Dragonlance in 5e announced!

[RedMage125]

In the FAQ for the new OneD&D, they have announced a new Dragonlance book for 5e. Looks like a lot of predictions from Fizban's (and the greater hints from the UA) are true, and it will be released in a month. But you can get it sooner if you buy the new Book+Digital bundle!

Link here. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital)

[Psyren]

For those who don't want to dig through the FAQ, the store/preorder link is here:

https://dndstore.wizards.com/us?icid_medium=article&icid_source=ddb&icid_campaign=onednd-faq&icid_content=dragonlance-bundles

[Wasp]

Plus Planescape, Keys From the Golden Vault, a Phandelver Campaign, Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants, and Book of Many Things...

[jaappleton]

Somebody guessed this stuff days ago. That guy is good. >_>

[Brookshw]

Somebody guessed this stuff days ago. That guy is good. >_>

A legend some would say, stalking the night and keeping us safe...


Given that SJ is, for me, a flop, I'll wait to hear more about DL. (But I don't really care for the setting anyway).

[Psyren]

I like the way that they're differentiating Dragonlance from other generic fantasy (e.g. Faerun) by making it be the de facto "world at war" setting, as opposed to Eberron's "tenuous post-war detente" or FR's "kitchen-sink dungeoncrawler." Perhaps in DL we will get another pass at mass combat rules.

[Oramac]

Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants

DL sounds cool, but I really don't understand this Glory of the Giants thing. Does WOTC know there are more things in D&D than just dragons and giants?

[Wasp]

DL sounds cool, but I really don't understand this Glory of the Giants thing. Does WOTC know there are more things in D&D than just dragons and giants?
Well, the game IS called Giants & Dragons

;-)

[jaappleton]

DL sounds cool, but I really don't understand this Glory of the Giants thing. Does WOTC know there are more things in D&D than just dragons and giants?

This is what is odd to me.

Dragon's. Makes sense. Dungeons and DRAGONS. Fantastical creatures.

They spent half that presentation talking about everyone is welcome, big emphasis on newer players, anyone is welcome at the table.

Giants, IMO, seem tied to... old guard? Not many adventures focusing on Giants? And truly, thats on WOTC. They make the stuff. Focusing on Giants because they think they are a bigger focus than we all believe them to be and they're out of touch? Just the next box to be checked after Fey?

Like... why Giants? The younger crowd they're after doesn't seem to care much about them. WOTC thinking they can make that crowd care, or just "Hey giants were great 25 years ago, do Giants!"

Dunno.

[paladinn]

I just hope the end product ends up better than the UA they did recently.

I have been a huge DL fan since 1e, moreso before the whole SAGA card game thing. The UA left me very, Very underwhelmed.

[Spo]

This is what is odd to me.

Dragon's. Makes sense. Dungeons and DRAGONS. Fantastical creatures.

They spent half that presentation talking about everyone is welcome, big emphasis on newer players, anyone is welcome at the table.

Giants, IMO, seem tied to... old guard? Not many adventures focusing on Giants? And truly, thats on WOTC. They make the stuff. Focusing on Giants because they think they are a bigger focus than we all believe them to be and they're out of touch? Just the next box to be checked after Fey?

Like... why Giants? The younger crowd they're after doesn't seem to care much about them. WOTC thinking they can make that crowd care, or just "Hey giants were great 25 years ago, do Giants!"

Dunno.
Hey! Giant’s are still big.

[jaappleton]

Hey! Giant’s are still big.

............bruh.

[Rafaelfras]

This is what is odd to me.

Dragon's. Makes sense. Dungeons and DRAGONS. Fantastical creatures.

They spent half that presentation talking about everyone is welcome, big emphasis on newer players, anyone is welcome at the table.

Giants, IMO, seem tied to... old guard? Not many adventures focusing on Giants? And truly, thats on WOTC. They make the stuff. Focusing on Giants because they think they are a bigger focus than we all believe them to be and they're out of touch? Just the next box to be checked after Fey?

Like... why Giants? The younger crowd they're after doesn't seem to care much about them. WOTC thinking they can make that crowd care, or just "Hey giants were great 25 years ago, do Giants!"

Dunno.
Where they? I mean, I dont consider myself old guard (started at AD&D 2nd ed) but I am not new either and giants at least for 3rd ed. werent a thing (SKT got me because it was different). Also with Storm King Thunder and Volo featuring a lot of giant lore, I really wonder why we would need more.


Also I got to say, those Dragon lance covers! O my God they are stunning. Made the FR fanboy on me really jealous

[Oramac]

Where they? I mean, I dont consider myself old guard (started at AD&D 2nd ed) but I am not new either and giants at least for 3rd ed. werent a thing (SKT got me because it was different). Also with Storm King Thunder and Volo featuring a lot of giant lore, I really wonder why we would need more.

Agreed. SKT is easily my favorite published adventure. I wish more adventures would take notes from it. But, they should apply those notes to different monsters. I'd love to see Celestial, Fiend, Monstrosity, and other themes as well. I'd REALLY love to see madness and the like expanded upon too, but baby steps.


Also I got to say, those Dragon lance covers! O my God they are stunning. Made the FR fanboy on me really jealous

Oh yea!

[KorvinStarmast]

Focusing on Giants because they think they are a bigger focus than we all believe them to be I saw what you did there. :smallwink: Giants are walking catapults. When you roll for that boulder thrown by a fire giant, and it's a crit, and you double the damage, I have yet to see a player do other than go "whoa!" as a response.

I just hope the end product ends up better than the UA they did recently. {snip} The UA left me very, Very underwhelmed. Likewise, and I have no confidence.

If the book has kender in it, likely banned at my table.

[Telok]

I saw what you did there. :smallwink: Giants are walking catapults. When you roll for that boulder thrown by a fire giant, and it's a crit, and you double the damage, I have yet to see a player do other than go "whoa!" as a response.
Likewise, and I have no confidence.

If the book has kender in it, likely banned at my table.

I think giants because design-wise they're super easy. Big people with big hp so you can do anything with them you do with humanoids, the DM gets to nope the gear as wrong size so no loot worries of PC snagging a fancy armor too early or other unintended loot, they come with a built in respectable ranged attack so it still works unlike if the DM forgets to give goblins bows and the PCs can get out of reach.

If they do DL like they did SJ kender will be halfling knockoffs with a racial taunt ability or something. Making them weirdly the best tank race in the game. Also, no mentions of the Dragonlance, but they'll have rare "dragonlance" magic items that do +3d4 damage vs dragons and give you advantage vs dragon fear.

[Psyren]

If the book has kender in it, likely banned at my table.

I was actually excited for Kender when they had that cool hammerspace UA ability. The latest version had them just be fearless potty-mouths, so I'm back to being uninterested.

[Dork_Forge]

This is what is odd to me.

Dragon's. Makes sense. Dungeons and DRAGONS. Fantastical creatures.

They spent half that presentation talking about everyone is welcome, big emphasis on newer players, anyone is welcome at the table.

Giants, IMO, seem tied to... old guard? Not many adventures focusing on Giants? And truly, thats on WOTC. They make the stuff. Focusing on Giants because they think they are a bigger focus than we all believe them to be and they're out of touch? Just the next box to be checked after Fey?

Like... why Giants? The younger crowd they're after doesn't seem to care much about them. WOTC thinking they can make that crowd care, or just "Hey giants were great 25 years ago, do Giants!"

Dunno.


Storm King's Thunder is (ime) one of the most played modules, likely because it's one of the older ones and has an NPC that people tend to like in it. Then there's been enough drips and drabs of giants through the edition (Giant Soul Sorc UA, the Rune Knight) to hand some interest on.

Ultimately Giants are one of those iconic monster categories in D&D, there's literally one on the cover of the PHB, it's no weirder than any other theme book. As someone new to the game with 5E, it's a weirder choice to have entire books named after, and from the point of view of specific named NPCs that have no actual bearing on anything.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Hey! Giant’s are still big.

Yet if they ever become a player race, their size will be medium

[Oramac]

As someone new to the game with 5E, it's a weirder choice to have entire books named after, and from the point of view of specific named NPCs that have no actual bearing on anything.

That's......actually a pretty good point. Who the hell knows or cares who Mordenkainen is? But we all know what a Giant is. And dragons/demons/devils/celestials/etc. for that matter.

[Zhorn]

Only just announced?
Didn't the trailer for that drop like 4 months ago? late April?

[Tanarii]

After seeing what they did with Spelljammer, and the recent D&Done announcement and playtest release, it's pretty clear that any fears about this post-Mearls Tasha design crew's lack of capabilities have come home to roost.

So of course they're going to move on to ruining another of my favorite childhood settings. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

Only just announced?
Didn't the trailer for that drop like 4 months ago? late April?

The release date was just announced and the preorder opened

[Postmodernist]

It strikes me as an odd choice, compared to, say Dark Sun (though that did get a smidge of support in 4e) or Planescape, given the "generic fantasy" similarity to Forgotten Realms. Presumably, the order came out of that survey they did a few months back. The original Dragonlance came out a few years before FR, which ultimately eclipsed its popularity. I imagine support for DL will be pretty limited, so they're only gonna crank out a campaign book and maybe a couple of adventures. And we'll probably see the next "generic fantasy" setting (Greyhawk? Mystara?) a lot further down the line.

All this talk about Giants v. Dragons reminded me - Dragonlance was developed out of a belief at early TSR that there were too many "dungeons," and not enough "dragons," which is mildly hilarious. I think there were even some focus groups done on it.

[gloryblaze]

I think giants because design-wise they're super easy. Big people with big hp so you can do anything with them you do with humanoids, the DM gets to nope the gear as wrong size so no loot worries of PC snagging a fancy armor too early or other unintended loot, they come with a built in respectable ranged attack so it still works unlike if the DM forgets to give goblins bows and the PCs can get out of reach.

If they do DL like they did SJ kender will be halfling knockoffs with a racial taunt ability or something. Making them weirdly the best tank race in the game. Also, no mentions of the Dragonlance, but they'll have rare "dragonlance" magic items that do +3d4 damage vs dragons and give you advantage vs dragon fear.

I could be wrong, but I think there is no "the Dragonlance", "dragonlances" literally are just a name for a type of enchanted pike or lance. They also already have 5e stats, they're in Fizban's as +3 lances/pikes that deal 3d6 additional force damage to dragons, and whenever you hit a dragon with one, you can choose a dragon within 30 feet and allow that dragon to make a melee attack using its reaction. (so basically they're designed for you to use while mounted on a dragon and fighting other dragons). And they're Legendary, not rare :P

[Psyren]

It strikes me as an odd choice, compared to, say Dark Sun (though that did get a smidge of support in 4e) or Planescape, given the "generic fantasy" similarity to Forgotten Realms.

1) While aesthetically similar to Forgotten Realms, the big selling point/difference between FR and Dragonlance is that Krynn is a world at war. Faerun is more traditional fantasy with dungeons and ruins and a bunch of intrigue and plots happening in the individual nations as the gods play chess - but in Dragonlance it's basically everyone vs. Takhisis/Tiamat (or everyone vs. Chaos depending on the timeline) and very big battles affecting all nations at once.

2) Planescape got announced and is coming back in 2023 :smallsmile:

[Postmodernist]

2) Planescape got announced and is coming back in 2023 :smallsmile:

Oh wow, I must've missed this. Excellent!

[Jophiel]

I could be wrong, but I think there is no "the Dragonlance", "dragonlances" literally are just a name for a type of enchanted pike or lance.
I just checked the old 1e DL sourcebook and they didn't even stat Huma's lance as "the" Dragonlance for that book; just a general "Here's a mounted lance" and "Here's the footman's pike"

[JadedDM]

So of course they're going to move on to ruining another of my favorite childhood settings. :smallamused:
I don't know about 'ruined' but as a old, hardcore Dragonlance fan, nearly every single thing I've learned about 5E Dragonlance has nearly given me a conniption, so...

