What do you want to see in D20 Dragonlance?

[Geron Raveneye]

Hmmm...you know, Randolpho...

...the point of the 1E Rules was to reflect the Dragonlance setting, not the other way around...otherwise, there wouldn´t have been so many new character classes in the sourcebook back then. The Knights, the WoHS, the Tinkerer and the Handler all were non-standard core classes back then, and such needed their own entries. The whole setting wasn´t so close to the 1E rules.

The Test at 3rd level definitely was a setting flavour...it didn´t have it´s roots in the 1E rule set, it was used to give the WoHS a flavour of their own, and to make it a challenge for wizard players to play a powerful wizard. And even if they weren´t of a certain colour until after the Test, they were taught by a Conclave wizard, who made sure they didn´t break the Conclave´s rules...you were part of the Orders from Day 1.

Same for the Knights...you could start out as 1st level Knight of the Crown...I guess that should be considered a core class.
There´s a few other "setting flavours" that might be warranted as a core class. The "Mariner" of the Sea Barbarians is one of them, for example.

Of course, the PHB core classes are generic...usable for every fantasy setting. That doesn´t mean that they cover all possible classes...only that they are a base upon which you can build more, if needed. I guess that´s why they suggest modifying the core classes into "variant classes" in the DM´s Guide, a tad before the "prestige classes" come into play. After all, other worlds may have different core classes, a nice example is Rokugan...a few new core classes there, neh?

 

[Michael Tree]

Thus, you could have a "signature item" feat, which lets you pump XP into the item and enchant it up as you gain levels. The knight might get this feat for free, while other classes have to spend a feat slot on it.

Ah, I see your point now. Yes, I agree that would be a good idea. It could explain Raistlin (for example), who at 4th level was given the personal staff of one of the most powerful wizards in the Order's history, Magius, without unbalancing the game. As Raistlin's power progressed, he discovered more and more powers of the Staff of Magius, in addition to adding a few of his own.

 

[loki87]

Anvil of Time?

Did any of you see the DL adventure Anvil of Time in Dungeon #86? I think it had some ideas for meshing DL into 3E D&D. However, I'm sure the DL Sourcebook will probably invalidate and better many of the ideas here.

It has the White, Red, and Black-robed mages as multi-schooled specialist wizards. It has MM pages for Baaz Draconians and Kender (which look pretty good). There are also some NPC stats for people such as Huma, Soth, and Fistandantilus. But I'm sure all of those stats will get revised.

 

[Randolpho]

Re: Hmmm...you know, Randolpho...

...the point of the 1E Rules was to reflect the Dragonlance setting, not the other way around...otherwise, there wouldn´t have been so many new character classes in the sourcebook back then. The Knights, the WoHS, the Tinkerer and the Handler all were non-standard core classes back then, and such needed their own entries. The whole setting wasn´t so close to the 1E rules.

No, but the translation of the setting into the rules was the reason they were "core" classes. If Tracy Hickman were to have created Dragonlance *today*, rather than in the 80s, those classes would be prestige classes.

The Test at 3rd level definitely was a setting flavour...it didn´t have it´s roots in the 1E rule set, it was used to give the WoHS a flavour of their own, and to make it a challenge for wizard players to play a powerful wizard. And even if they weren´t of a certain colour until after the Test, they were taught by a Conclave wizard, who made sure they didn´t break the Conclave´s rules...you were part of the Orders from Day 1.

The Test was setting flavor. Putting it at 3rd level was affixing the setting to the currently available rules set. Again, if the setting had been created today, rather than in the 80s, High Sorcerers would be a prestige class.

Same for the Knights...you could start out as 1st level Knight of the Crown...I guess that should be considered a core class.
There´s a few other "setting flavours" that might be warranted as a core class. The "Mariner" of the Sea Barbarians is one of them, for example.

Crown, Rose, Sword knight. These are ranks, not skill sets. They shouldn't even warrant their own class. If they do, they should be a prestige class, to reflect the particular skill focus a particular rank might use.

Of course, the PHB core classes are generic...usable for every fantasy setting. That doesn´t mean that they cover all possible classes...only that they are a base upon which you can build more, if needed. I guess that´s why they suggest modifying the core classes into "variant classes" in the DM´s Guide, a tad before the "prestige classes" come into play. After all, other worlds may have different core classes, a nice example is Rokugan...a few new core classes there, neh?

I don't buy it. DL has always been about D&D. The two are linked. Variant classes are about changing classes to fit a setting that doesn't support that particular archetype -- a setting with a magic different from standard D&D, for example. Dragonlance is not such a setting. Dragonlance *is* D&D.

 

[Kesh]

I agree with Randolpho. I've never played the old editions of DL, but I'm a fan of the books. And everything from the books can be done with the core classes, then adding a few PrC's in a few cases.

Oh, and the rules for advancing weapons is in the Oriental Adventures issue of Dragon Mag.

 

[hong]

Oh, and the rules for advancing weapons is in the Oriental Adventures issue of Dragon Mag.

A bit more on the advancing weapons thang: the XP costs given in the article are, IMO, on the steep side. In the last campaign I was in, we had a feat called "Signature Item" that let you advance an item by paying XP. The cost was 1/10th the item's market price, which is a fair bit less than what's in the article. A couple of us took the feat, and it didn't seem particularly unbalancing.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh...

...I have to admit that I don´t disagree too much with you, Randolpho...I just hate the current trend to solve any difference in a class concept with a prestige class. It´s not the "be all - end all" if it comes to class creation...I´m disagreeing on principle at the moment

Of course there´s easy enough ways to build the WoHS with a prestige class...and the same goes for the Knights of the Sword and the Rose (the Crown Knights still should be a core class, probably a fighter archetype)...but I think there should be a little more thinking to creating classes that are specific for a setting than simply slapping a prestige class on a core class.

In the end it´ll be one question that determines how Weis and Hickman will bring DL into 3E. Do they want to try and keep the flair of the old DL setting, and try to recreate what they did nearly 20 years ago? Or are they trying to "newly" create DL as if it was thought out just now, with the 3E ruleset in mind. In any case, we´ll see it in Fall 03...

But the speculations are fun

 

[Randolpho]

Re: Heh...

Indeed they are.

Personally, I hope they elect for the 3rd-edition D&D mindeset; I want the game to be as close to core D&D as possible. However, I know Weiss/Hickman like to set trends rather than follow them, so if they come up with something different, I won't mind too much.

Still, if the "Knight of the Crown" is just a fighter, then there shouldn't be a class called Knight of the Crown, there should just be Fighters who happen to hold the rank of Knight of the Crown. No need to create rules for setting politics...

On another note altogether, I'd really like to see Rose of the Prophet d20. So if you folks from Soverign Press are out there, and are still reading this thread, *please* see what you can do about getting Wiess/Hickman to translate their work into d20!!! I loved that set of books more than anything else they've come out with yet (which is high praise indeed, since I never have anything *bad* to say about their books at all ). I especially loved the theme of truth vs perception. Does Bantam (or whoever they got to publish RotP, I know it wasn't TSR) own the copyrights to the setting, or do Weiss/Hickman? Inquiring minds want to know...