D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

Settings in D&D have always been defined by mechanics.
The question is by how much and which aspect of the setting gets defined by the mechanics. AFAIK, magic use in 3e D&D was one aspect that got defined by the mechanics. Not sure if it is the same story in 5e. For instance, back in 3e, the casting of certain types of spells were heightened, diminished or didn't work at all depending on which of Eberron's moons was waxing or waning, or which plane you were visiting in Planescape.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Heck, look at all the hoops they had to jump through to bring Dragonlance into 5e. Practically had to rewrite every single element of the setting from the ground up. Clerics from races other than humans??? You never saw that in Dragonlance because the rules didn't permit it. Magic Users that weren't humans or elves? Impossible. A Dwarven wizard in the Tower of High Sorcery?

They took Dragonlance canon out behind the barn and put a gun in its ear.
eh, they took the irrelevant parts and changed them

The history of Krynn is still the same, the map is still the same, the war is still taking place.

They shaved the mustaches off the knights and expanded the membership in the Towers of High Sorcery to include spell casters other than Wizards that were added since.

The setting is the same, but allowing for the changes since 2e. Nothing of relevance was lost.
 

Heck, look at all the hoops they had to jump through to bring Dragonlance into 5e. Practically had to rewrite every single element of the setting from the ground up. Clerics from races other than humans??? You never saw that in Dragonlance because the rules didn't permit it. Magic Users that weren't humans or elves? Impossible. A Dwarven wizard in the Tower of High Sorcery?

They took Dragonlance canon out behind the barn and put a gun in its ear.
You know, as I get older, I find myself less and less tolerant of continuity. In everything. Comics, TV, video games and ttprg settings. I hold that if you are doing something interesting and holding to the spirit, the small details don't matter.

I was never a Dragonlance fan, so my knowledge was casual and via osmosis. Things like knights with mustaches I thought was a joke when I first heard it, not some deep seated lore element. For me, who the Eff cares? That's not what makes the Knights of Solomnia interesting. An ancient order of knights in decline because of past failures is interesting. Facial hair is not.

Life is too short to concern yourself with the details of canon. When Doctor Who recently included Richard E Grant's face amongst the Doctors (he played a short lived version of the 9th Doctor right before the reboot was announced) I didn't scream how the Shalka Doctor is not canon nor did I wonder how he fits in the timeline. I went "oh, that's a deep cut Easter egg" and moved on.

So no, none of the stuff you mentioned was enough to put a gun to Dragonlance's ear. If Dragonlance's identity is so fragile we need to rely on the racial composition of it's priesthood and the facial hair of its knights to differentiate it, then maybe it wasn't as unique as it seemed.
 

Remove ads

Top