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.

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!)

Lunar Sorcery Sorcerer Preview From Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen

Harness the power of the moon with the Lunar Sorcery sorcerer! Here's a look at the versatile features granted by this celestial subclass.

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Pentallion]

I don't see why they would ever do that, given how much they officially lean into the notion of "make D&D your own". And really, when it boils down to it, what would be the actual benefit for them to be officially exclusionary in any campaign setting? Why would they aim to shrink the modern game to fit into a setting rather than adapting the setting to the modern game?

Because a world without clerics is fundamentally different than one with.
Must every world be McDonalds?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Because a world without clerics is fundamentally different than one with.
Must every world be McDonalds?

They have clerics, Clerics are reintroduced to the world in the very first thing with Dragonlance.

 

[Remathilis]

I would argue that Artificers are in the original Krynn, but not as a formal class. The gnomes fit that bill quite nicely, so in 5e I would insert the class into the game as a gnome only class(barring a good written background explaining why some other race is one).

Monks are both in and not in 1e Dragonlance. There are gods with the monk class and one god is literally the god of monks. At the same time it says that monks that come into Krynn become heathen clerics. This is an obvious contradiction. You can't have both no monks and a god of monks. This requires a DM ruling and so I'd rule in favor of monks being present and having a god to follow.

Level limits were ignored by most tables anyway, so no need to put those back in. Same with racial limits. Those were often ignored, though less so than level limits.

Amazing how people are all "Don't touch the setting, it needs to be like it was in 1e/2e, except for the parts I don't like. And no additions, except the ones I agree with. But no other!"

 

[WarDriveWorley]

Amazing how people are all "Don't touch the setting, it needs to be like it was in 1e/2e, except for the parts I don't like. And no additions, except the ones I agree with. But no other!"

Agreed.

I also find it odd to be focusing on the Artificer/Warlock exclusion since neither of those classes existed when DL was created. Feats weren't a thing either. Should we go back to Thac0 since that was the attack bonus du jour?

I think a better discussion is "how we can integrate new ideas/concepts in a way where it honors the original vision" than "we shouldn't add x because it wasn't there originally".

 

[Remathilis]

Agreed.

I also find it odd to be focusing on the Artificer/Warlock exclusion since neither of those classes existed when DL was created. Feats weren't a thing either. Should we go back to Thac0 since that was the attack bonus du jour?

I think a better discussion is "how we can integrate new ideas/concepts in a way where it honors the original vision" than "we shouldn't add x because it wasn't there originally".

It's a cake-and-eat-it-too scenario: the purists want the 2nd edition setting regurgitated verbatim to them, except for the parts they don't want (level limits, etc) and with nothing additional added to the setting, except for the things they do (artificer gnomes?).

The fact that in 2022 we are talking about a setting banning half the PHB classes to a supplement to said book states how absolutely harmful TSR's design philosophy was to the core game when it came to settings. The settings should service the game, not vice versa. If a setting was so incompatible with D&D you cannot use much of the core game in it, it's not a D&D setting and deserves a bespoke rpg of its own to better represent itself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a cake-and-eat-it-too scenario: the purists want the 2nd edition setting regurgitated verbatim to them, except for the parts they don't want (level limits, etc) and with nothing additional added to the setting, except for the things they do (artificer gnomes?).

The fact that in 2022 we are talking about a setting banning half the PHB classes to a supplement to said book states how absolutely harmful TSR's design philosophy was to the core game when it came to settings. The settings should service the game, not vice versa. If a setting was so incompatible with D&D you cannot use much of the core game in it, it's not a D&D setting and deserves a bespoke rpg of its own to better represent itself.

For the record, I never argued anything about throwing out older stuff i didn't like and keeping newer stuff i did. My views may have been unpopular, but they were consistent.

But I'm done arguing anyway. Its a new world now, and the old stories are over in any sense outside individual tables.

 

[Remathilis]

For the record, I never argued anything about throwing out older stuff i didn't like and keeping newer stuff i did. My views may have been unpopular, but they were consistent.

But I'm done arguing anyway. Its a new world now, and the old stories are over in any sense outside individual tables.

I didn't quote you specifically here. In fact, the response was to Max saying "well, artificer is okay" and "no one used level limits anyway" but orcs would be a bridge too far.

So props to you, your desire to keep Dragonlance in the 80's has been a consistent one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't quote you specifically here. In fact, the response was to Max saying "well, artificer is okay" and "no one used level limits anyway" but orcs would be a bridge too far.

So props to you, your desire to keep Dragonlance in the 80's has been a consistent one.

It was cool in the 90s and 00s too.

 

[Maxperson]

Amazing how people are all "Don't touch the setting, it needs to be like it was in 1e/2e, except for the parts I don't like. And no additions, except the ones I agree with. But no other!"

Nothing I said was an addition. All of it either existed in the 1e/2e setting, but didn't have mechanics made for it(artificers) or both existed and didn't exist simultaneously which requires DM adjudication.

Your implication that my position on artificers which did exist in the Tinker gnomes is the same as adding in orcs which explicitly didn't exist, is disingenuous at best.

 

[Maxperson]

Same difference.

No it's not the same difference. A race cannot be both smart enough to build catapults and too stupid to build stairs. That's a disconnect that breaks the race. A race can, however, be mentally incapable of wanting to do the simple things and have a compulsion to overcomplicate whatever they do. That does not create a disconnect.