# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Dragonlance: Shadows of the Dragon Queen

## P. G. Macer

So for those who preordered on D&D Beyond or via the bundle (such as myself), the Dragonlance adventure book is out.

I havent read the entire thing front to back yet, though Ive read the world lore and player character options.

So far, my impression of the book is that its good but not great. The Kender have no mention of kleptomania, which is good, and you can now choose from several skills, not just Sleight of Hand, so you kender PC neednt be a pickpocket.

In one respect, the backgrounds are even worse than the Strixhaven and UA ones, in that they dont give _any_ personality traits, on top of no Ideals, Bonds, or Flaws. Additionally, the new Backgrounds and Feats have an interesting prerequisite: Dragonlance Campaign. This is likely a fig leaf to defend against power gamers taking these backgrounds and feats in a non-DL campaign, though in the case of Divinely Favored (which also is now a 4th-level Feat) the gating isnt really necessary IMHO.

The Lunar Sorcerer is bonkers frontloaded, yet still powerful enough in Tier 4, as per the preview we got earlier, it gets an obscene *15* bonus spells knownand one of them is now _shield_! While you cant swap out these bonus spells like the Tashas Sorcerers, Im still considering banning this subclass outright, though I may settle for nerfing it.

The main thing Ive read so far that makes me want to hurl my laptop all the way to Renton, WA, is the solution WotC has come up with for mass combat: just by the new Dragonlance board game and use that!  :Small Furious:  Obvious sidestep/cash grab is obvious.

Ive barely scratched the surface even of what Ive read so far, but I figured Id get the ball rolling and see what yall think as well.

----------


## animewatcha

Now here will come loads of characters with backstories in which they originated from dragonlance (which means that they totally meet the dragonlance campaign requirement). This could have been simply solved by allowing players a feat (any in which meet the requirement instead of restricted list) and more feats at every ASI in addition to the ASI.

Also, would the lunar sorcerer be okay if it was just 'bonus spells known' limited to the lunar phase said sorcerer was in?

----------


## Unoriginal

> So for those who preordered on D&D Beyond or via the bundle (such as myself), the Dragonlance adventure book is out.
> 
> I havent read the entire thing front to back yet, though Ive read the world lore and player character options.
> 
> So far, my impression of the book is that its good but not great. The Kender have no mention of kleptomania, which is good, and you can now choose from several skills, not just Sleight of Hand, so you kender PC neednt be a pickpocket.
> 
> In one respect, the backgrounds are even worse than the Strixhaven and UA ones, in that they dont give _any_ personality traits, on top of no Ideals, Bonds, or Flaws. Additionally, the new Backgrounds and Feats have an interesting prerequisite: Dragonlance Campaign. This is likely a fig leaf to defend against power gamers taking these backgrounds and feats in a non-DL campaign, though in the case of Divinely Favored (which also is now a 4th-level Feat) the gating isnt really necessary IMHO.
> 
> The Lunar Sorcerer is bonkers frontloaded, yet still powerful enough in Tier 4, as per the preview we got earlier, it gets an obscene *15* bonus spells knownand one of them is now _shield_! While you cant swap out these bonus spells like the Tashas Sorcerers, Im still considering banning this subclass outright, though I may settle for nerfing it.
> ...



If you don't mind me asking, how are the NPCs/Monsters of the book?

In particular I'm curious about what setting-specific monsters/NPC statblock are in the book, if they have statblocks for Dragonlance's iconic characters, and if they have a new version of Tiamat's stats.

----------


## sambojin

And, are there any beasts for Druids to use brokenly?

----------


## P. G. Macer

RE: Monsters and NPCs

Im no Dragonlance expert, but the only "iconic" character from the setting with a statblock is Lord Soth, and the Introduction to the book mentions the PCs arent expected to fight him (he is CR 19, the adventure maxes out shortly above 10th Level IIRC) but rather evade and avoid him.

There are no new Beast stat blocks in the book, nor does Takhisis/Tiamat get stats here. The draconians get new stats, with their proper Dragonlance names, and there is a Kender Skirmisher statblock.

The spelcasters use the MPMM style of casting, though some beings (such as Lord Soth) automatically upcast their spells, e.g. Soth can cast _banishment_ at 6th level 1/day (notable particularly as Soth uses the Paladin tag, and a 6th-level upcast wouldnt be possible for an NPC paladin under the old system(.

----------


## Unoriginal

> RE: Monsters and NPCs


Thanks!




> Im no Dragonlance expert, but the only "iconic" character from the setting with a statblock is Lord Soth


Lord Soth, as in the only person to ever escape the role of Dark Lord imposed on him by the Dark Powers, thanks to becoming so incredibly boring they couldn't be bothered with holding any more?




> the Introduction to the book mentions the PCs arent expected to fight him (he is CR 19, the adventure maxes out shortly above 10th Level IIRC) but rather evade and avoid him.


Well that can be very fun or very frustrating, depending on how the adventure presents it.

----------


## JadedDM

Not surprising, the Heroes of the Lance don't exist anymore (or rather, the players are the Heroes now).  So no Tanis, Tasslehoff, Flint, Raistlin, etc.  So I'd be surprised if any iconics were even mentioned in passing, never mind given full stat blocks.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The Lunar Sorcerer is bonkers frontloaded, yet still powerful enough in Tier 4, as per the preview we got earlier, it gets an obscene *15* bonus spells knownand one of them is now _shield_! While you cant swap out these bonus spells like the Tashas Sorcerers, Im still considering banning this subclass outright, though I may settle for nerfing it.


So we gave the feedback from the UA, I am sure some of us pointed out the Lunar sorcerer, _a neat concept_, being way out of whack, and they blew it off. 

What confidence do we have that they listen to any rational critique of D&Done?

----------


## P. G. Macer

> So we gave the feedback from the UA, I am sure some of us pointed out the Lunar sorcerer, _a neat concept_, being way out of whack, and they blew it off. 
> 
> What confidence do we have that they listen to any rational critique of D&Done?