On the bright side, there is still Skyraiders of Abarax (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/skyraiders/skyraiders-of-abarax-a-5e-world-from-tracy-and-laura-hickman), a new 5E setting that Hickman and his wife are making.

Oh, and of course, there's Tasslehoff's Pouches of Everything (https://dragonlancenexus.com/tasslehoffs-pouches-of-everything/), a fanmade 5E Dragonlance conversion that stays true to the setting, was made by fans (and not just any fans, but many of the same people who worked on a lot of the 3E Dragonlance conversion books), and it's completely free.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yet if they ever become a player race, their size will be medium The Goliath's called, they'd like to have a quiet word. :smallwink:

Krynn is a world at war.
yes, and it only has three alignments.

Dragonlance it's basically everyone vs. Takhisis/Tiamat There is already a published adventure for that. :smallyuk:

2) Planescape got announced and is coming back in 2023 :smallsmile: Good news, except that with what the design team has been up to of late, my confidence is low.

Oh, and of course, there's Tasslehoff's Pouches of Everything (https://dragonlancenexus.com/tasslehoffs-pouches-of-everything/), a fanmade 5E Dragonlance conversion Where's that old napalm bomb I had in the garage, anyway? :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

yes, and it only has three alignments.

Uh... Huh?


There is already a published adventure for that. :smallyuk:

I mean, there's an adventure for Strahd too, that doesn't mean he isn't just around as a prominent villain of the setting itself.

[warty goblin]

I've been hoping for Dragonlance since the PHB had all those DL novel quotes, but I am pretty skeptical this will be good.

Admittedly this mostly comes down to two things. According to Margaret Weis, neither she nor Tracy were talked to at all, which seems like a real missed opportunity, and shows a real lack of interest in Dragonlance as a setting, rather than a marketable brand.

Also the art. DL has, whatever it's other foibles, always had a really strong aesthetic identity. Sure Stawicki's interpretations were different from Elmore, Caldwell and Parkinson's, but they were all recognizably Dragonlance, and not Forgotten Realms or Eberon. This looks generic, if it didn't say DL on the cover it could be just about anything.


I'm not opposed to changing stuff. Resetting the timeline to War of the Lance, making kender less disruptive, less problematic gully dwarves, probably a parcel of other stuff I can't think of now, I'm good with stuff changing. But I want it to feel like, and look like, Krynn. Weird alignment stuff, orders of magic, gnomes (fight me on this, I like gnomes), missing constellations, not just FR where Tiamet is called Takhisis and there'sa war on.

On the flip side, it is actual DL, so I'll probably get it.

[JadedDM]

I've been hoping for Dragonlance since the PHB had all those DL novel quotes, but I am pretty skeptical this will be good.

It's worth mentioning that 5E Dragonlance will not have anything to do with the novels (which are now classified as 'Classic Dragonlance') and will not feature the Heroes of the Lance at all.

I don't know whether it will be good or not, but I have no doubts that it will not be Dragonlance.

[Tanarii]

gnomes (fight me on this, I like gnomes)
I like 5e gnomes (and even some earlier version are okay), but Dragonlance tinker gnomes and their exploding technology are the first half of the joke that ruined them for most people. The other being WoW squeaky voices.

They were highly entertaining to read about in the novels though. :smallbiggrin:

[rlc]

I thought we knew this 6 months ago

[JadedDM]

I like 5e gnomes (and even some earlier version are okay), but Dragonlance tinker gnomes and their exploding technology are the first half of the joke that ruined them for most people. The other being WoW squeaky voices.

They were highly entertaining to read about in the novels though. :smallbiggrin:

I'm almost certain Tinker Gnomes will be removed from 5E Dragonlance. Well, they might still be called Tinker Gnomes, but they will be Rock Gnomes instead. My reasoning is:

Tinker Gnomes were very prevalent in Spelljammer. They often sailed Wildspace and the Flow in their crazy spelljammer ships, they invented Autognomes and they were the ones who raised and bred Giant Space Hamsters. However, in 5E Spelljammer, Autognomes were invented by Rock Gnomes and Giant Space Hamsters were created by Wizards. There's been zero mention of Tinker Gnomes at all in 5E Spelljammer, at least that I've seen.

The PHB already compares Rock Gnomes to Tinker Gnomes, suggesting they are the same race. In 5E, Rock Gnomes can tinker and build things, but they actually work. So why would 5E players want to play a race that makes bad inventions, when one that makes good inventions already exists? Plus, a comedic race of fast-talking, mad inventors doesn't really fit into 5E's new version of Dragonlance, which is about war and how dark and gritty it is.

Therefore, I believe Tinker Gnomes will not exist in 5E Dragonlance.

(Pretty sure Gully Dwarves are being cut entirely, as well, but for different reasons.)

[Tanarii]

I'm almost certain Tinker Gnomes will be removed from 5E Dragonlance. Well, they might still be called Tinker Gnomes, but they will be Rock Gnomes instead.
I agree, and it's entirely possible they will not bother with the name Tinker Gnomes, as it carries a lot of baggage.

In fact, I'm a little surprised they included Kender in the UAs instead of just using lightfoot halflings, since the baggage with that name is just as strong if not stronger.

[Psyren]

I'm almost certain Tinker Gnomes will be removed from 5E Dragonlance. Well, they might still be called Tinker Gnomes, but they will be Rock Gnomes instead.

They've already confirmed this in the playtest:

"Gnomes whose ancestors dwelled under mountains are called rock gnomes. On some worlds, including Krynn (the world of the Dragonlance setting), rock gnomes are also known as tinker gnomes due to their fondness for artifice and clockwork inventions."


(Pretty sure Gully Dwarves are being cut entirely, as well, but for different reasons.)

And thank Paladine for that.

[Telok]

I just checked the old 1e DL sourcebook and they didn't even stat Huma's lance as "the" Dragonlance for that book; just a general "Here's a mounted lance" and "Here's the footman's pike"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Huma#:~:text=The%20Legend%20of%20Hum a%20is,Hickman's%20Dragonlance%20Chronicles%20seri es.

You have to go back to the actual source. Yes, there is a "the Dragonlance".

Also, +3d6 damage is freaking weak for weapons that were supposed to allow one-shotting a dragon. But it's 5e so you can't even wing tear to ground a dragon, much less save or die them. Can't do that, wouldn't be prudent to lest the players try something to gain tactical advantage, might mess up your cr calculations and short rest scheduling.

[t209]

I agree, and it's entirely possible they will not bother with the name Tinker Gnomes, as it carries a lot of baggage.

In fact, I'm a little surprised they included Kender in the UAs instead of just using lightfoot halflings, since the baggage with that name is just as strong if not stronger.
Baggage as in "one of the despised character races in DnD along with Gully Dwarf" (Gully Dwarf won't be getting penalty to INT in 5E design, plus along with having same dislike as Kender as well).

[rlc]

I like 5e gnomes (and even some earlier version are okay), but Dragonlance tinker gnomes and their exploding technology are the first half of the joke that ruined them for most people. The other being WoW squeaky voices.

They were highly entertaining to read about in the novels though. :smallbiggrin:

Not sure when wow came out, but I know their voices were pretty squeaky in that majesty game from 2000

[Jophiel]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Huma#:~:text=The%20Legend%20of%20Hum a%20is,Hickman's%20Dragonlance%20Chronicles%20seri es.

You have to go back to the actual source. Yes, there is a "the Dragonlance".

Yes, I knew that Huma had the first Lance, that's why I went looking to see if it was called out or statted differently in the official rules. It was not. Weis & Hickman (author of the rules) call out Huma's shield as a unique magic item but his Dragonlance was, mechanically, just another small-d dragonlance.

[Tanarii]

Baggage as in "one of the despised character races in DnD along with Gully Dwarf"My personal experience was everyone at my college and that I played with after until 3e loved Kender, and always wanted one in the party wherever allowed. Because they did exactly what was on the tin. Finally give us a thief that didn't try to maliciously rob the party blind for personal gain, one that you could trust. Just so long as you turned them upside down occasionally and shook them, and watched the maguffin fall out with the loose change. Just like Nobby Nobbs really.

But unfortunately, they seem to have gained a reputation for being worse than thieves on the internet. I guess Thieves that were a Donkey Bottom that maliciously stole from the party weren't a problem, and/or folks didn't understand Kender were the solution to that, not the same as that.

[KorvinStarmast]

and/or folks didn't understand Kender were the solution to that, not the same as that. Not the solution; they turned that problem up to 11.

@psyren: the three towers of high sorcery wizard robe colors, three alignments.

(Thank you JadedDM, for the correction)

[JadedDM]

@psyren: the three towers of high sorcery, three alignments.

There are only two Towers of High Sorcery. The one in Wayreth and the one in Palanthas, and the latter is cursed so nobody can get in.

In any case, Dragonlance was originally written for 1E, so it includes all nine alignments.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are only two Towers of High Sorcery. The one in Wayreth and the one in Palanthas, and the latter is cursed so nobody can get in.

In any case, Dragonlance was originally written for 1E, so it includes all nine alignments. Not narratively. There are only three colors of wizard robe: white, red, and black. Three alignments, and there are/were no clerics until they found one thanks to authorial fiat. :smalltongue:

But then, the coherence of DL was never one of its strong points.
I am glad that some people got enjoyment out of it, that's fine.

[JadedDM]

Goldmoon was the first Good cleric, but Evil clerics were around for about a hundred years before that.

And the three Orders of High Sorcery are alignment based, but there are still nine alignments in Dragonlance. A White Robed Wizard could be Lawful Good, Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, for instance.

But none of that matters anymore. In 5E Dragonlance, alignment won't be important. There are no alignment restrictions placed on which order you join in the UA they released, so you can be a Good Black Robed Wizard or an Evil White Robed Wizard, if you want.

[Tanarii]

In 5E Dragonlance, alignment won't be important.
All other changes aside, IMO this is the one that guts the setting of meaning the most. Dragonlance was all about Good, Neutral and Evil.

It's like Dark Sun without defiling/preserving. The core conceit that drove the entire history of the setting.

[Brookshw]

Oh wow, I must've missed this. Excellent!

Ehhhh.....it's my favorite setting but I'm now highly suspicious of how they'll execute. Maybe we need a speculation thread.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All other changes aside, IMO this is the one that guts the setting of meaning the most. Dragonlance was all about Good, Neutral and Evil.

It's like Dark Sun without defiling/preserving. The core conceit that drove the entire history of the setting.

Agreed. And I don't like either alignment or dragonlance (as a setting), but doing away with alignment as a core thing makes dragonlance rather pointless as a setting.

[JadedDM]

Well, as we saw with the recent Spelljammer release, these aren't fully fleshed out settings. The 5E Dragonlance is not going to contain the detailed histories of the various nations, or anything like that. It's like a theme park version of the place. "War-land." It's a land of war. There is only the War of the Lance, that is the entirety of the new setting. The Knights of Solamnia and the Wizards Mages of High Sorcery are just factions in that war. I imagine it will all be pretty barebones.

[Psyren]

All other changes aside, IMO this is the one that guts the setting of meaning the most. Dragonlance was all about Good, Neutral and Evil.

It's like Dark Sun without defiling/preserving. The core conceit that drove the entire history of the setting.


Agreed. And I don't like either alignment or dragonlance (as a setting), but doing away with alignment as a core thing makes dragonlance rather pointless as a setting.

Alignment in Dragonlance was always handled in a silly way. We had white robes doing bad things, black robes doing good things, and societies that collapsed and failed for being "too good" (Istar). There were "good wizards" who either allowed or participated in the systematic incarceration and slaughter of anyone who dared to practice wizardry without taking the Tests. I can understand them not wanting to put all that under a microscope in the modern game, or at least making some changes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Alignment in Dragonlance was always handled in a silly way. We had white robes doing bad things, black robes doing good things, and societies that collapsed and failed for being "too good" (Istar). There were "good wizards" who either allowed or participated in the systematic incarceration and slaughter of anyone who dared to practice wizardry without taking the Tests. I can understand them not wanting to put all that under a microscope in the modern game, or at least making some changes.

Sure. But excising it entirely just breaks the setting.

