What do you want to see in D20 Dragonlance?

[Ranger REG]

Personally, I think it should be a d20-based core rulebook rather than a D&D campaign sourcebook. I don't mind if they use a different magic system than the Jack Vance's Dying Earth that is the mainstay of D&D but quite distinguished from Sovereign Stone's d20 magic system. Just so long it is suitable for the world of Dragonlance.

Of course, I haven't really played Sovereign Stone so someone has to give me a crystal-clear rundown on how their magic system work.

 

[Henry]

Actually, the current 3E Magic System is a combination of Vancian and Amber systems. A spell is "hung" rather than "memorized": the only real difference is that in D&D you can "hang" a lot more of them.

Hong Ooi - I'm curious; which conventions are you thinking of that were D&D rules dictated? I am blindsided by thinking about minotaurs, no orcs, draconians, having no gods for 300 years, etc. - stuff that's not "normal" D&D fare. Having no sorcerers or spontaneous casters is one thought, but I'm not thinking of anything else right now.

Michael Tree has come across with an excellent list, and highly recommend any sovereign stone personnel reading this thread to take a good look at it. It sums up a lot of my feelings as well.

 

[hong]

Actually, the current 3E Magic System is a combination of Vancian and Amber systems. A spell is "hung" rather than "memorized": the only real difference is that in D&D you can "hang" a lot more of them.

Hong Ooi - I'm curious; which conventions are you thinking of that were D&D rules dictated? I am blindsided by thinking about minotaurs, no orcs, draconians, having no gods for 300 years, etc. - stuff that's not "normal" D&D fare. Having no sorcerers or spontaneous casters is one thought, but I'm not thinking of anything else right now.

Off the top of my head:

• Reified alignments
• Spellcasters memorizing/preparing spells
• Wizards not wearing armour or using weapons
• A character class system (with 1E/2E multiclassing limits, to boot)
• The distinction between wizards and clerics (the fact that the gods disappeared is moot, given that one of the PCs in the books and modules is, for all intents and purposes, a cleric)
• Elves and dwarves that are indistinguishable from their regular D&D counterparts

 

[Randolpho]

Hong Ooi - I'm curious; which conventions are you thinking of that were D&D rules dictated? I am blindsided by thinking about minotaurs, no orcs, draconians, having no gods for 300 years, etc. - stuff that's not "normal" D&D fare. Having no sorcerers or spontaneous casters is one thought, but I'm not thinking of anything else right now.

F&F magic is the biggie there. Everything else ('specially the stuff you mentioned) about D&D was a sidestep away from normal D&D setting. Stuff like the moon power fluxuations, a unified spellcaster guild, this was all to be different from standard D&D setting fare.

However, it was all designed to fit within the D&D rules. Please, guys, try to remember, the rules, with the exception of the magic rules, are *not* the setting. The setting is entirely outside the realm of those rules.

Personally, I think Dragonlance should be as true to core D&D rules as possible, while changing whatever might be necessary to get the setting in line with *all* ages. That means they'll be keeping the D&D-style magic, 'cause that's the kind of magic they use in Dragonlance.

On the subject of High Sorcerers as a core class vs prestige class:

First, I think those of you who think High Sorcery should be part of the core wizard class (i.e take the test at level 3, or go rogue) are confusing the 1st edition rules set with the 3rd edition rules set. They made high-sorcery part of the rules for the class in 1e because they didn't have a concept of a prestige class then. There's no need to go back to that now. Things like High Sorcery are what prestige classes were *made* for. Let's *use* that, not ignore it.

 

[hong]

On the subject of High Sorcerers as a core class vs prestige class:

First, I think those of you who think High Sorcery should be part of the core wizard class (i.e take the test at level 3, or go rogue) are confusing the 1st edition rules set with the 3rd edition rules set. They made high-sorcery part of the rules for the class in 1e because they didn't have a concept of a prestige class then.

That's a very good point. Count that as another of the "quirks" of the DL world.

There's no need to go back to that now. Things like High Sorcery are what prestige classes were *made* for. Let's *use* that, not ignore it.

Yep.

 

[Wolvorine]

Re: art!!!

there's this artist guy ... name of C-k- ... something xLaudio ... does good stuff, would be a worthy addition to any source book

This is true... but please let us not forget that our good man Claudio isn't the only pencil-slinger hanging around these parts. And I know I've already started sending in e-mails to Soverign Press about it all.

Pssst, Claudio, are you a DL fan?

(Hey, we're both working on DQG's Cyber Style already... DL could be fun too... hehe)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

On the subject of High Sorcerers as a core class vs prestige class:

First, I think those of you who think High Sorcery should be part of the core wizard class (i.e take the test at level 3, or go rogue) are confusing the 1st edition rules set with the 3rd edition rules set. They made high-sorcery part of the rules for the class in 1e because they didn't have a concept of a prestige class then. There's no need to go back to that now. Things like High Sorcery are what prestige classes were *made* for. Let's *use* that, not ignore it.

Well...it´s a valid comment...but do remember that prestige classes are purely optional, and that variant classes are as valid an option given in the DM´s Guide as prestige classes are. it´s not just a 1E concept to modify a given class for it to fit a specific setting...it can be done with 3E just as easily, or even easier. Look at the Witch class they gave as an example some pages before the PrCs

 

[Wolf72]

Re: Re: art!!!

This is true... but please let us not forget that our good man Claudio isn't the only pencil-slinger hanging around these parts. And I know I've already started sending in e-mails to Soverign Press about it all.