Im with you on that one. This isnt the first time WotC has seemingly ignored feedback; see them doubling down on Hexblade and Twilight Domain, while backing off on the popular Stone Sorcerer.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

Would it not be more accurate to state that WotC in the past has perhaps ignored your specific responses, but perhaps listened to others feedback.

Perhaps most of the feedback for the lunar sorcerer was positive.

_How could X win the election, no one I know voted for X_

Are the stats for Draconians different then what was presented in Fizbans?  You mentioned new statblocks

----------


## P. G. Macer

> Would it not be more accurate to state that WotC in the past has perhaps ignored your specific responses, but perhaps listened to others feedback.
> 
> Perhaps most of the feedback for the lunar sorcerer was positive.
> 
> _How could X win the election, no one I know voted for X_
> 
> 
> Are the stats for Draconians different then what was presented in Fizbans?  You mentioned new statblocks


Just because something has a positive fan response doesnt make it good for the game (I suspect this may be what gave Stone Sorcerer the axe, though its been a hot minute since I looked at that particular UA).

As for the Draconians, theyre mostly identical to the Fizbans versions. The exception is that most of the new versions have an impactful new feature: Baaz get advantage on attack rolls when it can see a Dragon that isnt hostile to it, Bozak gets a new lightning attack, Aurak gets a 20ft version of the Devotion Paladin's Auras of Devotion and Courage (can't be charmed or frightened), Sivak has a new version of Death Throes that causes fear, and Kapak is identical to Fizban's Infiltrator except in name as far as I can tell.

----------


## JadedDM

I like the concept of the lunar sorcerer, I just think it's a terrible fit for the setting, specifically.  In Dragonlance, Wizards draw their powers from the moons.  Sorcerers draw their powers from the ambient chaos magic left behind after the Chaos War.

----------


## Leon

Sounds like another vapid setting book to go on the pile.

----------


## JadedDM

It's not a setting book, it's an adventure path.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Just because something has a positive fan response doesnt make it good for the game (I suspect this may be what gave Stone Sorcerer the axe, though its been a hot minute since I looked at that particular UA).


I agree.  Which is why, this is the first D&D release that I have not pre-ordered, and might skip entirely.  I love a good module though and hoped to get to some juicy details like:




> As for the Draconians, theyre mostly identical to the Fizbans versions. The exception is that most of the new versions have an impactful new feature: Baaz get advantage on attack rolls when it can see a Dragon that isnt hostile to it, Bozak gets a new lightning attack, Aurak gets a 20ft version of the Devotion Paladin's Auras of Devotion and Courage (can't be charmed or frightened), Sivak has a new version of Death Throes that causes fear, and Kapak is identical to Fizban's Infiltrator except in name as far as I can tell.


That is cool.  A good start at least.
Is the Adventure helmed by Chris Perkins?

----------


## diplomancer

Are 15 extra known spells, of which most are not very good and that you can't change at all, better than the 10 known spells Tasha's sorcerers get (which they _can_ change to better ones if the ones given were not that good)? I'm not so sure. Of those 15 extra spells, probably less than half, maybe as few as one third of them, will see actual use.

The problem with the subclass is not that it's too powerful, at least not compared with the Tasha's subclasses; it's that it is too complicated.

And they DID listen to the criticism of the UA, at least concerning the extra castings. Before it was way too powerful, now it is one free casting of a 1st level spell, and two castings of two different 1st level spells at the cost of 1 SP.

What the subclass is really not is front-loaded. 3 extra-known spells (of which one is really good, one is average or below average, and one is trash), one extra-known decent cantrip that can be doubled up if the enemies are bunched up. I'd say that's about on-par with the other Sorcerer classes

----------


## Gignere

> Are 15 extra known spells, of which most are not very good and that you can't change at all, better than the 10 known spells Tasha's sorcerers get (which they _can_ change to better ones if the ones given were not that good)? I'm not so sure. Of those 15 extra spells, probably less than half, maybe as few as one third of them, will see actual use.
> 
> The problem with the subclass is not that it's too powerful, at least not compared with the Tasha's subclasses; it's that it is too complicated.
> 
> And they DID listen to the criticism of the UA, at least concerning the extra castings. Before it was way too powerful, now it is one free casting of a 1st level spell, and two castings of two different 1st level spells at the cost of 1 SP.
> 
> What the subclass is really not is front-loaded. 3 extra-known spells (of which one is really good, one is average or below average, and one is trash), one extra-known decent cantrip that can be doubled up if the enemies are bunched up. I'd say that's about on-par with the other Sorcerer classes


Having shield as an automatic known spell I wouldnt call even that good. I can count on 1 finger the number of sorcerers I played with that didnt have the shield spell. This might mean shield is too good and it became a spell tax for sorcerers but compared to Tashas sorcerers ability to swap spells on level up, the Luna sorcerer isnt really more powerful.

----------


## Psyren

> Not surprising, the Heroes of the Lance don't exist anymore (or rather, the players are the Heroes now).  So no Tanis, Tasslehoff, Flint, Raistlin, etc.  So I'd be surprised if any iconics were even mentioned in passing, never mind given full stat blocks.


This isn't set during the War of the Lance IIRC, it's a prequel. I'll know for sure when my copy unlocks.




> Would it not be more accurate to state that WotC in the past has perhaps ignored your specific responses, but perhaps listened to others feedback.
> 
> Perhaps most of the feedback for the lunar sorcerer was positive.
> 
> _How could X win the election, no one I know voted for X_


This - we in fact _know_ the Lunar Sorcerer feedback was overwhelmingly positive because Crawford openly said so. (Twice in fact.) It's the reason LS was in the first round of the UA and then removed from the second, they got all the responses they needed, and so round 2 focused on iterating the Kender.

(As usual though some people on this forum will continue thinking their opinions unfailingly represent the majority of the playerbase despite all evidence to the contrary.)