[Psyren]

Sure. But excising it entirely just breaks the setting.

They're not excising alignment from Dragonlance, they're just making it more compatible with the rest of D&D. (On top of just... making more sense in general, I'd say.)

[Tawmis]

Not narratively. There are only three colors of wizard robe: white, red, and black. Three alignments, and there are/were no clerics until they found one thanks to authorial fiat. :smalltongue:


Have you ever read the books?
The "core" for the robes of the Mages was - good, neutral, evil.
Within that spectrum - for example, there were Lawful Evil (I think Dalamar was considered Lawful Evil - https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/Fistandantilus) as well as mages who served Takhisis/Tiamat.
But there was definitely what I'd consider Chaotic Evil Mages, such as Fistandantilus (The Dragonlance Wiki even marks him as "Chaotic Evil" - https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/Fistandantilus )

So, yes - there were three robes - one for good, neutral, and evil - but the spectrum of that good, neutral and evil varied by the individual.


Alignment in Dragonlance was always handled in a silly way. We had white robes doing bad things, black robes doing good things, and societies that collapsed and failed for being "too good" (Istar). There were "good wizards" who either allowed or participated in the systematic incarceration and slaughter of anyone who dared to practice wizardry without taking the Tests. I can understand them not wanting to put all that under a microscope in the modern game, or at least making some changes.

Istar wasn't because they were "too good" - rather they were too vain, proclaimed to be better than the gods.
(Of course, the gods taking offense was vain of the gods... but still...)

[Tanarii]

Istar wasn't because they were "too good" - rather they were too vain, proclaimed to be better than the gods.
(Of course, the gods taking offense was vain of the gods... but still...)
It's entirely possible to interpret what the kingpriest did as an attempt to cast a divine spell to achieve godhood, which would have destroyed the Balance if he had succeeded. Making the cataclysm a divine version of what Karsus attempted in the Forgotten Realms using arcane magic.

[Telok]

Yes, I knew that Huma had the first Lance, that's why I went looking to see if it was called out or statted differently in the official rules. It was not. Weis & Hickman (author of the rules) call out Huma's shield as a unique magic item but his Dragonlance was, mechanically, just another small-d dragonlance.

Yeah, see, I was reading the books before the D&D setting came out, so those are primary for me. What someone else did or did not capiltalize or stat up or whatever during convering novels into a bad module or whack setting book is not something I particularly care about. Especially as, if I recall correctly, the modules & setting stuff for DL out of TSR had some significant (to us bunch of sf/fantasy geek early teens at the time) conflicts between them, and between them & the books too but we expected that.

[JadedDM]

What someone else did or did not capiltalize or stat up or whatever during convering novels into a bad module or whack setting book is not something I particularly care about.
Just for the record, the module came out half a year before the first novel did. So the modules were not converted from the novels.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not objecting to them changing things. If I were in charge of bringing Dragonlance into 5E, I would certainly be making changes to things. But I would do this by moving the timeline forward, not backward. I'm okay with the Wizards of High Sorcery and Knights of Solamnia becoming more progressive and open; the lore was leaning in that direction anyway. Originally only humans of Solamnic birth could become Knights. Later, they opened it up to anyone with Solamnic human heritage, meaning half-elves and such could join. I could see them opening up to any Solamnic born race later on. And same with the Wizards. It was already suggested they lacked the manpower to deal with all the primal sorcerers popping up. I imagine warlocks becoming a thing would add on to that, so I can totally see the Conclave deciding it was better to just let them join up than try and hunt them all down.

[Telok]

Just for the record, the module came out half a year before the first novel did. So the modules were not converted from the novels.

Huh, ok. Really doesn't jive with my recollection at all but then I'm in a market where, pre-internet, rpgs were sort of bottom of the totem pole if a shop even knew they existed. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn the books got here first under general bookstore shipments and any rpg stuff showed up a few months after one of the two general hobby stores in the city that carried rpgs ran out of something & put in a new rpg stuff order. I think it was a good year after I saw an ad in a mag for Shadowrun that I say the books in a store.

[Psyren]

Have you ever read the books?
The "core" for the robes of the Mages was - good, neutral, evil.
Within that spectrum - for example, there were Lawful Evil (I think Dalamar was considered Lawful Evil - https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/Fistandantilus) as well as mages who served Takhisis/Tiamat.
But there was definitely what I'd consider Chaotic Evil Mages, such as Fistandantilus (The Dragonlance Wiki even marks him as "Chaotic Evil" - https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/Fistandantilus )

So, yes - there were three robes - one for good, neutral, and evil - but the spectrum of that good, neutral and evil varied by the individual.

Wasn't Dalamar a white robe first, and started doing shady stuff even then?


Istar wasn't because they were "too good" - rather they were too vain, proclaimed to be better than the gods.
(Of course, the gods taking offense was vain of the gods... but still...)

My point is that level of arrogance doesn't really fit with being Good. And murdering half a million people because of one guy certainly isn't.

They wanted to make a setting that incorporated callbacks to some key mythological setpiece moments, but then layered D&D alignment on top (especially the label of Good) in ways that don't really fit with that.

Like, yes, Karsus' Folly over in FR was similarly bad - but it's not like Netheril was pretending to be anything but decadent and corrupt by that point.

[JadedDM]

Wasn't Dalamar a white robe first, and started doing shady stuff even then?
No, he studied dark magic in secret while he was an apprentice, and got caught and exiled for it. When he finally took his Test, he joined the Black Robes.


My point is that level of arrogance doesn't really fit with being Good. And murdering half a million people because of one guy certainly isn't.
Yes, I'd agree that way Good and Evil work in Dragonlance was always a bit weird. I always wondered if maybe it was supposed to be Law versus Chaos instead, and somehow things got muddled up along the way. Because the idea that too much Law can lead to stagnation, blind loyalty to tradition and even tyranny, and needs a balance of Chaos (freedom, diversity, shaking up the status quo,) makes way, way more sense to me than the idea that too much Good somehow leads to slavery and genocide.

[Jophiel]

What someone else did or did not capiltalize or stat up or whatever during convering novels into a bad module or whack setting book is not something I particularly care about.
In this case, the "someone else" was the authors of the primary books of the series. This isn't a case of bad fan-fic, this was the people who created Dragonlance saying that Huma's original lance was just a lance. One of the interesting things about the dragonlances were, despite their power, they were treated less like some unique mythical item of power and more like wartime production materials. Owning the "first" dragonlance is like owning the first bazooka -- neat, but not better than the second bazooka.

Even in the War of the Lance later, it's a quick shift from "Huma's frozen corpse gave me this Dragonlance!" to "Oh, and here's twenty more in the corner".

I find the conversation about alignment a little weird. The idea that Good would screw up or that Evil could do some nominally helpful things was baked into the setting, from the High Priest bringing about the end of civilization as we knew it to the supposed leader of the "good guys" shacking up with an evil dragonlord commander because sex. The idea was never "Good only does good things" or "Evil is only thoughtlessly cruel". The guiding alignment principles were "Good Redeems Its Own", "Evil Feeds Upon Itself" and "Things Exist in Contrast" with the highest law from the High Lord itself being that actions must have consequences. Not going to defend Dragonlance as great literature but saying the alignment was "silly" because Good-aligned people did bad things misses the point entirely.

The destruction of Istar fits into the highest law. It wasn't enough to just slap the Kingpriest on the wrist, the consequence for trying to become a god on Krynn is apparently destruction (see also Raistlin's attempt to depose Takhisis). And it wasn't "because of one guy" -- by the time Istar was destroyed, it was a fascist state calling for the genocide of the evil races and using mind reading magic to ferret out subversion in its populace. When the gods called their clerics back before the Cataclysm, only a minority were still devout enough to actually return. That said, the Good deities DID try a more singular approach; that was supposed to be Lord Soth's job. The actual Cataclysm wasn't a Good God choice, it was an "All the Gods" decision thus why all the clerics left (though Evil cheats, of course) made based on mutual survival.

[Rafaelfras]

I find the conversation about alignment a little weird. The idea that Good would screw up or that Evil could do some nominally helpful things was baked into the setting, from the High Priest bringing about the end of civilization as we knew it to the supposed leader of the "good guys" shacking up with an evil dragonlord commander because sex. The idea was never "Good only does good things" or "Evil is only thoughtlessly cruel". The guiding alignment principles were "Good Redeems Its Own", "Evil Feeds Upon Itself" and "Things Exist in Contrast" with the highest law from the High Lord itself being that actions must have consequences. Not going to defend Dragonlance as great literature but saying the alignment was "silly" because Good-aligned people did bad things misses the point entirely.

The destruction of Istar fits into the highest law. It wasn't enough to just slap the Kingpriest on the wrist, the consequence for trying to become a god on Krynn is apparently destruction (see also Raistlin's attempt to depose Takhisis). And it wasn't "because of one guy" -- by the time Istar was destroyed, it was a fascist state calling for the genocide of the evil races and using mind reading magic to ferret out subversion in its populace. When the gods called their clerics back before the Cataclysm, only a minority were still devout enough to actually return. That said, the Good deities DID try a more singular approach; that was supposed to be Lord Soth's job. The actual Cataclysm wasn't a Good God choice, it was an "All the Gods" decision thus why all the clerics left (though Evil cheats, of course) made based on mutual survival.

This is what make it so interesting. A deeper understanding of the moral principles guiding the setting and why thing happened the way they did

[Brookshw]

My point is that level of arrogance doesn't really fit with being Good. And murdering half a million people because of one guy certainly isn't.


In the Test of the Twins trilogy, there's a part where the authors go into great detail about how the gods were desperately trying to hear a single voice speaking out against the King Priest and the folly occurring, and could not find that single solitary voice. So, not so much "one guy", as "that figure head, and everyone else who was in on it, which was everyone". The opportunity to maybe have been that sole voice was a big point of conflict among the protagonists.

[KorvinStarmast]

Goldmoon was the first Good cleric, but Evil clerics were around for about a hundred years before that. Hmm, OK, maybe my memory is faulty here.

And the three Orders of High Sorcery are alignment based, but there are still nine alignments in Dragonlance. I'll just echo what Psyren had to day about that.
In 5E Dragonlance, alignment won't be important. There are no alignment restrictions placed on which order you join in the UA they released, so you can be a Good Black Robed Wizard or an Evil White Robed Wizard, if you want. Which rather destroys the point of the robe system.

Dragonlance was all about Good, Neutral and Evil.

It's like Dark Sun without defiling/preserving. The core conceit that drove the entire history of the setting. Thank you.


It's like a theme park version of the place. Now that observation makes sense. Thanks for putting it that way.

Alignment in Dragonlance was always handled in a silly way. Yes.


Have you ever read the books?
Yeah, I read them as they came out. The First four, then the twins trilogy, and a whole bunch of the other novels (the one where Tanis and Kitiara were together was one of many) and IIRC there were some more that were utterly forgettable.

The "core" for the robes of the Mages was - good, neutral, evil. That's rather the point that I was making.
By the time I was done reading all of those books, the shine had come off that world building. I somewhat enjoyed the Death Gate cycle, liked the Rose of the Prophet, and the Darksword books, but Krynn become for me an incoherent mess due to the wildly varying tone. By the early 2000's I preferred better writing and stopped indulging their franchise. (I still have the four original modules, three of the four are still in plastic)

Picked up another book by Weiss and Hickman a few years back, Dragonships of Vindras first book, and I could not finish it. I got about a third of the way through and just put it away.
For me that is extremely unusual. I always (with a few rare exceptions) finish books.

[Jophiel]

There's a "What If?" story in a later book (Dragons of Chaos) where the Cataclysm doesn't happen, the Kingpriest attains godhood and then sets about defeating all the other deities for various levels of not being "good" enough and, since they're gods and immortal, tortures their defeated forms for eternity.

The Cataclysm really was a "Everyone in the heavens gets together to pull out all the stops" sort of event, not just being miffed and overreacting that this mortal got all uppity. The good deities did try to personally resolve it in their "Good redeems its own" sort of way, by allowing Lord Soth to make up for his sins by either redeeming or defeating the Kingpriest and we all know how that worked out.

