D&D 5E (2024) Wargamer Takes Shot At WotC for Not Respecting Forgotten Realms Canon.

[kayakingpoodle]

Dragonlance has entered the chat

This seems to be a lot of tempest in a teacup. After all, we haven't actually SEEN the new writeup yet. One would think that maybe, just maybe, waiting until we see what WotC is bringing to the table before taking a big steaming dump on the idea might be an idea?

Spelljammer has entered the chat

To be fair wizbro has given plenty of reasons for negative speculation in the last few years.

 

[Hussar]

Spelljammer has entered the chat

To be fair wizbro has given plenty of reasons for negative speculation in the last few years.

Are there many hero dragon riders in Spelljammer? I was unaware.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Are there many dragon riders in Spelljammer? I was unaware.

Not that I am aware, the Spelljammer reference was an example of wizbro delivering poor quality content that gives people a valid reason to speculate they are gonna drop the ball with the PDK not an example of dragon riders in other books.

 

[pemerton]

If this were true why use Dragons at all? If Lore and tradition did not matter it would be just as good to have a knight riding a newly made up monster called a Humptfatz with no lore at all behind it.

Huh? This makes zero sense to me. Dragons, and dragon-riders, are things that have cachet and heft in fantasy greater than just about any other fantasy element!

Comparing the 1000s of years of inherited human lore about dragons, to some TSR-published details about Purple Dragon Knights that is obscure even to many if not most serious D&D players, is ridiculous in my view.

 

[Hussar]

Not that I am aware, the Spelljammer reference was an example of wizbro delivering poor quality content that gives people a valid reason to speculate they are gonna drop the ball with the PDK not an example of dragon riders in other books.

I know right? Massively popular book that sold very well for years. Very poor quality and totally a valid reason to think they're going to drop the ball in exactly the same way.

One can only hope.

 

[Zardnaar]

Huh? This makes zero sense to me. Dragons, and dragon-riders, are things that have cachet and heft in fantasy greater than just about any other fantasy element!

Comparing the 1000s of years of inherited human lore about dragons, to some TSR-published details about Purple Dragon Knights that is obscure even to many if not most serious D&D players, is ridiculous in my view.

Dragonlance let you ride dragons.

This versions probably gonna be so watered down you're riding a draconic horse or something that's technically a dragon but waste of time.

 

[ECMO3]

Huh? This makes zero sense to me. Dragons, and dragon-riders, are things that have cachet and heft in fantasy greater than just about any other fantasy element!

Yes exactly my point! Lore and Tradition DO matter and this is why Red Dragon Riders DO make sense and Amethyst Dragon Riders, which no one has ever heard of, don't.

 

[pemerton]

Yes exactly my point! Lore and Tradition DO matter and this is why Red Dragon Riders DO make sense and Amethyst Dragon Riders, which no one has ever heard of, don't.

I'm still not following.

The difference between red and amethyst dragons is something local to D&D; it's not something independent of the history of the game.

Most D&D players don't care about the details of Purple Dragon Knights as an element of FR canon. Many if not most D&D players do know that red dragons are generally evil. So making a red dragon-riding character option doesn't seem like a very sensible way of designing a heroic dragon rider. Whereas re-purposing the rather cool-sounding Purple Dragon Knight seems promising enough.

No one cares that the dragons are amethyst. That's really not relevant. What is relevant is the dragon-riding knights with an evocative name.

 

[Arilyn]

How long do you have to wait before you get to actually fly around on your purple dragon? Is this dragon going to initially behave like a large purple wolf buddy, then fly with you for one round? Then at a really high level, you get the full fantasy of riding a dragon?

I wonder if WotC will keep original lore but have the knights ally with amethyst dragons years after they earned their name fighting the ancient black dragon? If so, that's quite the coincidence. If the lore is getting rewritten just to be cooler, cause purple dragons, I'm feeling ambivalent. I mean, dragon buddies are neat, but the lore change is a bit odd. Totally changing a subclass and Forgotten Realm lore, just because players might expect a purple dragon knight to have an actual dragon, feels almost shallow and simplistic. And isn't the whole idea going to be watered down somewhat for balance?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'm still not following.

The difference between red and amethyst dragons is something local to D&D; it's not something independent of the history of the game.

Most D&D players don't care about the details of Purple Dragon Knights as an element of FR canon. Many if not most D&D players do know that red dragons are generally evil. So making a red dragon-riding character option doesn't seem like a very sensible way of designing a heroic dragon rider. Whereas re-purposing the rather cool-sounding Purple Dragon Knight seems promising enough.

No one cares that the dragons are amethyst. That's really not relevant. What is relevant is the dragon-riding knights with an evocative name.

You'd think the best solution would be to leave the color of the dragon up to the player.