Dragonlance setting books-are they official?

[Marlowe]

In the beginning was the word, and the word was Suck. And when all around asked what Suck looked like incarnate on this earth, then lo; there was the Kender.

I don't generally pay much attention to the Dragonlance books, I was actually looking through them the other day and found there's some quite useful things in there that I never see mentioned.

There's a feat that gives you all knowledges as class skills. There's one that lets your casting stat count as two points higher than it is for spells/day purposes (very nice for a Bardblade/Bardsader). There's Academic/Dynamic Priest (which do get mentioned in Archivist/Spirit Shaman discussions) . There's a spontaneous Divine Caster class (the Mystic) that's flat-out better than the Favoured Soul. None of it's exactly earthshaking, but hardly worthless.

So I'm surprised I don't see these books, and their content, referenced more often. OK, lots of people don't like setting-specific books. Doesn't stop people talking about taking FR regional feats as though they were universal, or putting Song of the Heart on every Bard.

I've been told these books are actually 3rd party and not official, and that's why they don't get a lot of mention. Is this accurate?:smallconfused:

[Agent 451]

The Dragonlance Campaign Setting is the only first party Dragonlance book.

[HammeredWharf]

A major problem with those books and Dragonlance in general is how specific their fluff is. Some like it, some hate it, but it definitely makes transitioning them into other settings a bit hard. Mechanically, however, I found them pretty good and interesting with some exceptions (*cough* Reserves of Strength).

[Curmudgeon]

There's a feat that gives you all knowledges as class skills.
You don't need Dragonlance for that; Education is a [General] (not setting-specific) feat in Eberron Campaign Setting.

[BWR]

All the 3.x books are official Dragonlance books. Only the first was published by WOTC while the rest were 3rd party, iirc.
A previous discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?169277-DND-How-taboo-is-Dragonlance-3-5-material).

I've never really understood the need to limit book availability based on publisher. For reasons of what you like, mechanics, rules bloat or setting; fine. Publisher just seems ridiculously arbitrary.

[Karnith]

I've been told these books are actually 3rd party and not official, and that's why they don't get a lot of mention. Is this accurate?:smallconfused:
I think that they don't get a lot of mention because not a lot of people own the books, but yes, all of the 3.5 Dragonlance books after the main Dragonlance Campaign Setting were published by a third party. The post-DLCS Dragonlance books were produced by Sovereign Press, Inc., Margaret Weis's RPG publishing company. The books were officially licensed Dragonlance products (though not, as I recall, officially licensed D&D products), putting them in basically the same nebulous place as Dragon Magazine and the Kingdoms of Kalamar books.

[Pippin]

I'm about to sound very stupid but, what exactly does "1st party" mean? I used to think it means "1st Edition D&D" but then people say Dragonlance Campaign Setting is both 1st party and 3.5e Q_Q

Also, is there any Dragonlance-related 3.5e book besides Dragonlance Campaign Setting and Legends of the Twins?

[Karnith]

I'm about to sound very stupid but, what exactly does "1st party" mean? I used to think it means "1st Edition D&D" but then people say Dragonlance Campaign Setting is both 1st party and 3.5e Q_QFirst-party, in this case, means that it was published by Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast designed the game system (i.e. d20), so any of the supplements that they create are first-party. Those created by other (i.e. third) parties are third-party supplements.

Also, is there any Dragonlance-related 3.5e book besides Dragonlance Campaign Setting and Legends of the Twins?
There are quite a few - you can find a list over on Wikipedia's Sovereign Press page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Press,_Inc).

[Pippin]

First-party, in this case, means that it was published by Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast designed the game system (i.e. d20), so any of the supplements that they create are first-party. Those created by other (i.e. third) parties are third-party supplements.

There are quite a few - you can find a list over on Wikipedia's Sovereign Press page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Press,_Inc).
Oh thanks. I'm feeling much better now.

Now, are there third-party books more "first-party" than others? For example, Legends of the Twins has the WotC logo ("Official Licensed Product") while Book of Erotic Fantasy has nothing.

[BWR]

putting them in basically the same nebulous place as Dragon Magazine.
I keep seeing people come up with this and it puzzles me. Are only my copies of Dragon (print issues, that is) labelled with "100% official content"?