By the time I was done reading all of those books, the shine had come off that world building.
Oh, heavens. There's about 160 books at this point and I'm sure that 150 of them are trash. I also enjoyed the Rose of the Prophet trilogy.

[Dork_Forge]

Huh, even listening to you all talk about Dragonlance it seems like... a big mess?

Like, what's the actual appeal of playing in it?

[Jophiel]

Huh, even listening to you all talk about Dragonlance it seems like... a big mess?

Like, what's the actual appeal of playing in it?
Big epic setting about a world at war, good vs evil, alliances made and broken, yadda yadda. Like roleplaying in fantasy WWII, if I was going to elevator-pitch it.

[Brookshw]

Big epic setting about a world at war, good vs evil, alliances made and broken, yadda yadda. Like roleplaying in fantasy WWII, if I was going to elevator-pitch it.

Except the big heroes that end the war are the author's NPCs, and the PCs are only ever going to be second fiddle.

[Dork_Forge]

Big epic setting about a world at war, good vs evil, alliances made and broken, yadda yadda. Like roleplaying in fantasy WWII, if I was going to elevator-pitch it.

I guess I just don't see why that requires a setting?

Robed Wizards as a system sounds like a novel construct, not a D&D one. If an entire setting is defined by being at war... then I just don't see what the point is.

Wars should be the stuff of campaigns, so you can actually influence it. The only time wars as part of setting inherent structure should really be a thing are when you're on the brink of it, or immediately after it. Like Eberron.

Besides a shoehorned magic caste system, what does playing dragonlance get you that a campaign putting any other fantasy setting get you? How is it inherently different to a 'Word War Forgotten Realms' campaign?

[KorvinStarmast]

Big epic setting about a world at war, good vs evil, alliances made and broken, yadda yadda. Like roleplaying in fantasy WWII, if I was going to elevator-pitch it. Not a bad pitch.
If I had played more 2e than I did (life was changing, less time for RPGs) and if I had embraced 3.x and played in a bunch of DL game I might have a different take on this from a game play perspective.

Feel wise, I much preferred the preserver/defiler structure in Dark Sun, and the grim brutality of the setting, but I also didn't get to play enough of that either. :smallfrown: I have been so hopeful of 5e Darksun, and it seems my hopes are in vain.

[Jophiel]

Except the big heroes that end the war are the author's NPCs, and the PCs are only ever going to be second fiddle.
Presumably, any 5e+ campaign won't run concurrently with the War of the Lance but come before or after.

But, hey, the LoTR MMORPG has the characters running a concurrent campaign with the actual Fellowship and does it well, without the players feeling pointless or marginalized. Part of a continent-spanning conflict is that there's plenty of stuff to do, bad guys to fight and people to save.

[Brookshw]

Presumably, any 5e+ campaign won't run concurrently with the War of the Lance but come before or after.

But, hey, the LoTR MMORPG has the characters running a concurrent campaign with the actual Fellowship and does it well, without the players feeling pointless or marginalized. Part of a continent-spanning conflict is that there's plenty of stuff to do, bad guys to fight and people to save.

Even the post War of the Lance stuff gets resolved by the the author's NPCs,...what were the novels, Dragons of Chaos maybe? Maybe a few others? Anyway, considering the track record, if there's a new big conflict, I feel pretty confident the authors will have it resolved by their NPCs in the novels; tables can disregard them as they will.

Sure, there's other stuff in the setting, Dwarf Gate wars, minotaur stuff, etc.

For me, if I want a world at war setting I'd recommend Midgard by Kobold Press, interesting setting, plenty of wars, and LOADS of plot hooks that Wolfgang Baur isn't going to resolve by writing a book where the problems all get managed by his NPCs.

[Jophiel]

Besides a shoehorned magic caste system, what does playing dragonlance get you that a campaign putting any other fantasy setting get you?
Back in 1e, it added a lot of different things that found some form in the game later: mechanically different magic-users based on school, separate cleric domains based on deity, three different flavors of pseudo-paladin, new races (not just kender but minotaur and irda) and other stuff. How 5e makes it compelling is up to them so I can't answer why you'll want to play (or not play) in the revised version of Krynn.

I wouldn't let the minutia of world lore and debating turn you off though. It's like Star Wars; eventually every background alien seen for half a second buying soda from a vending machine had his own book and rich background but you don't need any of that to enjoy Han, Luke & Leia or playing a character in their world.


...isn't going to resolve by writing a book where the problems all get managed by his NPCs.
WOTC seems to be largely out of the novel-writing business these days (new DL novel aside, the rate they make D&D novels is a trickle compared to the 80s and 90s) so I doubt any new conflicts presented in new material will be managed by anyone in that fashion.

[Brookshw]

WOTC seems to be largely out of the novel-writing business these days (new DL novel aside, the rate they make D&D novels is a trickle compared to the 80s and 90s) so I doubt any new conflicts presented in new material will be managed by anyone in that fashion.

Sure, but Weiss and Hickman aren't, have been aggressive with their characters, setting and IP, and have kept on writing DL novels since WOTC took over TSR, I fully expect their continued writing (which they've expressed interest in) will still revolve around DLs main conflicts, as it has for the past 25ish years. Anyway, future worries, so agree to disagree?

[Jophiel]

Anyway, future worries, so agree to disagree?
Works for me. I'm not even especially jazzed up about 5e DL (since I'm pessimistic about 5e+ future stuff in general) so have no vested interested in convincing people to get hyped. I'll leave that to Hasbro's Marketing Dept. I enjoyed the setting in general though back in the olden days.

[Psyren]

I find the conversation about alignment a little weird. The idea that Good would screw up or that Evil could do some nominally helpful things was baked into the setting, from the High Priest bringing about the end of civilization as we knew it to the supposed leader of the "good guys" shacking up with an evil dragonlord commander because sex. The idea was never "Good only does good things" or "Evil is only thoughtlessly cruel". The guiding alignment principles were "Good Redeems Its Own", "Evil Feeds Upon Itself" and "Things Exist in Contrast" with the highest law from the High Lord itself being that actions must have consequences. Not going to defend Dragonlance as great literature but saying the alignment was "silly" because Good-aligned people did bad things misses the point entirely.

The destruction of Istar fits into the highest law. It wasn't enough to just slap the Kingpriest on the wrist, the consequence for trying to become a god on Krynn is apparently destruction (see also Raistlin's attempt to depose Takhisis). And it wasn't "because of one guy" -- by the time Istar was destroyed, it was a fascist state calling for the genocide of the evil races and using mind reading magic to ferret out subversion in its populace. When the gods called their clerics back before the Cataclysm, only a minority were still devout enough to actually return. That said, the Good deities DID try a more singular approach; that was supposed to be Lord Soth's job. The actual Cataclysm wasn't a Good God choice, it was an "All the Gods" decision thus why all the clerics left (though Evil cheats, of course) made based on mutual survival.

I find all those themes interesting to explore but precisely none of them are Good, so labelling them that way is what makes it weird. I agree with the other poster that maybe the intent of the setting was Law vs. Chaos and too much of either is what leads to evil. And tying the robes themselves to morality is a microcosm of that problem, believing someone is benevolent and trustworthy simply because they wear white (+ the opposite for black) is puerile at best and dangerous at worst.


In the Test of the Twins trilogy, there's a part where the authors go into great detail about how the gods were desperately trying to hear a single voice speaking out against the King Priest and the folly occurring, and could not find that single solitary voice. So, not so much "one guy", as "that figure head, and everyone else who was in on it, which was everyone". The opportunity to maybe have been that sole voice was a big point of conflict among the protagonists.

If there was not a single dissenting voice among half a million people, it means that the state's propaganda and thought-policing machinery was so absolute that the people still really can't be blamed for what their leaders did - not all of them anyway. It's a solid argument for extreme Law but definitely not Good, and the gods' nuclear response as well.

[Brookshw]

If there was not a single dissenting voice among half a million people, it means that the state's propaganda and thought-policing machinery was so absolute that the people still really can't be blamed for what their leaders did - not all of them anyway. It's a solid argument for extreme Law but definitely not Good, and the gods' nuclear response as well.

I don't know that you can shunt the blame based on propaganda and though-policing, but if you're trying to convince me that Weiss and Hickman aren't actually all that great of authors or world builders, mission accomplished, I don't think its a good setting.

[Psyren]

I don't know that you can shunt the blame based on propaganda and though-policing, but if you're trying to convince me that Weiss and Hickman aren't actually all that great of authors or world builders, mission accomplished, I don't think its a good setting.

Definitely concur, but the issue I have is with the folks upthread who view any attempt at improving it as "blandening" or "gutting/breaking the setting." Some things need to be gutted and reworked with a modern eye, you wouldn't repaint a rotting house.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Definitely concur, but the issue I have is with the folks upthread who view any attempt at improving it as "blandening" or "gutting/breaking the setting." Some things need to be gutted and reworked with a modern eye, you wouldn't repaint a rotting house.

Sure. I don't like Dragonlance either. But gutting it and wearing it as a skin suit is also disrespectful. If it's rotting, tear it down entirely and build something new. Leave the old thing in the past where it (according to some) belongs.

[Brookshw]

Definitely concur, but the issue I have is with the folks upthread who view any attempt at improving it as "blandening" or "gutting/breaking the setting." Some things need to be gutted and reworked with a modern eye, you wouldn't repaint a rotting house.

No argument here. That said, Hicks and Weissman threw a tantrum about Soth getting kicked into Ravenloft, hard enough that he was eventually removed from the setting. I'm skeptical the authors will accommodate any WoTC design direction that deviates from their canon; pretty sure this release was part of a settlement after they sued over their recent book deal, so WoTC may have less control than they'd usually.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree with the other poster that maybe the intent of the setting was Law vs. Chaos and too much of either is what leads to evil. :smallsmile: Which takes us back to the Michael Moorcock themes on Law and Chaos.

And tying the robes themselves to morality is a microcosm of that problem, believing someone is benevolent and trustworthy simply because they wear white (+ the opposite for black) is puerile at best and dangerous at worst. *applause*

Sure. I don't like Dragonlance either. But gutting it and wearing it as a skin suit is also disrespectful. If it's rotting, tear it down entirely and build something new. Leave the old thing in the past where it (according to some) belongs. I tend to the latter sentiment, but it appears that enough fan feedback has been received for WoTC to roll it out again. I can boycott it, and I probably shall. (Heck, I can barely stomach FR)

[Psyren]

Sure. I don't like Dragonlance either. But gutting it and wearing it as a skin suit is also disrespectful. If it's rotting, tear it down entirely and build something new. Leave the old thing in the past where it (according to some) belongs.

"Never try fixing anything no matter how much residual value, potential, or name recognition the brand may possess."

Good luck with that. And it assumes that the authors themselves don't want to make any changes either. I just don't understand the appeal that this desire for stagnation implies.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Never try fixing anything no matter how much residual value, potential, or name recognition the brand may possess."

Good luck with that. And it assumes that the authors themselves don't want to make any changes either. I just don't understand the appeal that this desire for stagnation implies.

Each setting has core invariants, without which it's a different setting. For Dragonlance, the particular take on Good vs Evil is one of those invariants. If you can't work within the existing invariants, you are creating a new setting whether you call it that or not. But there are lots of changes you can do without breaking those core invariants.

As we've seen in other properties, trying to do "reboots" usually just tanks the whole thing unless it's handled with care and paying attention to those invariants. Look at what happened to 4e FR. And throwing out the central role of alignment in Dragonlance is similar to the 4e FR changes. When the residual value is all nostalgia, gutting it and wearing the name as a skin suit just turns off anyone who actually knew anything...which in Dragonlance's case is everyone who has any nostalgia for it at all.

If all you want to do is extract maximum cash from things, sure. Go ahead. But in doing so, you're eating into the residual value and not creating new things. CF Star Wars, Star Trek, and many other properties that have been "sequelized" and "rebooted" to death.