> I like the concept of the lunar sorcerer, I just think it's a terrible fit for the setting, specifically.  In Dragonlance, Wizards draw their powers from the moons.  Sorcerers draw their powers from the ambient chaos magic left behind after the Chaos War.


What about Bards and Warlocks? Honest question.

----------


## RSP

Do Sorcerers even exist in DragonLance? I remember Wizards being associated exclusively with the Towers: you add to go there to learn, and the testing was required. 

I dont recall anything that fit a sorcerer in the DL books (though those were a long time ago for me); though sorcerer is difficult to put into game world terms (High Elves and Drow seem to all be something akin to Fey Bloodline Sorcerers).

----------


## 8wGremlin

> Do Sorcerers even exist in DragonLance? I remember Wizards being associated exclusively with the Towers: you add to go there to learn, and the testing was required. 
> 
> I dont recall anything that fit a sorcerer in the DL books (though those were a long time ago for me); though sorcerer is difficult to put into game world terms (High Elves and Drow seem to all be something akin to Fey Bloodline Sorcerers).


i believe when the first ones were written D&D didn't have Sorcerers in the game, they came later. 

The original books by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman date from: 
Dragons of Autumn Twilight - November 1984
Test of the Twins - August 1986

Sorcerers were added in 3rd edition Publication date	August, 2000

So thats's why they were not part of the story.

----------


## JadedDM

> This isn't set during the War of the Lance IIRC, it's a prequel. I'll know for sure when my copy unlocks.


I am certain it takes place during the War of the Lance.  If not...then when exactly is it supposed to take place?  The last big war involving Takhisis was the Third Dragon War, with Huma, and that was long before the Cataclysm or Lord Soth existed.




> What about Bards and Warlocks? Honest question.


Warlocks didn't exist in 1E, which is when the setting was first created.  However, a warlock is just someone who makes a pact with a supernatural being, and draws power from them, so there's technically nothing in the lore that says they couldn't exist.  I imagine they'd be very, very rare, though.

Bards are tricky.  Back in 1E, Bards looked very different than they do nowadays.  Their spellcasting was more drudic in nature than arcane or divine.  But in 2E they were exclusively arcane casters, and in 3E they got some divine spells, as well, so it was something of a big mess.  Because if they are arcane casters, it raises questions about what role they have among the Orders of High Sorcery.  Some DMs removed Bards entirely just to simplify things.  Others found ways to make them work.  But for the most part, in the lore, bards were considered more divine than anything.  Good Bards got their powers from Branchala, Neutral from Gilean and Evil from Hiddukel.




> Do Sorcerers even exist in DragonLance? I remember Wizards being associated exclusively with the Towers: you add to go there to learn, and the testing was required.


Sorcerers were introduced in the Age of Mortals.  After the Chaos War, the gods all vanished (again).  The three moons, as well.  So Krynn had no magic at all.  The people began to develop new kinds of magic.  They were mysticism, or 'the power of the heart' which replaced clerical/druidic magic, and then primal sorcery, which replaced high sorcery (wizardry), which drew power from the ambient Chaos magic left behind from Chaos, the All-Father.

----------


## Jophiel

On the other hand, there were several standard 1e classes that DID exist but Weis & Hickman decided that they didn't fit and just said "Not in Krynn, though" -- monk, assassin and druid (and the only quasi-paladins are the Knights of the Sword/Rose).  Probably can't get away with that in today's D&D though.

----------


## JadedDM

Yep, same thing with races.  No orcs (and consequently, half-orcs), no drow, no halflings (replaced by kender).  None of that will fly these days.

----------


## Envyus

> Not surprising, the Heroes of the Lance don't exist anymore (or rather, the players are the Heroes now).  So no Tanis, Tasslehoff, Flint, Raistlin, etc.  So I'd be surprised if any iconics were even mentioned in passing, never mind given full stat blocks.





> This isn't set during the War of the Lance IIRC, it's a prequel. I'll know for sure when my copy unlocks.
> 
> What about Bards and Warlocks? Honest question.


So as a Book owner I will provide some corrections.

The Heroes of the Lance still exist and the Adventure takes place during the War of the Lance. The Adventure is in Kalaman hundreds of miles north of where the Heroes of the Lance are doing their thing so they have no role in the Adventure. The Adventure is about the Red Dragon Army attacking Kalaman.

On Bards and Warlocks, the Wizards of High Sorcery have been renamed the Mages of High Sorcery and accept Arcane Spellcasters as members (though they are still predominantly wizards).

----------


## Envyus

> Yep, same thing with races.  No orcs (and consequently, half-orcs), no drow, no halflings (replaced by kender).  None of that will fly these days.


The book just goes over the races native to Krynn, and says if you want to use others they are likely non native that somehow got transported to Krynn.

----------


## Lord Torath

> On the other hand, there were several standard 1e classes that DID exist but Weis & Hickman decided that they didn't fit and just said "Not in Krynn, though" -- monk, assassin and druid (and the only quasi-paladins are the Knights of the Sword/Rose).  Probably can't get away with that in today's D&D though.


Huh.  The SSI gold box games Champions/Death Knights/Dark Queen of Krynn allowed paladins _and_ knights.  I'll admit I never dug deeply enough into either the 1E Dragonlance Adventures or the 2E Tales of the Lance rules to see if Paladins were excluded.

----------


## Rafaelfras

> I like the concept of the lunar sorcerer, I just think it's a terrible fit for the setting, specifically.  In Dragonlance, Wizards draw their powers from the moons.  Sorcerers draw their powers from the ambient chaos magic left behind after the Chaos War.


Right? From what I remember from 3rd Ed sorcerers should be the one specifically NOT drawing power from the moon's.
In my opinion to do dragonlance right the should do 3 new wizard traditions (white red and black) and ban the ones in the PHB, até least for the humans and one of the more generic ones (warmage, scriber ) for renegade wizards

----------


## Jophiel

> Huh.  The SSI gold box games Champions/Death Knights/Dark Queen of Krynn allowed paladins _and_ knights.  I'll admit I never dug deeply enough into either the 1E Dragonlance Adventures or the 2E Tales of the Lance rules to see if Paladins were excluded.


