history section will be kept very short and very generic.

But I could be wrong.

 

[pukunui]

Half the book is adventure and the other half focuses mainly on Solomnia and the War (and a bit about the rest of the world). I'm betting any history section will be kept very short and very generic.

But I could be wrong.

Interestingly enough DDB has slotted it in under Sourcebooks rather than Adventures.