[Telok]

In this case, the "someone else" was the authors of the primary books of the series. This isn't a case of bad fan-fic, this was the people who created Dragonlance saying that Huma's original lance was just a lance. One of the interesting things about the dragonlances were, despite their power, they were treated less like some unique mythical item of power and more like wartime production materials. Owning the "first" dragonlance is like owning the first bazooka -- neat, but not better than the second bazooka.

Even in the War of the Lance later, it's a quick shift from "Huma's frozen corpse gave me this Dragonlance!" to "Oh, and here's twenty more in the corner".

Apparently I was wrong then. Running off 30 year old memories, I blame.

It just makes things weird, like the whole "Dragonlance" title of everything if all the lances are just generic (if rare) magic weapons. Like calling a underwater setting & book series "Trident of Fish Command".

Wonder if there was some late editing change somewhere, I've seen artifacts of that is some games. Where there's a glossary reference to something that doesn't exist or such like.

[OvisCaedo]

Personally, as someone who doesn't like Dragonlance at all, I think any new release should be designed for me instead of any existing fans it had.

[warty goblin]

The thing about DL morality is that it essentially had two tiers. The first and most generally applicable is a deontological level where actions are good or evil even of themselves. The good and evil deities have their own agendas as well, which also fall subject to this same deontology most of the time, albeit with the caveats that perforce good gods do good things and evil gods do evil things. Because the gods are oppositional and neither omniscient nor omnipotent, they act with limited precision and foresight. Because deontology doesn't really care about the consequences of an action, there isn't any contradiction to evil people doing things that work out for the good, or a good people doing so much good that the result is bad.

Above and rather parallel to that there is the cosmic balance between good, evil and neutral, which is much more consequentialist or in some ways utilitarian. You don't get to rewrite the whole world in your image, because that destroys everything else in the world. Even if you are a good person.

What this attempts to do is use both systems to patch the holes in the other. One the flaws with a strict deontological system is that a good action can have evil consequences, due to lack of foresight, arrogance, pride, or just bad luck. This is the solution to the good turning into a totalitarian hellstate where you have no freedom because evil must be prevented. Destroying evil is still good in a deontological sense, but carried to an extreme is untenable for the world as a whole. At the same time it still permits you to judge an action as evil, and disallows the counter-argument that no, feeding your dog to fire ants was good, actually, because consequences.

Generally I think DL works by having individual actions subject to the deontological system. It's wrong for Bob the Bandit to beat people to death because that is wrong and there's no real need to get complicated about it. If Sir Savior stabs Bob to save somebody, that is good, or at worst neutral. At this scale, nothing is a threat to the overall balance of the world, and nobody needs to judge things along those lines. Balance only gets to be a problem when it comes to one side more or less becoming a god and remaking the entire planet and/or cosmos in their own image. This wrecks the joint, and is when the deontology stops mattering and the consequencialism kicks in. But unless you personally have a notebook sketching out how to ascend to godhood or are already personally a god, you don't need to worry about this.

There's some other wrinkles in here. The universe clearly operates on a hierarchy of being, and human/other mortal sapients are not at the top rung. That's reserved for the gods, who simply are not subject to human moral judgement, in roughly the same way you are probably not too fussed about the moral judgement of elephants or dolphins. This sort of structure is really deeply out of vogue in modern fantasy, where if you even have gods at all, they're probably like actually just super-powerful wizards whom the protagonists have to destroy, but if you are serious about putting a genuinely true religion in your fantasy, is an entirely valid way to do it.

A lot of that is my own interpretation, but I think it's pretty well supported by the text. It's also pretty congruent with Tracy Hickman's marginalia in Annotated Chronicles. He never lays it out this explicitly, but I think ots a reasonable reading, I'm overall comfortable with it

Do you have to agree with this, either as an understanding of DL, or a moral principle? Of course not, it's the mostly post-hoc metaphysical backdrop to some goofy fantasy adventure novels. But for fantasy adventure novels it's at least an effort at a fairly nuanced metaphysics. I at least find it enjoyable to consider, and it gives the stories a richer, occasionally more mythic texture than one would expect.



Sure, but Weiss and Hickman aren't, have been aggressive with their characters, setting and IP, and have kept on writing DL novels since WOTC took over TSR, I fully expect their continued writing (which they've expressed interest in) will still revolve around DLs main conflicts, as it has for the past 25ish years. Anyway, future worries, so agree to disagree?

W&H had to sue to get the latest series out. I'm guessing WoTC under present leadership isn't really that enthused about more DL novels, they were just under contract for them already. Publishing and making money is cheaper than legal fees and maybe being found in breach of contract.


Definitely concur, but the issue I have is with the folks upthread who view any attempt at improving it as "blandening" or "gutting/breaking the setting." Some things need to be gutted and reworked with a modern eye, you wouldn't repaint a rotting house.

As I said, I'm fine with changes. Rewind the timeline, change the races, switch our the metaphysics, whatever. All thise changes can work, the timeline is an incoherent mess, some of the races kinda suck, and while I find the metaphysics interesting, there are other places you could go that are also interesting. If you replace them with the current vague beige slurry of non-specific just kill the bad guys whatever that is the current D&D alignment system, I'm not going to find that interesting.

Which is sort of my general take on this
I'm not excited by taking the weird, particular and interesting bits of DL and turning it into the current mega-bland Forgotten Realms vague background but with 100% more war.

And really, I kinda wonder who this is supposed to be for. If you don't know DL from before, does any of this look remotely exciting? If you do, what does this offer that, say, doing some quick conversions to the 3E stuff doesn't?

[Tanarii]

But gutting it and wearing it as a skin suit is also disrespectful.
Indeed.

On the other hand, it'd be entirely possibly to do a 5e version of the Dragonlance setting based around the old Good, Neutral and Evil. As long as they didn't bring back the old DL Adventures alignment chart with DM tracking points for good and evil actions moving you closer to one or the other. :smallamused:

The parts old-school part of alignment that didn't work were Players writing down one alignment and then having their PCs do nothing resembling it (acting in bad faith), and DMs forcing alignment changes. 5e has mitigated the former but there's only so much you can do about players who act in bad faith. And it's effectively eliminated the need for forced alignment changes.

[Psyren]

Each setting has core invariants, without which it's a different setting. For Dragonlance, the particular take on Good vs Evil is one of those invariants. If you can't work within the existing invariants, you are creating a new setting whether you call it that or not. But there are lots of changes you can do without breaking those core invariants.

See, I agree with the idea that settings have core themes and aesthetics that shouldn't be touched - but not with the notion that "good mages wear white, bad mages wear black, and yet they work together to murder or incarcerate any mage who dares buck the system" qualifies as a "core invariant."

For example - a core invariant of Ravenloft would be that each Domain of Dread is a Silent Hill-esque (complete with fog) demiplanar prison designed for the express purpose of tormenting one or more otherwise powerful Darklords who don't even realize they're trapped. But the idea that half-orcs are all invariably misshapen brutes who have to hide their true nature or else face persecution in every town in one of those planes (or even that they may not exist at all, depending on your edition) isn't. Not only is that idea unnecessary for the setting to work, it actively interferes with gameplay by de facto restricting or banning a core race. It's chaff that can be safely discarded.


CF Star Wars, Star Trek, and many other properties that have been "sequelized" and "rebooted" to death.

Yeah, stuff like Mandalorian, Fallen Order, Discovery, Picard, and Prodigy really show how updating these franchises killed them dead.

[Dork_Forge]

Yeah, stuff like Mandalorian, Fallen Order, Discovery, Picard, and Prodigy really show how updating these franchises killed them dead.

It really feels like Pheonix was talking about movies, not spin offs which makes this feel a little talking past each other. In terms of the actual movies, it's hard to disagree with him.

But I'm also just salty you didn't list Below Decks, so whatever.

[Psyren]

It really feels like Pheonix was talking about movies, not spin offs which makes this feel a little talking past each other. In terms of the actual movies, it's hard to disagree with him.

That's just No True Scotsman; those other properties are still modern updates and continuations of their respective franchises, even if they were more creative when it comes to choosing a medium - which was the point.


But I'm also just salty you didn't list Below Decks, so whatever.

Never stuck with it so can't opine. Not saying it's bad, just didn't grab me before other things got my attention.

[Dork_Forge]

That's just No True Scotsman; those other properties are still modern updates and continuations of their respective franchises, even if they were more creative when it comes to choosing a medium - which was the point.

Not really No True Scotsman at all, the franchises are wildly different in their side mediums, like you listed, than their core mediums. I see it as game material is main so = movies, whereas anything else (like the various novels) would be more akin to what you listed.

I really enjoyed the Star Wars Episode III video game, but that doesn't have any bearing on discussing the movies. Likewise with the Clone Wars etc.


Never stuck with it so can't opine. Not saying it's bad, just didn't grab me before other things got my attention.

Recommended as a mature theme comedy version of star trek, lots of tropes they poke fun at.

[Psyren]

Not really No True Scotsman at all, the franchises are wildly different in their side mediums, like you listed, than their core mediums.

Star Trek's "core medium" is a TV show so even if I did agree with this, the point stands. (Not to mention, the line between modern TV series and longform movies is pretty blurry these days anyway, especially on D+.)


Recommended as a mature theme comedy version of star trek, lots of tropes they poke fun at.

I'll get back around to it if I have time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note I did not say that any reboot was a failure. I said that reboots that ignored setting invariants had turned people off. Imagine, for an instant, if you pitched a new Superman reboot. Except that instead of being an alien from Krypton powered by the sun and allergic to kryptonite, he was a regular guy named Clark Kent that, when he ate spinach, got really big and green and angry. How well would that fly with Superman fans? Even if it was well done...it's not a Superman reboot. It's something completely different that uses the same names.

This was one of the issues with 4e--they trampled on enough invariants (in the hopes of bringing in new blood) that the old blood left and the new blood, seeing all the negative press, stayed away. If they'd branded it as "D&D Tactics", it would have likely worked just fine. Trying to leech off of existing branding while not actually adhering to what made those brands popular generally loses you money in the long run and destroys the brand.

[Jophiel]

It's a solid argument for extreme Law but definitely not Good, and the gods' nuclear response as well.
The Cataclysm wasn't the act of the Good gods to punish the Kingpriest, it was a combined decision from the entire pantheon as an act of self-preservation.

On the plus side, it makes the Dragonlance pantheon much easier to keep track of than the Forgotten Realms' so I support the Krynn deities in their continent nuking based on that alone.

[Psyren]

Note I did not say that any reboot was a failure. I said that reboots that ignored setting invariants had turned people off. Imagine, for an instant, if you pitched a new Superman reboot. Except that instead of being an alien from Krypton powered by the sun and allergic to kryptonite, he was a regular guy named Clark Kent that, when he ate spinach, got really big and green and angry. How well would that fly with Superman fans? Even if it was well done...it's not a Superman reboot. It's something completely different that uses the same names.

This was one of the issues with 4e--they trampled on enough invariants (in the hopes of bringing in new blood) that the old blood left and the new blood, seeing all the negative press, stayed away. If they'd branded it as "D&D Tactics", it would have likely worked just fine. Trying to leech off of existing branding while not actually adhering to what made those brands popular generally loses you money in the long run and destroys the brand.

Did the Ravenloft analogy help clarify my stance?


The Cataclysm wasn't the act of the Good gods to punish the Kingpriest, it was a combined decision from the entire pantheon as an act of self-preservation.

On the plus side, it makes the Dragonlance pantheon much easier to keep track of than the Forgotten Realms' so I support the Krynn deities in their continent nuking based on that alone.

That's still a lot of innocent (or brainwashed/conditioned, i.e. same thing) civilians to annihilate out of hand though.

[Brookshw]

That's still a lot of innocent (or brainwashed/conditioned, i.e. same thing) civilians to annihilate out of hand though.

Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[Tanarii]

Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Nits make lice. 😂

[Telok]

The Cataclysm wasn't the act of the Good gods to punish the Kingpriest, it was a combined decision from the entire pantheon as an act of self-preservation.