My mistake, the 1e rules do allow for a paladin of the true gods.  I think I forgot because the rest of the book doesn't have a paladin in it (and implies that off-world paladins would want to join the KoS) but it is a legal class pick.

----------


## LordShade

The 2e rules absolutely allowed paladins, druids and bards. The 2e Tales of the Lance Boxed Set also had some strange "classes" that I'm not sure were actually standalone classes, but were closer to kits. The book wasn't clear. These included the Mariner, Barbarian, Con Artist, Handler, and Renegade Mage. Then there were two classes that definitely were standalone classes, the Tinker and the Commoner.

2e Knights of the Sword and Rose actually functioned like 3e prestige classes, in that gaining levels in Crown (and Sword) were prerequisites to switch into a higher order. They're the earliest version of the prestige class concept I'm aware of other than the 1e Bard.

Technically White/Red/Black Robe mages could also have been considered 2e prestige classes, as the way these classes worked was that you were a regular wizard until level 4, at which point you took the Test of High Sorcery and got assigned a robe color based on your alignment. If you didn't take the test you were a Renegade, and again it's not clear if the Renegade was a kit or an entirely separate class. It had no mechanical differences though.

----------


## Libertad

I've been doing a Let's Read of Shadow of the Dragon Queen on some other sites. While normally I'd post it here on Giant in the Playground, new rules preventing double-posts has crippled my ability to make such reviews without guaranteed responses, so instead the next best thing I can do is link it for interested parties.

I'm still in the process of reviewing, but so far I have mixed feelings on a variety of things.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> While normally I'd post it here on Giant in the Playground, new rules preventing double-posts has crippled my ability to make such reviews without guaranteed responses, so instead the next best thing I can do is link it for interested parties.


Well, crap.

----------


## Psyren

> I've been doing a Let's Read of Shadow of the Dragon Queen on some other sites. While normally I'd post it here on Giant in the Playground, new rules preventing double-posts has crippled my ability to make such reviews without guaranteed responses, so instead the next best thing I can do is link it for interested parties.


I don't think that rule is new (though obviously a mod can correct me.) 




> Right? From what I remember from 3rd Ed sorcerers should be the one specifically NOT drawing power from the moon's.
> In my opinion to do dragonlance right the should do 3 new wizard traditions (white red and black) and ban the ones in the PHB, até least for the humans and one of the more generic ones (warmage, scriber ) for renegade wizards


I think it would be a lot easier to, if you want to restrict High Sorcery robes to wizards at your table, prohibit other casting classes from taking the respective Initiate / Adept feats as their free feats. And then have any wizard who doesn't take it be considered a renegade, as well as non-wizard arcanists in general.




> The 2e rules absolutely allowed paladins, druids and bards. The 2e Tales of the Lance Boxed Set also had some strange "classes" that I'm not sure were actually standalone classes, but were closer to kits. The book wasn't clear. These included the Mariner, Barbarian, Con Artist, Handler, and Renegade Mage. Then there were two classes that definitely were standalone classes, the Tinker and the Commoner.
> 
> 2e Knights of the Sword and Rose actually functioned like 3e prestige classes, in that gaining levels in Crown (and Sword) were prerequisites to switch into a higher order. They're the earliest version of the prestige class concept I'm aware of other than the 1e Bard.
> 
> Technically White/Red/Black Robe mages could also have been considered 2e prestige classes, as the way these classes worked was that you were a regular wizard until level 4, at which point you took the Test of High Sorcery and got assigned a robe color based on your alignment. If you didn't take the test you were a Renegade, and again it's not clear if the Renegade was a kit or an entirely separate class. It had no mechanical differences though.


And even if 2e didn't allow for this, the 3e update did (minus paladins IIRC), and that was done with Weis' involvement. Broadening DL to other classes is definitely not new to 5e.

----------


## Libertad

> I don't think that rule is new (though obviously a mod can correct me.)


Back in October of this year I was able to post multiple times in a row without getting a warning, so if it was a rule in this case it wasn't being enforced, or my posts simply didn't get reported.

I decided to continue doing reviews of mini-game and sub-system sourcebooks around late November, and my thread got locked for thread necromancy, which is perfectly fair. But I also had a warning for double-posting in a Mod PM, which is why it came off as a new rule to me.

But to avoid too much off-topic chat, the things I like about Shadow of the Dragon Queen is encapsulating many iconic elements of classic Dragonlance. Making divine magic a new and special thing, having a big focus on the chaos and desperation of wars and sieges, and successfully threading the needle when it comes to the comic relief races such as kender and gnomes while removing gully dwarves.

My major criticisms so far is still dismissing the justified anger towards the gods for the Cataclysm as well as the module being rather consistently railroady in a lot of places.

----------


## Psyren

I won't go further down the board rules path other than to say that if you have questions about moderation you may have received, either PM the mod who warned you or Roland the site admin.

Regarding your book reviews, one thing you might consider if you want to keep doing them is to post them somewhere else (e.g. a Google Doc) and then link back here, that should allow you to keep updating the source without multiposting.

Regarding Gully Dwarves, does the book mention them at all? Or are they being retconned out of the setting? (I'm neutral on them, they were never a particularly interesting part of the setting for me, I'm just curious.)

----------


## P. G. Macer

> Regarding Gully Dwarves, does the book mention them at all? Or are they being retconned out of the setting? (I'm neutral on them, they were never a particularly interesting part of the setting for me, I'm just curious.)


Ive been rather busy this week, so I havent gone much further in the book than my original post said, but in the character creation section on Dwarves, there is no mention of Gully Dwarves. I would not be surprised if they have been retconned out of the setting entirely, given their controversial nature and potential for being seen as a harmful caricature of certain real-life conditions.