Pssst, Claudio, are you a DL fan?

(Hey, we're both working on DQG's Cyber Style already... DL could be fun too... hehe)

my bad wolvorine! ... you don't have that fancy hosted website thingee ... but I will look into your stuff too

 

[Michael Tree]

On the subject of High Sorcerers as a core class vs prestige class:

First, I think those of you who think High Sorcery should be part of the core wizard class (i.e take the test at level 3, or go rogue) are confusing the 1st edition rules set with the 3rd edition rules set. They made high-sorcery part of the rules for the class in 1e because they didn't have a concept of a prestige class then. There's no need to go back to that now. Things like High Sorcery are what prestige classes were *made* for. Let's *use* that, not ignore it.

I couldn't disagree more. There are several problems with making High Sorcery a prestige class.

1) Wizards of High Sorcery are the only wizards there are. Prestige classes are meant to present variations of the core classes, often to represent various organizations. However, since all the wizards in Dragonlance are Wizards of High Sorcery, the arcane spellcaster organization that all wizards belong to, that defeats the purpose of the prestige class. A prestige class that everyone has is no longer prestigious. It's not even really a prestige class, but more of a replacement of the higher levels of the core class that everyone uses. In that case, it's better to simply use a variant core class.

2) It's not possible to gain more than 3 levels of Wizard without becoming a Wizard of High Sorcery. It should be possible to advance to high levels using only a core class. The only other alternative is to go renegade, which is essentially a death sentence, and in any case there aren't really any differences between renegate wizards and WoHS, aside from roleplaying ones. The only renegades in the books that are mechanically different, the Thorn Knights of Takhisis, deserve a prestige class in their own right, which would give them their renegade magic irregularities.

3) Making WoHS a prestige class prevents wizards from taking other prestige classes that are appropriate for them. If every Wizard of High Sorcery has to take a WoHS Prestige class, then it's no longer really possible for any of them to take other prestige classes that better suit their abilities. You needlessly lose a great deal of diversity that way.

These three arguments are essentially subsets of the one compelling reason why WoHS shouldn't be a prestige class: Becuase it doesn't need to be. The WoHS can be *perfectly* portrayed in the rules as a core class, without losing any flavour or game-mechanical considerations.

 

[Randolpho]

I couldn't disagree more. There are several problems with making High Sorcery a prestige class.
1) Wizards of High Sorcery are the only wizards there are. Prestige classes are meant to present variations of the core classes, often to represent various organizations. However, since all the wizards in Dragonlance are Wizards of High Sorcery, the arcane spellcaster organization that all wizards belong to, that defeats the purpose of the prestige class. A prestige class that everyone has is no longer prestigious. It's not even really a prestige class, but more of a replacement of the higher levels of the core class that everyone uses. In that case, it's better to simply use a variant core class.

This is a valid, but IMO wrong, point. There are plenty of wizards who are *not* wizards of High Sorcery in Dragonlance. Thorn Knights are an example. Rogue wizards are another. Various other spell-casters that should be classes in 3e but were monsters in 1e are another (I distinctly remember a Witch in Dragons of Light (DL7)).

Rogue wizards are the big thing here. It's quite possible to advance in levels as a rogue wizard all you want, but you don't gain the benefits of high sorcery. High Sorcery is, essentially, a contract between the god of magic the PC wishes to worship (Solinari, Lunitari, Nuitari) and that PC. Rogue wizards do not enter into this contract. It's true that on the main continent rogue wizards are very rare, but this is more because of the *dominance* of the High Sorcerers than anything else -- socio-political aspect, in a way. On other continents, "rogue" wizards are far more common.

2) It's not possible to gain more than 3 levels of Wizard without becoming a Wizard of High Sorcery. It should be possible to advance to high levels using only a core class.

As a prestige class, it would be possible to gain more than 3 levels of wizard without becoming a High Sorcerer. This is the way it *should* be, IMO. As for advancing to high levels, if you make the High Sorcerer levels stack with Wizard levels for spellcasting abilities, one could advance to the highest wizard levels without problems. You make the prestige class an overlay class, somewhat like a template.

The only other alternative is to go renegade, which is essentially a death sentence, and in any case there isn't much of a difference between renegate wizards and WoHS, aside from roleplaying ones. The only renegades in the books that are mechanically different, the Rose Knights of Takhisis, deserve a prestige class in their own right, which gives them their renegade magic irregularities.

How are the Thorn Knights mechanically different from either normal wizards or HS wizards? That was certainly never addressed in the books, and Thorn Knights never made it to D&D...

3) Making WoHS a prestige class prevents wizards from taking other prestige classes that are appropriate for them. If every Wizard of High Sorcery has to take a WoHS Prestige class, then it's no longer really possible for any of them to take other prestige classes that better suit their abilities. You needlessly lose a great deal of diversity that way.

A) What other prestige classes are there?

B) that's the whole point of multi-classing. You gain diversity (differeng skill-sets) at the expense of specialization/focus. You're saying you want the DL wizards to have all the benefits of High Sorcery (making them more powerful than renegade mages or even standard D&D mages), without any drawbacks. Sounds a tad munchkinish to me.

These three arguments are essentially subsets of the one compelling reason why WoHS shouldn't be a prestige class: Becuase it doesn't need to be. The WoHS can be *perfectly* portrayed in the rules as a core class, without losing any flavour or game-mechanical considerations.

But it has *more* flavor IMO, *without* the necessity of changing core rules as a prestige class.