Dragonlance What do you want from a Dragonlance 5e?

[Stormonu]

I’d like to see a side-by-side release; a campaign book that is a riff of the original Dragonlance but updated with 5E sensabilities, and a direct 5E conversion of the original adventures (I have no interest in 5th age, war of souls, just the original War of the Lance). A Tomb of Annihilation and Tomb of Horrors via separate TotYP sort of release.

The “riff” release could conrain draconian PCs, knight orders, Irda, Minotaurs, and everything both classic and new to D&D since Dragonlance originally came out. This book would contain a mini-campaign/adventure to kick off a modern riff - start at the Last Home, a couple roadside adventure such as a Draconian ambush and a visit to the Forest Lord and end with a dungeon delve in forgotten ruins (Xas Tsoroth) and a confrontation with a Dragonlord & Dragon (Toede & Khisanth?) [basically a condensed DL1, but rewritten for modern times] It then has a “from here” section to give the DM guidance and background of story threads to follow.

The classic release would, of course, have a foreward how to run Dragonlance in “Classic” mode, and have a section in the back (or better yet, point to a PDF) if you want to use the Heroes of the Lance instead of your own characters.

 

[PabloM]

Draconians make extremely poor PC's. The whole, "born of magical perversion of good dragon eggs" and irredeemably evil sort of makes them really bad as a PC race.

Yes, I realize they added in later elements to Draconians to make them somewhat more palatable, but, at their heart, draconians are basically demons.

And, frankly, if the only think that clerics mean to you is healing, well, I'm thinking you very much missed the point of Dragonlance and the gods turning away from the setting.

Replace the word "draconian" with "drow" in the post and it has the same meaning. However, the drow are a playable race in 5e ...

 

[Anoth]

I’d like to see a side-by-side release; a campaign book that is a riff of the original Dragonlance but updated with 5E sensabilities, and a direct 5E conversion of the original adventures (I have no interest in 5th age, war of souls, just the original War of the Lance). A Tomb of Annihilation and Tomb of Horrors via separate TotYP sort of release.

The “riff” release could conrain draconian PCs, knight orders, Irda, Minotaurs, and everything both classic and new to D&D since Dragonlance originally came out. This book would contain a mini-campaign/adventure to kick off a modern riff - start at the Last Home, a couple roadside adventure such as a Draconian ambush and a visit to the Forest Lord and end with a dungeon delve in forgotten ruins (Xas Tsoroth) and a confrontation with a Dragonlord & Dragon (Toede & Khisanth?) [basically a condensed DL1, but rewritten for modern times] It then has a “from here” section to give the DM guidance and background of story threads to follow.

The classic release would, of course, have a foreward how to run Dragonlance in “Classic” mode, and have a section in the back (or better yet, point to a PDF) if you want to use the Heroes of the Lance instead of your own characters.

No disrespect. But that’s why it is so difficult as a settting. I want to play after these events. Those are good history for the campaign. But I don’t want to be playing an adventure and players and DM’s squabbling over that’s not how it is supposed to happen. Which is exactly what happened everytime I tried playing those War of the Lance modules.

although it would be interesting to see how it plays out with players that never read those novels and were not playing with the pregenerated characters from the novels. There modules basically assume later that Raistlin will turn black robe. Talk about railroading and lack of player agency. The modules assume in one adventure that the players did things a specific way basically like the books.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Wouldn't dream of arguing against that. I'll always have a soft spot for them, and they were perfect for when I read them as a kid. But they have not aged well. When I see people saying stuff like how they're better than the Lord of the Rings, I have to question when the last time they actually read Dragonlance was.

Let's be honest: although I respect Weiss and Hickman very much, Dragonlance novels are not that good.
Krynn has beautiful characters, interesting locations and adventure hooks in every corner, but it's a good setting to play D&D, no more (or less) than that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was just thinking about her. While the Battlemaster, the Banneret or even the College of Swords Bard fulfill the same function, I think it could work better with a class like Warlord (or Warlady in this case).

Warlady is not the feminine of Warlord. English doesn't have a lot of gendering built in, and it's inconsistent about the bits where it does. Similarly, though Battlemaster is made-up, there's no reason to think it implies the feminine form Battlemistress.

Oh that’s another good reason to use Captain. It’s more fully gender neutral.

For instance, some existing classes are gendered in English. Sorcerer/Sorceress and Warlock/Witch, for instance.

Captain is a rank. Do we need classes for General, Admiral, Seargent, Lieutenant, Corporal, etc.
captain as a class or archetype is a bad idea.

So's Marshal - it's a military rank outside the US, and a law-enforcement position in the US. Too RL, too specific.
Warlord has the advantage of not implying any sort of legitimate authority.

You are right. The setting was originally thought to be the first clerics of a new era in the PC´s party.

I must've missed that the first time around - I wasn't too into it, but bits I recall seemed to focus on a wizard.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Captain is a rank. Do we need classes for General, Admiral, Seargent, Lieutenant, Corporal, etc.

captain as a class or archetype is a bad idea.

Captain is also a generic term for a leader, and always has been.

 

[Anoth]

Captain is also a generic term for a leader, and always has been.

That is very confusing. Does their secretary get an archetype too.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That is very confusing. Does their secretary get an archetype too.

The hell are you talking about?

 

[Anoth]

The hell are you talking about?

I like the concept, the name does not work for me. Sorry I dont like it. Warlord, commander, or leader work better for me. Although warlord has very negative connotations. Those guys were quite brutal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I like the concept, the name does not work for me. SorryI dont like it. Warlord, commander, or leader work better for me. Although warlord has very negative connotations. Those guys were quite brutal.

Sure, no name is gonna work for everyone.

But Commander is literally also a rank.

It also has a more unavoidable “this guy is your boss, other PCs” connotation than Captain does. Commander only means one thing, and it’s basically a person who commands others in an official capacity.

Captain can just mean “person who is really good”. Aragorn and Boromir are both Captains. Robin Hood is a Captain. “Captain of Industry” is a just a person who leads by example and inspires others by being so damn successful and having such a powerful persona and reputation.

It’s a wildly common and commonly understood term.