----------


## Psyren

> Ive been rather busy this week, so I havent gone much further in the book than my original post said, but in the character creation section on Dwarves, there is no mention of Gully Dwarves. I would not be surprised if they have been retconned out of the setting entirely, given their controversial nature and potential for being seen as a harmful caricature of certain real-life conditions.


If they were indeed removed that would be the most logical reason why.

----------


## t209

Well, the thing is that Gully Dwarves and Kenders are seen as least liked races in DND to the point of being known through meme, former being disliked to the point of being treated as non-existent among fandom with few people only use it for joke (other than that disliked as playable race even as joke race).

----------


## Psyren

> Well, the thing is that Gully Dwarves and Kenders are seen as least liked races in DND to the point of being known through meme, former being disliked to the point of being treated as non-existent among fandom with few people only use it for joke (other than that disliked as playable race even as joke race).


Dislike of Kender is indeed well-documented. 

I thought the Kender Ace ability from the UA was the perfect way to justify their reputation mechanically without bringing back the reasons they were so widely hated in prior editions but they dumped it. Now they are just halflings with a taunt instead of a luck ability - which is certainly functional, but IMO dull. Still, I can think of a couple of decent builds that use it.

----------


## Libertad

There's no mention of gully dwarves, and in fact it looks like hill dwarves have partially replaced them in the regard of "dwarven outcasts forced to live in inhospitable realms." There's also no mention of the dark dwarven clans such as the Theiwar, Daegar, and Zhakar.

----------


## Unoriginal

For what it's worth, "gully dwarves" get a single mention in the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foe, as a term other dwarven clans use to insult the Aghar clan, and the wording seems to indicate to me that they're not actually different from other dwarves despite being considered and treated like vermin by said other dwarves.

----------


## stoutstien

Is there anything preventing the moon mage sorcerer exchanging the phase spells when they level seeing how they are considered sorcerer spells?

----------


## Brookshw

> as well as the module being rather consistently railroady in a lot of places.


So, in other words, Dragonlance  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> So, in other words, Dragonlance


"And that's how Weiss and Hickman wound up in the Burn Unit, Timmy..."  :Small Cool:

----------


## Witty Username

> Well, the thing is that Gully Dwarves and Kenders are seen as least liked races in DND to the point of being known through meme, former being disliked to the point of being treated as non-existent among fandom with few people only use it for joke (other than that disliked as playable race even as joke race).


Well that brings sadness to me.

Then again I was pretty sure I was not normal for liking gully dwarves. 

Btw, everyone should read Flint the King, I think it covers everything needed to understand Dragonlance Dwarves - other than the gnome thing, I don't think that comes up.




> So, in other words, Dragonlance


Funnily enough, the novels are probably less railroady than the original adventure set, from the skim of the adventure I had the opportunity for awhile back.

----------


## Psyren

The original module is indeed pretty railroady - particularly the second part (Dragons of Flame). It literally gives the named NPCs a plot armor mechanic called "obscure deaths" that keeps them from truly being killed.




> Is there anything preventing the moon mage sorcerer exchanging the phase spells when they level seeing how they are considered sorcerer spells?


I believe as written they can. It's more restricted than Clockwork/Aberrant - i.e one swap per sorcerer level because you're using the base class swap mechanic instead of getting a subclass one, plus you're stuck with the sorcerer list for your replacements, but it should allow you to dump the weaker/more situational additions like Ray of Sickness, Alter Self and Hallucinatory Terrain given enough time. 

This could interfere with other uses of the sorcerer swap mechanic however, e.g. spells that are great early on but fall off in usefulness like Sleep, but you should be able to fit those in.

----------


## JadedDM

Dragonlance is not nearly as railroady as its reputation suggests.  In fact, I was surprised how open-ended some of the adventures are when I first ran them, because like everyone else, I had grown up being told that the original adventures were basically novels.  They aren't, and in fact, don't even have to play out like the actual novels do.  (Even the so called 'obscure deaths mechanic' is less a mechanic than a suggestion, and it's less 'this must happen' than it is 'if at all possible, see if you can do this.'  (In fact, Dragons of Flame even strongly suggests the DM be good at improvising, in case the players do something unexpected.)

The reputation mostly comes from old 1E grognards who hated the idea of D&D adventures having a story.  Before Dragonlance, modules didn't really have plots.  It was more like, "You're a group of adventurers in this dungeon, trying to not die.  Have fun."  And that was it.  Dragonlance introduced things like story lines, character arcs that tie directly into the setting and story, and sagas that expand between multiple modules into the mix.  Which the old grognards hated.  (In fact, I've encountered more than a few that to this day 'blame' Dragonlance for the existence of 5E, ironically enough, considering that 5E has largely ignored the setting until now.)

----------


## Brookshw

> Dragonlance is not nearly as railroady as its reputation suggests.


 Even leaving the novelization aside, compare it to the original Ravenloft module by the same authors and I think the contrast is clear. 




> (In fact, I've encountered more than a few that to this day 'blame' Dragonlance for the existence of 5E, ironically enough, considering that 5E has largely ignored the setting until now.)


Huh, that's an interesting take. Was it because of the greater support these days for narrative campaign development or something? (Also, hard to day DoMM and ToA aren't keeping the 'ol ways' alive).

----------


## stoutstien

> I believe as written they can. It's more restricted than Clockwork/Aberrant - i.e one swap per sorcerer level because you're using the base class swap mechanic instead of getting a subclass one, plus you're stuck with the sorcerer list for your replacements, but it should allow you to dump the weaker/more situational additions like Ray of Sickness, Alter Self and Hallucinatory Terrain given enough time. 
> 
> This could interfere with other uses of the sorcerer swap mechanic however, e.g. spells that are great early on but fall off in usefulness like Sleep, but you should be able to fit those in.


My reading as well. Unsure on intent but it does take some weight off the soso spell list. 

It is also has interesting dip potential if they decide to move it out of the setting only field.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> Huh, that's an interesting take. Was it because of the greater support these days for narrative campaign development or something? (Also, hard to day DoMM and ToA aren't keeping the 'ol ways' alive).


