Dragonlance Lunar Sorcery: A Preview from Shadow of the Dragon Queen

WotC has posted a preview from the upcoming Shadow of the Dragon Queen on D&D Beyond, diving into the Lunary Sorcery subclass.

lunar-socerer-featured.jpg


Traditionally magic in Krynn has been represented by the Wizards of High Sorcery, who owe their allegiance to one of the black, red, or white moons (and gods) of magic. Sorcerers weren't around in D&D when Dragonlance was created.

Lunar Sorcerers also draw power from the moons, based on the moon's phase (Full, New, Crescent). You choose the phase each day (though at later levels you can do so more often). The subclass gets a lot of spells (15 additional spells!)


 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Faolyn

(she/her)
That's fine for the individual DM. But WotC publishes Official Dungeons & Dragons and they have an impetus to support the game holistically, including as much of the core game as possible. They can get away with "certain races aren't native, check with your DM" but they haven't yet in any setting limited classes, subclasses, feats, spells, etc.

If you want to create a setting where the only character option is human champion fighters, that's between you and your group. I hold WotC trying to sell me a supplement to a different standard.
There could, of course, be a second possibility: a sidebar or section on OG Dragonlance. "If you want to play Dragonlance in a way that's closer to how it was originally depicted in 1984, make these changes." And then list all the things that would have to be removed from the game to make it more like 1e.

It would be a very large list of things.

But yes, the actual book itself is for 5e, not 1e or 2e, and needs to reflect the 5e game. (Or One/6e, at least.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
There could, of course, be a second possibility: a sidebar or section on OG Dragonlance. "If you want to play Dragonlance in a way that's closer to how it was originally depicted in 1984, make these changes." And then list all the things that would have to be removed from the game to make it more like 1e.

It would be a very large list of things.

But yes, the actual book itself is for 5e, not 1e or 2e, and needs to reflect the 5e game. (Or One/6e, at least.)
The problem with "could" is that it implies a certain level of "should" and there will be plenty of people who will feel beholden to that "could" list if for no other reason that WotC endorsed it.

Either way, it's a fruitless endeavor. This is Dragonlance repurposed for 5e, not emulating 1e using 5e's kernel. I expect more than just DLA with converted stat blocks. The essence of the setting is the same, if not the details. And I expect no less if/when Greyhawk or Dark Sun are redone for 1D&D.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
The problem with "could" is that it implies a certain level of "should" and there will be plenty of people who will feel beholden to that "could" list if for no other reason that WotC endorsed it.

Either way, it's a fruitless endeavor. This is Dragonlance repurposed for 5e, not emulating 1e using 5e's kernel. I expect more than just DLA with converted stat blocks. The essence of the setting is the same, if not the details. And I expect no less if/when Greyhawk or Dark Sun are redone for 1D&D.
I agree here, and 5e Dragonlance should be built to fill, or at least allow, all of 5e's tropes: i.e., I'm not demanding that they create an orc nation somewhere on Ansalon, but merely allow for the possibility of groups of orcs here and there.

But I don't think that many people will feel beholden. If this hypothetical sidebar says "no dragonborn, drow elves, half-orcs, tieflings, halflings, forest gnomes, or any other race or subrace from outside the PHB, no artificers, bards, monks, sorcerers, or warlocks, and only these archetypes are allowed (list of only nonmagical archetypes for martials, probably removing some archetypes from druids and wizards)," then that, I think, is going to turn a lot of people off to the the restrictions. There will be some people who like it, because low-magic, mostly-human settings can be a lot of fun, but a lot more people won't like it.
 

And metaplots are terrible for the game, which is why WotC hasn't used them since the publishing of 5e.
They've definitely gotten a lot looser with canon, to allow individual adventures to take place and each table can figure out what the conclusion of an adventure means for their next adventure. I'm not the biggest FR fan, so I'm not sure what is different from the 4E material to the 5E SCAG but my assumption is at least some of the material is different?