On the plus side, it makes the Dragonlance pantheon much easier to keep track of than the Forgotten Realms' so I support the Krynn deities in their continent nuking based on that alone.

Well yeah. If nothing else people in DL respect the gods. In FR some of them are just hopped up wizards and the goddess of magic dies often enough that it's a joke. Plotting to off a FR god and ascend is like, the thing you just do for funsies once you hit wizard level 12 or something.

You walk out of your house and see a rat standing on a pile of dead rats, birds, mice, puppies, kittens, and there might be someone's foot in that boot, holding up a little sign saying "I'm a person too". The FR neighborhood goes "yeah that house over there is empty, don't play your music too loud", but the DL neighborhood is all "oh hell no" and gets down with the flamethrowers and rat poison everywhere. Now guess who doesn't have a rat problem?

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, as someone who doesn't like Dragonlance at all, I think any new release should be designed for me instead of any existing fans it had. Nah, it ought to be scrapped and they should do Dark Sun. :smallbiggrin:


... part of alignment that didn't work were Players writing down one alignment and then having their PCs do nothing resembling it (acting in bad faith), and DMs forcing alignment changes. 5e has mitigated the former but there's only so much you can do about players who act in bad faith. Aka, kender.

The Cataclysm wasn't the act of the Good gods to punish the Kingpriest, it was a combined decision from the entire pantheon as an act of self-preservation.

On the plus side, it makes the Dragonlance pantheon much easier to keep track of than the Forgotten Realms' so I support the Krynn deities in their continent nuking based on that alone. I suppose that from a strict survivalist PoV it makes sense. Maybe this is where R Burlew borrowed the idea of nuking them all and starting over for OoTS. And maybe not.

That's still a lot of innocent (or brainwashed/conditioned, i.e. same thing) civilians to annihilate out of hand though. They are deities, this isn't a soldiers/civilians thing. Deities follow their own rules, and mortals basically have to suck it up. :smallyuk: Which takes me back to my response just above this one.

[Tanarii]

[COLOR="#0000FF"] Aka, kender.
Aka thieves before kender handlers .

[KorvinStarmast]

Aka thieves before kender handlers. Yeah, there were plenty who did. No blue text for a good and sufficient reason. :smallwink:

[Jophiel]

Tying into the whole mortals-getting-too-powerful thing, 1e AD&D Dragonlance also set a strict maximum level (18th), afterwards the gods would remove you from the game before you became an issue :smallbiggrin: You were, of course, allowed to remain static at 18th level if you wanted.

Not sure if that was the first AD&D/D&D world to enforce strict levels limits.

[JadedDM]

Huh, even listening to you all talk about Dragonlance it seems like... a big mess?

Like, what's the actual appeal of playing in it?
I mean, you aren't wrong. As a lifelong fan of Dragonlance, I would definitely categorize it as 'a big mess.' But one could make the same argument about, say, Star Trek. Any franchise that gets old enough, that has different versions and sequels and prequels over decades, is bound to get messy.

Keep in mind Dragonlance was made for 1E. So everything that doesn't 'make sense' about it, doesn't make sense to modern sensibilities. It made perfect sense at the time, though. "Why can't Wizards wield swords in Dragonlance?" Because in 1E they weren't allowed to. "Why does Dragonlance treat Good and Evil as if they were just cosmic teams to play on, as if they were just two sides of the same coin?" Because that's how alignment used to work. In the same way that Eberron was made for 3E, Dragonlance was made for 1E. But then it was converted to 2E, then SAGA, then 3E, and now 5E. So the rules have changed, but the lore is still the same, so yeah, it causes problems. Then you factor in the novels. Everyone talks like Hickman and Weiss wrote them all, but they didn't. They only wrote a few, there are over a hundred Dragonlance books. Not every single author was on the same page, either, so there were...inconsistencies. What is or isn't canonical is a long term argument among Dragonlance fans, as a result.

But to get back to your actual question--what makes it appealing? If I'm being completely honest with you, it's probably mostly nostalgia. Without the novels, without the fond memories, if you pitched Dragonlance to me today, I'm not sure I'd care. Which is why it sort of baffles me they are bringing it back by gutting it entirely. The old fans will hate the changes and anyone new probably won't see the point of it.


Robed Wizards as a system sounds like a novel construct, not a D&D one. If an entire setting is defined by being at war... then I just don't see what the point is.
The other way around, actually. The alignment based Wizard system is because of 1E, back when alignment was more akin to a political party you joined up with, and even had specific languages for each one. It wasn't also just about alignment, either. Wizards leveled up differently depending on their robes. White Robes leveled slower, for instance, but could reach higher levels. Black Robes leveled up faster, but their levels were capped earlier. In other words, Evil led to quick power, but ultimately, Good was stronger if one had the patience for it.

But no, the setting is not defined by war. I mean, don't get me wrong, Dragonlance does have a lot of 'world' wars. One for every edition change, at least! But to say Dragonlance is about war is like saying the entire point of Planescape is the cant.

Dragonlance is romantic. It's honorable knights in shining armor, riding on the backs of magnificent dragons. It's about love, and family, and friendship. What made Dragonlance so unique at the time it was first published, is it was about story. It was the first setting that introduced the idea of telling an epic tale, with betrayal and mystery and forging bonds with your party (previously, D&D was something more like a rouge-like, a simple dungeon crawler with a heavier emphasis on combat and loot collection than roleplaying). Dragonlance was also very grounded in reality, as far as D&D settings go, anyway, especially compared to Forgotten Realms. Resurrection and Raise Dead are extremely rare. Magic is mysterious and largely alien to the vast majority of people. The big heroes, like the ones in the novels, grow old and die (if they survive that long). And not always in the most noble ways, either. Flint dropped dead of a heart attack. Tanis Half-Elven, leader of the Heroes of the Lance, gets stabbed in the back by a nameless mook. Laurana gets crushed by a giant green dragon falling on her. Tasslehoff gets stepped on by Chaos (well, sort of, it's complicated).


Sure, but Weiss and Hickman aren't, have been aggressive with their characters, setting and IP, and have kept on writing DL novels since WOTC took over TSR, I fully expect their continued writing (which they've expressed interest in) will still revolve around DLs main conflicts, as it has for the past 25ish years. Anyway, future worries, so agree to disagree?
No, that's not something you have to worry about at all.

Hickman and Weiss haven't released a DL novel in about 13 years. They did finally release a new one recently, but it takes place in the past (just after the War of the Lance) and has nothing to do with 5E Dragonlance. In fact, the novel is labeled as 'Classic Dragonlance' which is now considered a different timeline than 5E Dragonlance (similar to the Prime and Kelvin timelines in Star Trek). WotC felt like people wouldn't like Dragonlance if there were novels about it, because they would feel obligated to read them first, like some sort of homework. So the novels have nothing to do with the 5E version of the setting, which won't include the Heroes of the Lance (or rather, it probably will, but it won't be Tanis, Sturm, Raistlin, etc., but the PCs themselves).


Definitely concur, but the issue I have is with the folks upthread who view any attempt at improving it as "blandening" or "gutting/breaking the setting." Some things need to be gutted and reworked with a modern eye, you wouldn't repaint a rotting house.
My issue isn't that they are trying to change it. I expected changes. Heck, I want changes. But I don't like the way they are going about it.

*Instead of moving the timeline forward, they are moving it backward.
*They are reducing the entirety of the setting to war. Not even war in general, just one specific war.
*Ultimately, my concern is they are just turning it into FR but with different names. There are lots of things in DL that should be removed or changed, but if they change everything about it, and just make it a kitchen sink, I don't see the point.

Again, for what it's worth, I think it's totally possible to update Dragonlance to not only fit modern sensibilities, but also fit in (largely) with WotC's current design philosophy. But not the way they're doing it no


No argument here. That said, Hicks and Weissman threw a tantrum about Soth getting kicked into Ravenloft, hard enough that he was eventually removed from the setting. I'm skeptical the authors will accommodate any WoTC design direction that deviates from their canon; pretty sure this release was part of a settlement after they sued over their recent book deal, so WoTC may have less control than they'd usually.
Hickman and Weiss have literally no say whatsoever in anything Dragonlance does anymore. The lawsuit was because WotC hired them to write a new novel, but didn't like the direction they were going with it, and so broke the contract, which opened them up to a lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled, and it seems the compromise is that the novels and the setting are completely different AUs now, with nothing to do with each other.

[Tanarii]

Keep in mind Dragonlance was made for 1E.
The other thing to keep in mind is it was the key project in TSR's goal to pivot D&D as a dungeon heist to story-driven adventure path. With actual stories to go with it!

Since that's not what D&D was designed to do, and for that matter IMO after seven-ish editions still isn't something it's particularly effective at, it's even more of a mess. As were many of TSR's settings designed around plot. Dark Sun comes to mind.

Didn't make them any less fun to mess around in. Just hard to run things other than the modules in, especially for players steeped in the novels and plot and things that come with it, like the idea of characters as novel protagonists.

[Brookshw]

Hickman and Weiss have literally no say whatsoever in anything Dragonlance does anymore. The lawsuit was because WotC hired them to write a new novel, but didn't like the direction they were going with it, and so broke the contract, which opened them up to a lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled, and it seems the compromise is that the novels and the setting are completely different AUs now, with nothing to do with each other.

On my phone so replying to both comments in one go, sorry for not quoting both.

As far as we know, nothing has been released about the settlement details, and, agreed, a new publication and licensing deal, as well as publication with a different publisher, we're part of it. Otoh, (1) WoTC approached Weiss and Hickman to publish the novels in the first place, so they clearly have some level of interest in the novels occurring, (2) I'm not convinced W & H have no say in DL, it's not like we see Soth in Ravenloft anymore, and (3) lawsuits give leverage.

Now, I definitely don't know what the terms of the settlement were and if W & H sought any level of control over the setting beyond what they've previously asserted. Just gonna have to wait and see.

[JadedDM]

On my phone so replying to both comments in one go, sorry for not quoting both.

As far as we know, nothing has been released about the settlement details, and, agreed, a new publication and licensing deal, as well as publication with a different publisher, we're part of it. Otoh, (1) WoTC approached Weiss and Hickman to publish the novels in the first place, so they clearly have some level of interest in the novels occurring, (2) I'm not convinced W & H have no say in DL, it's not like we see Soth in Ravenloft anymore, and (3) lawsuits give leverage.

Now, I definitely don't know what the terms of the settlement were and if W & H sought any level of control over the setting beyond what they've previously asserted. Just gonna have to wait and see.

You're right that we don't know the full details, and I'm speculating a bit. That said, I'll point out that Hickman never had Soth removed from Ravenloft (which he also created). He just chose to ignore it and continued to use Soth in Dragonlance anyway, essentially creating an inconsistency and sort of giving TSR a middle-finger in the process. Lord Soth belongs to WotC (TSR at the time), as does Dragonlance and Ravenloft, so they can do whatever they want with them. Hickman might not like it, but he can't legally do anything about it, which is why the best he could do was include Soth in later Dragonlance novels. Like how Marvel created Spider-Man, but Sony owns the movie rights, so when Marvel wanted to make a Spider-Man movie, they had to cut a deal with Sony.

In Ravenloft canon, Lord Soth was pulled out of Krynn and into the realm of Sithicus. As far as I know, at least as far as Ravenloft canon is concerned, that remains true. Ravenloft 5E only touched on the realm of Barovia, we have no idea what's happening in Sithicus in 5E. (Although I admit, I am not a Ravenloft fan so I might be way off base; someone please correct me if that's the case). But by Dragonlance canon, Soth never went anywhere and is now dead (well, re-dead). So it's sort of a paradox. (Hickman hated the idea of the Multiverse and insisted his two worlds never cross-over, which was the cause of the conflict in the first place.)