I suspect this is a garbled (and incorrect) gripe about the Hickman Revolution in general, not just Dragonlance. 

As for the original Dragonlance modules, Justin Alexander's been doing a great Let's Read on Twitch and Twitter. Looks pretty railroad-y to me, and I don't mean in the sense of a linear adventure. I mean it several times urges the DM to cheat.

----------


## Psyren

> My reading as well. Unsure on intent but it does take some weight off the soso spell list. 
> 
> It is also has interesting dip potential if they decide to move it out of the setting only field.


Not sure what the second part means, it's definitely not tied to one setting. They even give examples of other settings where the LS can be found.




> Dragonlance is not nearly as railroady as its reputation suggests.  In fact, I was surprised how open-ended some of the adventures are when I first ran them, because like everyone else, I had grown up being told that the original adventures were basically novels.  They aren't, and in fact, don't even have to play out like the actual novels do.  (Even the so called 'obscure deaths mechanic' is less a mechanic than a suggestion, and it's less 'this must happen' than it is 'if at all possible, see if you can do this.'  (In fact, Dragons of Flame even strongly suggests the DM be good at improvising, in case the players do something unexpected.)


That might have been the intent, but it's not worded like a suggestion at all. The module tells the DM they "miraculously survive" and instructs them to come up with a reason why.

And to be clear, I'm not opposed to this sort of thing for certain NPCs (I could see Elminster or Halaster having quite a bit of plot armor for instance.) But if that's the case, (a) the adventure probably shouldn't be relying on such load-bearing characters in the first place, or (b) if it does, they either shouldn't be allowed within striking distance of the PCs to begin with, or at the very least the narrative weight should be restricted to NPCs where removal by the PCs is heavily implausible.

----------


## stoutstien

> Not sure what the second part means, it's definitely not tied to one setting. They even give examples of other settings where the LS can be found.
> .


I personally don't care about setting factors when decided what is in/out of a game but setting books are generally are second tier in this regard in online discussions.

As far as a dip goes it's 3 additional spells know with a free casting of one of those a day(shield). Easy way to get shield on non hex locks or for someone not looking to delay spell progression.

----------


## Psyren

> I personally don't care about setting factors when decided what is in/out of a game but setting books are generally are second tier in this regard in online discussions.


Not for subclasses though, especially not subclasses that are explicitly and canonically said to show up elsewhere. Sure, Bladesinger and Spores Druid eventually got reprinted in more neutral sources, but even when they weren't people were still making build guides about them, playing them in out-of-setting games etc. And while anecdotal, I haven't seen anyone restricting Long Death monks to FR games either despite them only showing up in SCAG so far.




> As far as a dip goes it's 3 additional spells know with a free casting of one of those a day(shield). Easy way to get shield on non hex locks or for someone not looking to delay spell progression.


Three shield castings per day for a dip is indeed pretty nice on a warlock, especially since using it doesn't interfere with your pact slots. And you can get a 4th casting with the right race e.g. Githzerai.

----------


## JadedDM

> Huh, that's an interesting take. Was it because of the greater support these days for narrative campaign development or something? (Also, hard to day DoMM and ToA aren't keeping the 'ol ways' alive).


Basically, yeah.  They view D&D as more of a Rogue-like than a JRPG, where any 'story' should happen (if at all) organically and due to random chance instead of part of any pre-established narrative.  In their minds, if one were to go back in time and stop Dragonlance from ever being created, D&D today would still be just crawling through randomly generated dungeons where the 'big bad' is just whatever monster sits at the bottom of it.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Basically, yeah.  They view D&D as more of a Rogue-like than a JRPG, where any 'story' should happen (if at all) organically and due to random chance instead of part of any pre-established narrative.  In their minds, if one were to go back in time and stop Dragonlance from ever being created, D&D today would still be just crawling through randomly generated dungeons where the 'big bad' is just whatever monster sits at the bottom of it.


Man I'm glad it's evolved past there, even if I have no interest in Dragonlance or even published modules.

Roguelikes and random dungeons just don't hold my interest for more than an hour or so. I need narrative and the sense that there's a larger world out there that I'm part of.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Basically, yeah.  They view D&D as more of a Rogue-like than a JRPG, where any 'story' should happen (if at all) organically and due to random chance instead of part of any pre-established narrative.  In their minds, if one were to go back in time and stop Dragonlance from ever being created, D&D today would still be just crawling through randomly generated dungeons where the 'big bad' is just whatever monster sits at the bottom of it.


That tracks, because, IIRC, part of the reason Hickman created Ravenloft was because he thought it was silly that in the game they were playing in, the party just bumps into what felt as a completely random Vampire strolling around the dungeon. He felt there should be some narrative reason for the party to fight a vampire, not just a random encounter roll. Hence Strahd and Ravenloft. It's not surprising then that Dragonlance would have a strong overarching narrative.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> That tracks, because, IIRC, part of the reason Hickman created Ravenloft was because he thought it was silly that in the game they were playing in, the party just bumps into what felt as a completely random Vampire strolling around the dungeon. He felt there should be some narrative reason for the party to fight a vampire, not just a random encounter roll. Hence Strahd and Ravenloft. It's not surprising then that Dragonlance would have a strong overarching narrative.


Against the Giants has a story line; it's not like Hickman was that innovative.  See also Keep on the Borderlands.  If you used parley as a tool and didn't treat it like a dungeon crawl, it is a very different experience.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

I think most adventures have a storyline, and I'm not trying to say he was super innovative or something. I certainly wouldn't want to play in a game where I'm expected to act out the stuff from a novel. 

I think it's more of his acceptance of "random monsters" and needing there to be a narrative reason for everything.

Being flummoxed that your party just bumped into a vampire is one thing. Having a strong sense that the vampire just _shouldn't_ be there for meta reasons is another.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> Basically, yeah.  They view D&D as more of a Rogue-like than a JRPG, where any 'story' should happen (if at all) organically and due to random chance instead of part of any pre-established narrative.  In their minds, if one were to go back in time and stop Dragonlance from ever being created, D&D today would still be just crawling through randomly generated dungeons where the 'big bad' is just whatever monster sits at the bottom of it.