[Curmudgeon]

Now, are there third-party books more "first-party" than others? For example, Legends of the Twins has the WotC logo ("Official Licensed Product") while Book of Erotic Fantasy has nothing.
There are two concerns here, not just one. If it's got a WotC license that matters for some things. What I think is more important is if it's a D&D product or simply a d20 System product. Dragonlance is d20 System, not (excepting the Dragonlance Campaign Setting) D&D compatible. Dragon magazine is both officially licensed and D&D content. Kingdoms of Kalamar was licensed and compatible with D&D 3.0, but not 3.5.

[Karnith]

Now, are there third-party books more "first-party" than others? For example, Legends of the Twins has the WotC logo ("Official Licensed Product") while Book of Erotic Fantasy has nothing.
Well, nothing will stop them from being third-party, but they do vary in how "official" they are. Dragon Magazine, for example, was published by a third-party (Paizo) but was officially licensed D&D material - it was "100% Official Content," as the covers boasted. There was some legal snafu that resulted in Kenzer Co. being able to slap the D&D logo on their 3e Kingdoms of Kalamar books, as well. Dragonlance is in a weird place where it's officially licensed Dragonlance material, but not (as I recall) officially-licensed D&D material, so it's in the weird place of being an official d20 supplement. And then you have the other d20/D&D 3e supplements, which are not official in any capacity, such as the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

I keep seeing people come up with this and it puzzles me. Are only my copies of Dragon (print issues, that is) labelled with "100% official content"?
I consider them official rules sources as much as any of the first-party D&D books, but a lot of other people don't seem to.

Also I don't believe that every issue had that label? I'm reasonably certain that I have a few that don't have it.

[BWR]

Also I don't believe that every issue had that label? I'm reasonably certain that I have a few that don't have it.

From 305 and on until the end of printed Dragon all said "100% official content". Before that all 3.x mags I have (which is all barring something like 3 issues) say "Your Official Dungeons & Dragons Magazine". Before that it doesn't seem like they felt the need to point out that the magazine written and published by the same people as the game was official.

[Pippin]

There are two concerns here, not just one. If it's got a WotC license that matters for some things. What I think is more important is if it's a D&D product or simply a d20 System product. Dragonlance is d20 System, not (excepting the Dragonlance Campaign Setting) D&D compatible. Dragon magazine is both officially licensed and D&D content. Kingdoms of Kalamar was licensed and compatible with D&D 3.0, but not 3.5.
Are you saying it would actually be more legitimate to allow Dragon magazines at a table, than Dragonlance supplements?

There's something odd in this, because I'd expect Dragonlance supplements to be more balanced than magazines. (Easy Metamagic is unbalanced.)


Well, nothing will stop them from being third-party, but they do vary in how "official" they are. Dragon Magazine, for example, was published by a third-party (Paizo) but was officially licensed D&D material - it was "100% Official Content," as the covers boasted. There was some legal snafu that resulted in Kenzer Co. being able to slap the D&D logo on their 3e Kingdoms of Kalamar books, as well. Dragonlance is in a weird place where it's officially licensed Dragonlance material, but not (as I recall) officially-licensed D&D material, so it's in the weird place of being an official d20 supplement. And then you have the other d20/D&D 3e supplements, which are not official in any capacity, such as the Book of Erotic Fantasy.
Thanks for the clarification.

[Curmudgeon]

Are you saying it would actually be more legitimate to allow Dragon magazines at a table, than Dragonlance supplements?
Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Dragonlance supplements assume you're playing the d20 System Dragonlance game rather than D&D. Dragon magazine assumes you're playing D&D. Dragon content is at least on par with the core D&D books, which of course are nowhere close to balanced. More content of the same caliber means a better chance to find content that matches your character idea to workable game elements.

[Pippin]

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Dragonlance supplements assume you're playing the d20 System Dragonlance game rather than D&D. Dragon magazine assumes you're playing D&D. Dragon content is at least on par with the core D&D books, which of course are nowhere close to balanced. More content of the same caliber means a better chance to find content that matches your character idea to workable game elements.
Makes sense. Well thanks, that clears up a question I asked in another thread.