I suppose it's possible that, as part of the settlement, Hickman got some level of control of Dragonlance back, but I highly doubt it. For one thing, that would be HUGE news in the DL community, and I haven't even heard any whispers of it. Hickman himself sure hasn't said or even vaguely hinted to such a thing. But I feel the main reason I feel this way is everything I've seen of the changes made to 5E seems to suggest they are moving away from Hickman's vision of the setting, and turning it into something entirely new instead. The fact that they separated the novels from the game entirely, as well, I feel further gives evidence to that theory. I think that might have been the compromise; 'okay, you keep the novels but we'll do our own thing with the game.'

But I guess we'll see.

[Psyren]

Dragonlance is romantic. It's honorable knights in shining armor, riding on the backs of magnificent dragons. It's about love, and family, and friendship. What made Dragonlance so unique at the time it was first published, is it was about story. It was the first setting that introduced the idea of telling an epic tale, with betrayal and mystery and forging bonds with your party (previously, D&D was something more like a rouge-like, a simple dungeon crawler with a heavier emphasis on combat and loot collection than roleplaying). Dragonlance was also very grounded in reality, as far as D&D settings go, anyway, especially compared to Forgotten Realms. Resurrection and Raise Dead are extremely rare. Magic is mysterious and largely alien to the vast majority of people. The big heroes, like the ones in the novels, grow old and die (if they survive that long). And not always in the most noble ways, either. Flint dropped dead of a heart attack. Tanis Half-Elven, leader of the Heroes of the Lance, gets stabbed in the back by a nameless mook. Laurana gets crushed by a giant green dragon falling on her. Tasslehoff gets stepped on by Chaos (well, sort of, it's complicated).

You can run gritty, lethal, low-magic Dragonlance with few to no clerics where the heroes die ignominious deaths just fine in 5e if you want to. But it's also reasonable to consider that the setting can do more than that, too.

The 3.5 conversion, which Weis was lead designer of, was set in the Age of Mortals (after the gods and moons started returning) and appeared to be pretty high magic. I'm expecting this one will be set in an alternate version of the Age of Despair, one that hits higher heights of magic during the war(s?) itself.



My issue isn't that they are trying to change it. I expected changes. Heck, I want changes. But I don't like the way they are going about it.

*Instead of moving the timeline forward, they are moving it backward.
*They are reducing the entirety of the setting to war. Not even war in general, just one specific war.
*Ultimately, my concern is they are just turning it into FR but with different names. There are lots of things in DL that should be removed or changed, but if they change everything about it, and just make it a kitchen sink, I don't see the point.

Again, for what it's worth, I think it's totally possible to update Dragonlance to not only fit modern sensibilities, but also fit in (largely) with WotC's current design philosophy. But not the way they're doing it no

This seems to be contradictory; Faerun isn't a world at war. Certainly there's a bunch of factions in conflict (Harpers, Zhentarim, Thay, Rashemi etc) and if you travel back in Toril's past there's plenty of war to be had, but the present-day conflicts are much more likely to be resolved via intrigue, diplomacy, and adventurers-as-special-operatives than they would be mobilizing armies. By setting Krynn during open warfare, with Takhisis' goons kicking over grandma's shopping stall and dragons flying in blitzkrieg formation, I'm expecting a very different feel than the Sword Coast.

[JadedDM]

This seems to be contradictory; Faerun isn't a world at war.
No, it isn't, but by 'make it like FR' I mean turn it into a kitchen sink fantasy setting, with no distinct flavor of its own. That you could take a standard FR party and just drop them into DL and they'd fit in just fine. Full or Orcs and Halflings and Tieflings and Dragonborn and Rock Gnomes (and...Ardlings, I guess?), where magic is completely unregulated and ubiquitous, and death is a slap on the wrist.

Forgotten Realms, but in a war, in other words. If the fact that there is a war going on is the only thing really differentiating it from any other setting, that would be very disappointing, in my view.

[Clistenes]

Yeah, stuff like Mandalorian, Fallen Order, Discovery, Picard, and Prodigy really show how updating these franchises killed them dead.

In Star Wars' case, I think the Sequel Trilogy killed it, and Mandalorian was just a desperate try to resurrect the franchise to get some extra money from it... and truth to be told, I think it worked to some degree... Baby Yoda is like a million time more popular that all the characters in the Sequel Trilogy combined, and sells more toys...

[Brookshw]

You're right that we don't know the full details, and I'm speculating a bit. That said, I'll point out that Hickman never had Soth removed from Ravenloft (which he also created). He just chose to ignore it and continued to use Soth in Dragonlance anyway, essentially creating an inconsistency and sort of giving TSR a middle-finger in the process. Lord Soth belongs to WotC (TSR at the time), as does Dragonlance and Ravenloft, so they can do whatever they want with them. Hickman might not like it, but he can't legally do anything about it, which is why the best he could do was include Soth in later Dragonlance novels. Like how Marvel created Spider-Man, but Sony owns the movie rights, so when Marvel wanted to make a Spider-Man movie, they had to cut a deal with Sony.

In Ravenloft canon, Lord Soth was pulled out of Krynn and into the realm of Sithicus. As far as I know, at least as far as Ravenloft canon is concerned, that remains true. Ravenloft 5E only touched on the realm of Barovia, we have no idea what's happening in Sithicus in 5E. (Although I admit, I am not a Ravenloft fan so I might be way off base; someone please correct me if that's the case). But by Dragonlance canon, Soth never went anywhere and is now dead (well, re-dead). So it's sort of a paradox. (Hickman hated the idea of the Multiverse and insisted his two worlds never cross-over, which was the cause of the conflict in the first place.)

I suppose it's possible that, as part of the settlement, Hickman got some level of control of Dragonlance back, but I highly doubt it. For one thing, that would be HUGE news in the DL community, and I haven't even heard any whispers of it. Hickman himself sure hasn't said or even vaguely hinted to such a thing. But I feel the main reason I feel this way is everything I've seen of the changes made to 5E seems to suggest they are moving away from Hickman's vision of the setting, and turning it into something entirely new instead. The fact that they separated the novels from the game entirely, as well, I feel further gives evidence to that theory. I think that might have been the compromise; 'okay, you keep the novels but we'll do our own thing with the game.'

But I guess we'll see.

Two points, and then I promise I'll stop :smallsmile:

Soth's removal was definitely the doing of W & H, they put up such a stink TSR had a hard time finding a writer to handle his Ravenloft novels. After WoTC took over and confirmed, yes, he's canonically in Ravenloft, W & H kill him off, I'd call it a spite killing myself. That he was dropped from 5e demonstrates, to me at least, they were successful in exerting control.

Settlement agreement will almost universally include confidentiality terms, that the authors are being silent shouldn't be considered as indicative of anything.

[JadedDM]

Two points, and then I promise I'll stop :smallsmile:

Soth's removal was definitely the doing of W & H, they put up such a stink TSR had a hard time finding a writer to handle his Ravenloft novels. After WoTC took over and confirmed, yes, he's canonically in Ravenloft, W & H kill him off, I'd call it a spite killing myself. That he was dropped from 5e demonstrates, to me at least, they were successful in exerting control.

Settlement agreement will almost universally include confidentiality terms, that the authors are being silent shouldn't be considered as indicative of anything.

Perhaps so. Lord Soth does appear prominently on the cover of Shadow of the Dragon Queen, suggesting he is back in Dragonlance. Then again, canonically speaking, the War of the Lance occurred before he was shifted over to Sithicus, so I suppose it doesn't matter.

As for your second point, that's true. I don't personally believe that's the case here, but I will concede it's possible.

[Psyren]

In Star Wars' case, I think the Sequel Trilogy killed it, and Mandalorian was just a desperate try to resurrect the franchise to get some extra money from it... and truth to be told, I think it worked to some degree... Baby Yoda is like a million time more popular that all the characters in the Sequel Trilogy combined, and sells more toys...

If you think Star Wars is dead, I have a lovely bridge to Tattooine to sell you.


No, it isn't, but by 'make it like FR' I mean turn it into a kitchen sink fantasy setting, with no distinct flavor of its own. That you could take a standard FR party and just drop them into DL and they'd fit in just fine. Full or Orcs and Halflings and Tieflings and Dragonborn and Rock Gnomes (and...Ardlings, I guess?), where magic is completely unregulated and ubiquitous, and death is a slap on the wrist.

Forgotten Realms, but in a war, in other words. If the fact that there is a war going on is the only thing really differentiating it from any other setting, that would be very disappointing, in my view.

"Theres an active global fantasy war going on," complete with dragons as fighter jets and artifacts as WMDs, is a much bigger difference than I think you're admitting.

[Rafaelfras]

Dragonlance is romantic. It's honorable knights in shining armor, riding on the backs of magnificent dragons. It's about love, and family, and friendship. What made Dragonlance so unique at the time it was first published, is it was about story. It was the first setting that introduced the idea of telling an epic tale, with betrayal and mystery and forging bonds with your party (previously, D&D was something more like a rouge-like, a simple dungeon crawler with a heavier emphasis on combat and loot collection than roleplaying). Dragonlance was also very grounded in reality, as far as D&D settings go, anyway, especially compared to Forgotten Realms. Resurrection and Raise Dead are extremely rare. Magic is mysterious and largely alien to the vast majority of people. The big heroes, like the ones in the novels, grow old and die (if they survive that long). And not always in the most noble ways, either. Flint dropped dead of a heart attack. Tanis Half-Elven, leader of the Heroes of the Lance, gets stabbed in the back by a nameless mook. Laurana gets crushed by a giant green dragon falling on her. Tasslehoff gets stepped on by Chaos (well, sort of, it's complicated).

:eek: :frown:

I´ve read just the Chronicles trilogy, that´s sad to know. I liked all of then. Flint death during the novel was very emotional for me at the time and its the only trilogy here in my country, I never knew what happened to Tanis half elf and Laurana.
And yeah you summed up the feel of DL very well.
I liked very much the wizard orders and how magic came from the moons , the orders of high sorcery have a very nice flair to it. 3rd edition setting book was a very nice book and if it was not for Forgotten Realms Dragon Lance would be my go to setting

[JadedDM]

"Theres an active global fantasy war going on," complete with dragons as fighter jets and artifacts as WMDs, is a much bigger difference than I think you're admitting.
Well, continental, not global. Taladas and Adlatum and the other continents are largely unaffected. (Yes, I'm being pedantic, I know. :smalltongue:)

But anyway, I hope you're right. I hope it's distinct, and I hope it at least feels like original Dragonlance, on some level. I'm highly skeptical. But I guess we'll find out come December.


:eek: :frown:

I´ve just read the Chronicles trilogy, that´s sad to know. I liked all of then. Flint death during the novel was very emotional for me at the time and its the only trilogy here in my country, I never knew what happened to Tanis half elf and Laurana.
And yeah you summed up the feel of DL very well.
I liked very much the wizard orders and how magic came from the moons , the orders of high sorcery have a very nice flair to it. 3rd edition setting book was a very nice book and if it was not for Forgotten Realms Dragon Lance would be my go to setting
Ah, oops. Sorry about about the spoilers. In my defense, Tanis' death is 27 years old and Laurana's is 22 year old.

But all of the Heroes of the Lance do die eventually, in one way or another, whether through violence or even old age. It was something I liked about the series, as opposed to Forgotten Realms where Elminster, Drizzt and the other iconic characters are still alive and kicking hundreds of years later.

[Rafaelfras]

Well, continental, not global. Taladas and Adlatum and the other continents are largely unaffected. (Yes, I'm being pedantic, I know. :smalltongue:)

But anyway, I hope you're right. I hope it's distinct, and I hope it at least feels like original Dragonlance, on some level. I'm highly skeptical. But I guess we'll find out come December.


Ah, oops. Sorry about about the spoilers. In my defense, Tanis' death is 27 years old and Laurana's is 22 year old.

But all of the Heroes of the Lance do die eventually, in one way or another, whether through violence or even old age. It was something I liked about the series, as opposed to Forgotten Realms where Elminster, Drizzt and the other iconic characters are still alive and kicking hundreds of years later.