I argue this is a pretty disingenuous framing of the grognards' position. Hickman was one of the first to try the Big Damn Quest model of gaming, but in doing so sacrificed a lot of player agency and site-based play. Sure, it was a hit with some folks, but there are plenty of players who disengage under it.

----------


## JadedDM

> Roguelikes and random dungeons just don't hold my interest for more than an hour or so. I need narrative and the sense that there's a larger world out there that I'm part of.


Overall, I agree.  But sometimes it's fun to just randomly roll up a character (with no idea of what you'll get) and just send them into a procedurally generated dungeon and see what happens.  But if that were the only acceptable way to play D&D, I'd lose interest in the hobby pretty quickly.




> Against the Giants has a story line; it's not like Hickman was that innovative.  See also Keep on the Borderlands.  If you used parley as a tool and didn't treat it like a dungeon crawl, it is a very different experience.


I mean, technically.  Wasn't Against the Giants story basically "Giants are harassing human villages, so they hire the party to go kill them all"?

Dragonlance introduced stories with themes and symbolism and far larger stakes.  In fact, Dragonlance has several themes often associated with it, like 'Evil feeds on itself' and 'Good redeems its own,' as well as 'Good and Evil must have balance' and 'greatness often has mundane origins.'  Plus the importance of family/friendship, of faith, and redemption.  The devastation and tragedy of loss.  And how Evil best wins when Good is too busy arguing with each other over trivial differences.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Overall, I agree.  But sometimes it's fun to just randomly roll up a character (with no idea of what you'll get) and just send them into a procedurally generated dungeon and see what happens.  But if that were the only acceptable way to play D&D, I'd lose interest in the hobby pretty quickly.


Video games do that better, quicker, with much better graphics and mechanical support. Certainly not something I'd ever want to _run_, and even playing in it would be a one-shot, party-game sort of thing. And I don't do parties  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Tawmis

> Not surprising, the Heroes of the Lance don't exist anymore (or rather, the players are the Heroes now).  So no Tanis, Tasslehoff, Flint, Raistlin, etc.  So I'd be surprised if any iconics were even mentioned in passing, never mind given full stat blocks.


Well, the idea of this one is - you don't play the heroes or run into them. It's a vast, large world that Kyrnn. So you're playing characters that have nothing to do with them or anything. If a DM wanted to introduce them, they could just come up with their own stats. But the idea is that the players are the heroes helping in a different way.

I am glad that they didn't include Tanis, Sturm, Raistlin, etc., because I feel like DMs would feel inclined to somehow fudge them into the adventure.

----------


## Rafaelfras

> I think it would be a lot easier to, if you want to restrict High Sorcery robes to wizards at your table, prohibit other casting classes from taking the respective Initiate / Adept feats as their free feats. And then have any wizard who doesn't take it be considered a renegade, as well as non-wizard arcanists in general.


Oh yes, this is a very nice solution, I am not opposed myself the high sorcery towers opening up for other spellcasters. But I do think wizard should get moon based subclasses. 
But with the route they choose to follow this solution would fit

----------


## Psyren

> Oh yes, this is a very nice solution, I am not opposed myself the high sorcery towers opening up for other spellcasters. But I do think wizard should get moon based subclasses. 
> But with the route they choose to follow this solution would fit


Technically they do, as the moons are associated with specific schools of magic  :Small Smile:  e.g. all the Abjurers are white robes, all the Necromancers are black robes etc.

----------


## Rafaelfras

> Technically they do, as the moons are associated with specific schools of magic  e.g. all the Abjurers are white robes, all the Necromancers are black robes etc.


The prestige class back in 3rd encompass that very well.
Someone should adapt then for 5th

----------


## Psyren

My copy unlocked earlier today, so I decided to excerpt the sidebar on nonstandard races from the Races chapter for folks who don't have the book themselves:




> _PEOPLE FROM BEYOND
> 
> Peoples who arent native to the world still might find their way to Krynn. Its possible to find individual membersor even small enclavesof folk like dragonborn, halflings, tieflings, or any other race in Ansalon. Perhaps such individuals stepped through a portal and found themselves on Krynn, or traded with one of Krynns great empires before the Cataclysm. Use such possibilities to play characters of any race you please in your adventures across Krynn._


It states that while the nonstandard races (e.g. dragonborn, halflings, tieflings, etc) aren't native to Krynn/Ansalon, they could still be there if your DM wants them to. What I find most interesting though is the underlined portion, i.e. that there exists a second potential reason for atypical races being in the world beyond the _"Jim's Tiefling Fiendlock tripped and fell through a portal/crashed on a wayward spelljammer one day"_ explanations. That being - Jim, or at least a small pocket/enclave of the people from whom Jim's character descended, could have been present in Ansalon or elsewhere on Krynn from back before the Cataclysm.

To me this makes sense, and is more narratively appealing than Jim's character simply falling through a portal in the present day. After all, prior to the Cataclysm was the Age of Might, perhaps the most high-magic mortal period in Krynn's history, so it's not unreasonable that one or more of the magical empires bouncing around and getting increasingly arrogant back them might have been messing around yanking interlopers/traders from other worlds to Krynn (intentionally or not) - interlopers who ended up keeping their heads low when the sky started very loudly falling - thanks Beldinas! - and may have survived to the War of the Lance as a result.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Thanks for sharing that sidebar Psyren.

The three races they chose to highlight is... interesting. They chose two that can easily port over to races that actually ARE on Kyrn (draconians and kender) and tiefling seems to me could be possible anywhere where fiends are present. Are there no fiends on Krynn?

Seems to me that examples such as Genasi, Kenku, and Loxodon would have been a bit more to the point than the ones they chose. Still, point remains, and I agree that inter-planar trade is an interesting premise for this.

----------


## Psyren

> Thanks for sharing that sidebar Psyren.


