log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E What do you want from a Dragonlance 5e?

Anoth

Adventurer
Well, a Warlord wouldn't exactly be out of place in a setting defined by a war, and a Shaman could be a nice alternative if your deities abandon you. So, sure, why not.

(Besides, it was the least-snarky thing I could come up with...)
Okay. I only read the first 2 trilogies And a few filler novels. But I thought the point of the story was that the people abandoned the gods not the gods abandoning their people.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

PabloM

Adventurer
Again, nothing much to Dragonlance, other than, well, you could speculate about what the priority might be with it? It hasn't had anything in several eds, right?

Beyond the fact that the commentary, in fact, has nothing to do with Dragonlance, it is not a bad idea to include one more class in the hypothetical new Dragonlance book. It would attract people from two different angles: those who like setting and those who want new material.
I think that class could be a Warlord.

Just dreaming out loud, you know...
 


Warlord doesn't fit DL.
Fighting's all between individuals? dragon v mighty hero, all that sorta thing? No cheering section. ;)

Shaman, then?
No clerics means less healing overall, not replace healing.
IDK, it's interesting that at least two settings had sorta gone 'no cleric,' back in the TSR era, yet did replace the healing function, one way or another.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Fighting's all between individuals? dragon v mighty hero, all that sorta thing? No cheering section. ;)

Shaman, then?IDK, it's interesting that at least two settings had sorta gone 'no cleric,' back in the TSR era, yet did replace the healing function, one way or another.

What settings where those?

No healing DL was kind of in the past, PC clerics were the first of the new.

Not sure on the other setting.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Beyond the fact that the commentary, in fact, has nothing to do with Dragonlance, it is not a bad idea to include one more class in the hypothetical new Dragonlance book. It would attract people from two different angles: those who like setting and those who want new material.
I think that class could be a Warlord.

Just dreaming out loud, you know...
Warlord would be a perfect fit for DL, to be fair. Laurana is probably a Warlord of some kind, tbh.

I mean, Captain. Make Warlord a subclass that is the most combat focused subclass. A knowledge focused enabler makes better sense as a type of Captain than a type of Warlord, IMO, and the name Captain fits the fiction of DL a lot better.
 

PabloM

Adventurer
Warlord would be a perfect fit for DL, to be fair. Laurana is probably a Warlord of some kind, tbh.

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).
 



Anoth

Adventurer
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.
 


wicked cool

Explorer
The draconians have been one of the coolest monster creations and yet they have lingered in the dustbin for 30+ years. I cant figure out why WOTC has not brought them back.they are much more interesting than Dragonborn. If done right Drgaonlance would also make a great television series or a series of movies
 

Hussar

Legend
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.
 

Wolfpack48

Explorer
Ummmmm, dragons? No, seriously. The element that made the original series of adventures intriguing was the thematic introduction of each dragon as the centerpiece to each module. It drew players in and offered a great showcase of the dragons in context of the setting where it belonged. No need to replicate or republish those modules in 5e, but showcasing dragons or dragon lore is essential.

Frankly we lost interest in the setting when it veered off into humanoid concerns and political intrigues.
 

JeffB

Legend
Ok, well to do it properly it first needs some new novels and a set of railroady adventures based on them.

Just kidding.

I'm not sure what could get me to buy into DL...??

IME the best product ever produced was the 5th Age/Saga edition's Bestiary (best MM, ever). I read up on the lore of the 5th Age before the WotL because we uniformly rejected the early modules when they were originally published, and It took me until about 1997 or so to circle back around. I picked up some of the 5th Age boxes and the TotL box (then read the original trilogy) , some of the classic reprints in 2E format, and eventually the 3E book when it came out (which I found a complete snoozefest and perfect example of how not to write a setting guide-killed my enthusiasm nearly 100% for ever running DL).

As a usable game setting at the time I really liked the 5th Age lore that was presented in Saga, and lack of Iconic characters. Much moreso than what I was reading about the WotL era.

I DO agree with @Wolfpack48 above. The way the dragons were presented and used in the adventures as a centerpiece and as villains all their own instead of just a (pick your color) dragon.

I also think the setting would have to focus outside of the WotL and especially avoid Iconic characters and mention them/their deeds only in passing. It has to present a new hook and motivations for people's home games. The 5th Age was not terribly popular with fans. Are there other Ages that can be tapped into?

And unlike what WOTC has done with GH and especially FR- they would have to stay true to the setting- no shoehorning dragonborn in as a replacement for draconians or sime kind of "new" species, no tieflings, no halflings, etc etc. No more homogenized "shared experience" where the PHB takes precedence over the Setting.
 




Undrave

Hero
For me, the best way to model mass combat is to look at how Dynasty Warriors does it. You don't really need to keep track of who defeats who in the small fries, what matters is what objectives are controlled by which armies. Those objectives can be fortifications, choke points, paths for reinforcement, or gates. You also have to destroy OR escort siege engines and protect against a few higher level enemy generals. The soldiers are just easy picking for you and don't matter, it's all about battlefield and time management.

Maybe throw in a morale element?

Basically, don't do two armies running at each other over an open field or start rolling to see which squads take out which squads. Get an interesting map, drop some important points on it and roll to see who controls each points that is contested an when one army wins a point of interest you push to the next one. Only go into details when the PC are there to properly interact.

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.

If you got a better name for a Mundane Leader of Men that would be great.

The draconians have been one of the coolest monster creations and yet they have lingered in the dustbin for 30+ years. I cant figure out why WOTC has not brought them back.they are much more interesting than Dragonborn. If done right Drgaonlance would also make a great television series or a series of movies

Because Dragonborns are fully creations of WotC, same as Tieflings and many others. It helps their brand to make their unique creations more ubiquitous in the larger RPG community so that you can only get it from their products.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top