I think what @Micah Sweet and I were referring to for "advancing the timeline" isn't so much WotC writing a couple decades of events for the Age of Mortals because it's 100% not needed imo. Some basic summaries for those who might not be familiar to setup what the setting is about and help inspire DMs to make it their own. Overall, AoM would make a much better 5E setting than the War of the Lance material because the lore generally supports 5E's mechanics better imo.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
They've definitely gotten a lot looser with canon, to allow individual adventures to take place and each table can figure out what the conclusion of an adventure means for their next adventure. I'm not the biggest FR fan, so I'm not sure what is different from the 4E material to the 5E SCAG but my assumption is at least some of the material is different?

I think what @Micah Sweet and I were referring to for "advancing the timeline" isn't so much WotC writing a couple decades of events for the Age of Mortals because it's 100% not needed imo. Some basic summaries for those who might not be familiar to setup what the setting is about and help inspire DMs to make it their own. Overall, AoM would make a much better 5E setting than the War of the Lance material because the lore generally supports 5E's mechanics better imo.
If you prefer WotL, as many do, you can always roll back the timeline in your own campaign and make whatever restrictions are needed for that era. That's what I would do. In 3e, the default setting was AoM, but they created an entire large supplement specifically about the War of the Lance. I loved it!
 

I agree here, and 5e Dragonlance should be built to fill, or at least allow, all of 5e's tropes: i.e., I'm not demanding that they create an orc nation somewhere on Ansalon, but merely allow for the possibility of groups of orcs here and there.

But I don't think that many people will feel beholden. If this hypothetical sidebar says "no dragonborn, drow elves, half-orcs, tieflings, halflings, forest gnomes, or any other race or subrace from outside the PHB, no artificers, bards, monks, sorcerers, or warlocks, and only these archetypes are allowed (list of only nonmagical archetypes for martials, probably removing some archetypes from druids and wizards)," then that, I think, is going to turn a lot of people off to the the restrictions. There will be some people who like it, because low-magic, mostly-human settings can be a lot of fun, but a lot more people won't like it.
What I do for my games is reskin the races. I let players pick either human, human varient, or half-orc for the various human factons/countries (with suggestions based on the 3.5 book). For the races that are in the setting that aren't in the PHB (minotaur, half-orges, Irda, and Tarmak) I use the theros minotaur, for half-ogres I allow halforc or goliath, for Irda I use Tieflings, and for Tarmak I use Goliaths with the war paint being their racial that reduces damage. For draconians I let them just use fizbans dragonborn and give them some alternative racials I've made to mimic the older edition racials they can switch their breath weapon out for. I don't disallow players to take the breath weapon racial but make it clear to them that they are a rarity among their kind and make sure to have NPCs react appropriately. Same deal for any other race. Currently I have a shifter player who spends most of his time as a polar bear man. Clearly not a race in the setting, but I worked with him to come up with a fitting backstory. He's basically not an actual race but was a human touched and altered by fey/god magic. I'm a big fan of working with players within reason and will always opt to change the setting over restricting a player.

This will all probably sound like gibberish to someone without knowledge of the setting, but is easy enough to explain with a wiki or campaign book in front of me and another player.
 

If you prefer WotL, as many do, you can always roll back the timeline in your own campaign and make whatever restrictions are needed for that era. That's what I would do. In 3e, the default setting was AoM, but they created an entire large supplement specifically about the War of the Lance. I loved it!
The War of the Lance 3E book is a pretty good sourcebook, agreed!
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
If you prefer WotL, as many do, you can always roll back the timeline in your own campaign and make whatever restrictions are needed for that era. That's what I would do. In 3e, the default setting was AoM, but they created an entire large supplement specifically about the War of the Lance. I loved it!
The 3e dragonlance stuff was really good, a great update of the setting. They did have to have a couple goes at the Knights of solamnia though, the initial attempt tried to hew too closely to the original method of moving through the orders which required a lot of preplanning of skills and feats.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top