No problem!




> The three races they chose to highlight is... interesting. They chose two that can easily port over to races that actually ARE on Kyrn (draconians and kender) and tiefling seems to me could be possible anywhere where fiends are present. Are there no fiends on Krynn?


Takhisis herself is canonically Tiamat, as of FToD anyway, so I'd imagine several of the fiends she typically consorts with in other settings could be fair game here. And without spoiling, there is indeed a devil present in the included adventure.




> Seems to me that examples such as Genasi, Kenku, and Loxodon would have been a bit more to the point than the ones they chose. Still, point remains, and I agree that inter-planar trade is an interesting premise for this.


I'd say "any other race" has those covered without making the suggestion too prominent for the purists (who might get touchy.)

More importantly, this gives us an easy way to reconcile previous "continuity errors" like Denzil.

----------


## JadedDM

> ...tiefling seems to me could be possible anywhere where fiends are present. Are there no fiends on Krynn?


Theoretically, they could be found on Krynn.  That is to say, there's no rule anywhere that says they don't exist like orcs and halflings.  But tieflings were, originally, a Planescape only race.  So no mention of them was made anywhere in the old Dragonlance materials, which predated the existence of Planescape.  It wasn't until 4E until tieflings were made core; prior to that, they were a fairly obscure race.

So in my mind, tieflings could theoretically exist on Krynn, but I imagine they'd be very rare and probably feared/reviled/misunderstood by the general public, who would mistake them for actual fiends.

Same deal with genasi and aasimar.  I think they could theoretically exist, but they'd be incredibly rare and most people wouldn't know what they are, and would probably mistake them for something else entirely.

----------


## Keltest

> Theoretically, they could be found on Krynn.  That is to say, there's no rule anywhere that says they don't exist like orcs and halflings.  But tieflings were, originally, a Planescape only race.  So no mention of them was made anywhere in the old Dragonlance materials, which predated the existence of Planescape.  It wasn't until 4E until tieflings were made core; prior to that, they were a fairly obscure race.
> 
> So in my mind, tieflings could theoretically exist on Krynn, but I imagine they'd be very rare and probably feared/reviled/misunderstood by the general public, who would mistake them for actual fiends.
> 
> Same deal with genasi and aasimar.  I think they could theoretically exist, but they'd be incredibly rare and most people wouldn't know what they are, and would probably mistake them for something else entirely.


The bigger thing I think is that fiends in Krynn (as well as celestials, frankly) dont bargain or interact with mortals in ways that would produce a tiefling. If they arent minding their own business, theyre engaging in immediate destruction or working on long term destruction. They certainly dont go around having kids with them except in very specific circumstances.

----------


## Psyren

> So in my mind, tieflings could theoretically exist on Krynn, but I imagine they'd be very rare and probably feared/reviled/misunderstood by the general public, who would mistake them for actual fiends.


While the 2014 PHB made their horns pretty prominent, this was later walked back in subsequent books like Xanathars and SCAG as well as the latest Origins UA. You can therefore play a tiefling whose ancestry is more subtle - looking to most like a hairy human with sharp canines, small bumps on their forehead, dusky skin, and a persistent odor of brimstone for example. Different enough to be noticeable or stand out as odd, but not so monstrous that Farmer Joe will dive for the nearest pitchfork as soon as your hood slips. Indeed, the DM might even require that you look more subtle if you choose to play a race that resembles something scarier.




> The bigger thing I think is that fiends in Krynn (as well as celestials, frankly) dont bargain or interact with mortals in ways that would produce a tiefling. If they arent minding their own business, theyre engaging in immediate destruction or working on long term destruction. They certainly dont go around having kids with them except in very specific circumstances.


Eh, I don't see why incubi/succubi at the very least wouldn't consider such couplings part of their job description.

But in any event, it's a moot point as I've covered - you don't have to be descended from a _Krynn-native_ fiend to be on Krynn, you could be descended from a group of tieflings originally from another world (or fiends for that matter) dating back to before the Cataclysm. Krynn-specific fiendish politics/policies need not apply.

----------


## damondion

> Not surprising, the Heroes of the Lance don't exist anymore (or rather, the players are the Heroes now).  So no Tanis, Tasslehoff, Flint, Raistlin, etc.  So I'd be surprised if any iconics were even mentioned in passing, never mind given full stat blocks.


The Heroes of the Lance have not appeared yet. This is like the early years.

----------


## Laevatein

> The Heroes of the Lance have not appeared yet. This is like the early years.


Rather, they're off in another part of Ansalon, far from where SotDQ's action is happening.

----------


## Witty Username

> Takhisis herself is canonically Tiamat, as of FToD anyway, so I'd imagine several of the fiends she typically consorts with in other settings could be fair game here. And without spoiling, there is indeed a devil present in the included adventure.


Made somewhat complicated given that Takhisis is canonically dead (stripped of her godhood to preserve the balance and stabbed to death with a dragonlance at the end of the war of souls if I remember right).

Wouldn't matter for this adventure though.

----------


## Psyren

> Made somewhat complicated given that Takhisis is canonically dead (stripped of her godhood to preserve the balance and stabbed to death with a dragonlance at the end of the war of souls if I remember right).
> 
> Wouldn't matter for this adventure though.


"Killing a god," especially one with a multiversal presence, doesn't have to be a straightforward endeavor in my view.

----------


## Laevatein

> No problem!
> Takhisis herself is canonically Tiamat, as of FToD anyway, so I'd imagine several of the fiends she typically consorts with in other settings could be fair game here. And without spoiling, there is indeed a devil present in the included adventure.


Depends whether you regard WotC or Margaret Weis as the rightful authority on the matter (Weis has stated that Takhisis is NOT Tiamat).

----------


## Psyren

> Depends whether you regard WotC or Margaret Weis as the rightful authority on the matter (Weis has stated that Takhisis is NOT Tiamat).


As this is the 5e subforum, I'm talking about D&D 5th edition.

----------