Oh no problem, those books will never come to my country, Its really not spoiler at this time. In defense of FR though we had a 100 years time jump, so a lot of human characters kicked the bucket and there is a ton NPC´s from 3rd edition that are not around anymore. But i must confess that I like Elminster and dont want him to ever die

[Brookshw]

Well, continental, not global. Taladas and Adlatum and the other continents are largely unaffected. (Yes, I'm being pedantic, I know. :smalltongue:)


Continental, not global, right up to that time the whole planet gets stolen :smallwink:

[JadedDM]

Continental, not global, right up to that time the whole planet gets stolen :smallwink:
Indeed, although that's a different war entirely, and sadly far beyond the scope of the 5E version. Which is a shame, because it would be a fun thing to explore. I've toyed with the idea of one day running a Spelljammer game set in Krynnspace, right after Krynn vanished. I love the idea of the party on their way home to Krynn after some adventures in wildspace, only to return and find the planet just gone with no explanation or any clues as to what happened to it. Just the three moons hanging in space, alone. Because you have to imagine at least some people were off-world when that happened, right? Imagine how incredibly freaky that would be.

[Brookshw]

Indeed, although that's a different war entirely, and sadly far beyond the scope of the 5E version. Which is a shame, because it would be a fun thing to explore. I've toyed with the idea of one day running a Spelljammer game set in Krynnspace, right after Krynn vanished. I love the idea of the party on their way home to Krynn after some adventures in wildspace, only to return and find the planet just gone with no explanation or any clues as to what happened to it. Just the three moons hanging in space, alone. Because you have to imagine at least some people were off-world when that happened, right? Imagine how incredibly freaky that would be.

That would be fun. Don't know how you'd work it with PS and portals, but would work well in SJ. A game where the only gods are evil could be fine as well.

Point: didn't the evil moon travel too? Or am I mis-remembering?

[JadedDM]

Point: didn't the evil moon travel too? Or am I mis-remembering?
No, all three of the moons stayed behind. When Krynn appeared at its new location, it had a new moon, a pale one with no magic to it at all, rather similar to our own. No idea what happened to it when Krynn was returned. Maybe it's still floating out there, somewhere.

[Brookshw]

No, all three of the moons stayed behind. When Krynn appeared at its new location, it had a new moon, a pale one with no magic to it at all, rather similar to our own. No idea what happened to it when Krynn was returned. Maybe it's still floating out there, somewhere.

Hehe, then you missed the mark, have your explorers find THAT moon.

[Tanarii]

Flint death during the novel was very emotional for me at the time and
Flints death and Tasselhoff's breakdown is the only time I can remember crying at something in a novel.

For movies it's the deaths at the end of Last of the Mohicans.


its the only trilogy here in my country, I never knew what happened to Tanis half elf and Laurana.Dont worry about that, everyone knows Dragons of Summer Flame was just some Fanfic that's not really canon. Even if it was written by the original authors.

[Rafaelfras]

Flints death and Tasselhoff's breakdown is the only time I can remember crying at something in a novel.

For movies it's the deaths at the end of Last of the Mohicans.

Dont worry about that, everyone knows Dragons of Summer Flame was just some Fanfic that's not really canon. Even if it was written by the original authors.

Me too! No kidding Flint death get right there in the feels, It got me all teary And I love Fizban/Paladine in that scene.

Movie is finding Neverland ending, my god I was in a bus and cried like a baby

Also for all I know The Dragon Lance chronicles is a trilogy :smallcool:

[Telok]

"Theres an active global fantasy war going on," complete with dragons as fighter jets and artifacts as WMDs, is a much bigger difference than I think you're admitting.

Gonna be a dang shame when the inevitable awesome idea of putting the PCs on dragons and blasting through enemy dragons with those lances runs into the reality that is 5e hp bloat & mounted combat rules. Unless they rewrite the whole chunk of that, but... well there's the example of their "rewrite & improve" for ship combat in SJ.

[JadedDM]

I am surprised we haven't received more details yet. It comes out in December, right? That's around the corner. I hope the news about 5.5E doesn't completely overshadow it.

Because I have so many questions. Like, will there be new mechanics for things like dragon riding or leading armies? How will Draconians work? Will it include some of the more unique races found in Dragonlance (Irda, Kyrie, Phaethons, Thanoi, Ursoi, etc.)? Or unique monsters like tylor, disir or wichtlins? I assume it will in some way involve Dragonlances, but what about flying citadels, Dragon Orbs, or the Blue Crystal Staff? Or the Staff of Magius?

Hopefully they start releasing some previews like they did with Spelljammer soon.

[Tawmis]

Hmm, OK, maybe my memory is faulty here.
Yeah, I read them as they came out. The First four, then the twins trilogy, and a whole bunch of the other novels (the one where Tanis and Kitiara were together was one of many) and IIRC there were some more that were utterly forgettable. That's rather the point that I was making.
By the time I was done reading all of those books, the shine had come off that world building. I somewhat enjoyed the Death Gate cycle, liked the Rose of the Prophet, and the Darksword books, but Krynn become for me an incoherent mess due to the wildly varying tone. By the early 2000's I preferred better writing and stopped indulging their franchise. (I still have the four original modules, three of the four are still in plastic)
Picked up another book by Weiss and Hickman a few years back, Dragonships of Vindras first book, and I could not finish it. I got about a third of the way through and just put it away.
For me that is extremely unusual. I always (with a few rare exceptions) finish books.

Heh - about to date myself - but I had a BBS called "The Nexus" and used the handle "Hugh the Hand" if that tells you how much I loved The Death Gate Cycle.
Rose of the Prophet was OK.
Darksword was great - right up to the end (where it got weird)
And Dragonships... you stopped? Oh. Man. That's a bummer.
Because... that series is so damn good.
But I love the Viking feel.



Because I have so many questions. Like, will there be new mechanics for things like dragon riding or leading armies? How will Draconians work? Will it include some of the more unique races found in Dragonlance (Irda, Kyrie, Phaethons, Thanoi, Ursoi, etc.)? Or unique monsters like tylor, disir or wichtlins? I assume it will in some way involve Dragonlances, but what about flying citadels, Dragon Orbs, or the Blue Crystal Staff? Or the Staff of Magius?
Hopefully they start releasing some previews like they did with Spelljammer soon.

Draconians are already covered in Fizban's.
As for the races, I wouldn't hold your breath. Usually new races are mentioned in the summaries.
"Dragonlance includes five new races!" is not mentioned anywhere.
The Dragon Orbs might get mentioned, similar to the two new magic items specific to Spelljammer.
Monsters may be in there (aside from the Draconians, because they're already in Fizban's).

[JadedDM]

Draconians are already covered in Fizban's.
As for the races, I wouldn't hold your breath. Usually new races are mentioned in the summaries.
"Dragonlance includes five new races!" is not mentioned anywhere.
The Dragon Orbs might get mentioned, similar to the two new magic items specific to Spelljammer.
Monsters may be in there (aside from the Draconians, because they're already in Fizban's).

I don't have Fizban's. What are they like? Did they keep their death throes? Did they give them breath weapons?

[Psyren]

Draconians are already covered in Fizban's.

Good catch, I had forgotten that.


I don't have Fizban's. What are they like? Did they keep their death throes? Did they give them breath weapons?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

They "might be taken for a dragonborn at first glance, though most kinds of draconians have wings. When draconians die, they do not go quietly. Instead, their lifeless bodies unleash a last act of magical violence." (They all have a Death Throes ability in their statblock.)

[Brookshw]

They "might be taken for a dragonborn at first glance, though most kinds of draconians have wings. When draconians die, they do not go quietly. Instead, their lifeless bodies unleash a last act of magical violence." (They all have a Death Throes ability in their statblock.)

Is it just one type, or are there still multiple? And just one death throes? No turning to stone?

[JadedDM]

Yes to the first, no to the second.

They "might be taken for a dragonborn at first glance, though most kinds of draconians have wings. When draconians die, they do not go quietly. Instead, their lifeless bodies unleash a last act of magical violence." (They all have a Death Throes ability in their statblock.)

That's actually quite a relief for me. I was deeply worried they'd just use Dragonborn as is, and call them Draconians. Which would then raise all sorts of questions, too, like...would they be playable? During the war? Because it's hard for me to fathom WotC making a core race unplayable.

[Tawmis]

Draconian Infiltrator - Black dragon looking - upon death turns into a puddle of acid
Draconian Mage - Upon death, body and bones explode
Draconian Dreadnought - Bursts into flame
Draconian Mastermind - Bursts into lightning
Draconian Foot Soldier - Turns to stone then releases gas

[JadedDM]

Draconian Infiltrator - Black dragon looking - upon death turns into a puddle of acid
Draconian Mage - Upon death, body and bones explode
Draconian Dreadnought - Bursts into flame
Draconian Mastermind - Bursts into lightning
Draconian Foot Soldier - Turns to stone then releases gas

Uh...huh. They don't call them by their subraces anymore?

Originally, Kapaks (from Copper Dragon eggs) melted into acid upon death, so I guess that's the Infiltrator. Bozaks (Bronze Dragon eggs) exploded on death, so that's the Mage. Baaz (Brass Dragon eggs) turn to stone, possibly trapping your weapon inside them if it's edged or piercing, (although the releasing gas thing is new), so I guess that's the Foot Soldier.

Not sure about bursting into flame and lightning, though. In the original, the last two types of Draconian were Aurak (Gold Dragon eggs) and Sivak (Silver Dragon eggs). Sivaks, upon death, polymorphed into their killers, thus causing confusion among enemy ranks. Auraks went into a berserker rage, and then exploded shortly after.

[Brookshw]

Draconian Infiltrator - Black dragon looking - upon death turns into a puddle of acid
Draconian Mage - Upon death, body and bones explode
Draconian Dreadnought - Bursts into flame
Draconian Mastermind - Bursts into lightning
Draconian Foot Soldier - Turns to stone then releases gas

Cool, glad there's still some difference. Thank you.

[Tawmis]

Uh...huh. They don't call them by their subraces anymore?
Originally, Kapaks (from Copper Dragon eggs) melted into acid upon death, so I guess that's the Infiltrator. Bozaks (Bronze Dragon eggs) exploded on death, so that's the Mage. Baaz (Brass Dragon eggs) turn to stone, possibly trapping your weapon inside them if it's edged or piercing, (although the releasing gas thing is new), so I guess that's the Foot Soldier.
Not sure about bursting into flame and lightning, though. In the original, the last two types of Draconian were Aurak (Gold Dragon eggs) and Sivak (Silver Dragon eggs). Sivaks, upon death, polymorphed into their killers, thus causing confusion among enemy ranks. Auraks went into a berserker rage, and then exploded shortly after.

Yeah - these 5e Draconians don't specifically come from specific single eggs... Because of the numerous dragons in 5e... and because, Dragonlance probably wasn't ready they didn't follow "Dragonlance" Draconians exactly...
So here's the break down -

Draconian Dreadnought The largest of the draconians are the dreadnoughts, who are born from the eggs of silver, blue, or sapphire dragons.
Draconian Mage Draconians born from the eggs of bronze, green, and emerald dragons have some ability to wield magic.
Draconian Infiltrator Copper, black, and topaz dragon eggs yield these sly and stealthy draconians, who often serve their creators as scouts and spies.
Draconian Foot Soldier The most numerous draconians are the foot soldiers, who are born from brass, white, or crystal dragon eggs.
Draconian Mastermind spellcasters and strategists who most often serve as military commanders or as advisors to those who created them. They emerge from gold, red, or amethyst dragon eggs, wingless but possessed of an arsenal of eldritch power.

[Psyren]

Uh...huh. They don't call them by their subraces anymore?

They are very generic in Fizban's, which is not meant to represent any one setting. They aren't even specific to metallic dragon eggs, and the book allows for the accidental or spontaneous creation of draconians by powerful magic energy corrupting or warping the eggs, presumably for people who want to use them outside of Krynn.

I expect that some of the names you mention will be in the DL book itself, though it's unclear whether you'll need FToD to get the statblocks or if they'll get reprinted over there. (One thing I prefer about PF is that the whole thing being OGL means that splat books can freely reference one another.)

[JadedDM]

I see. They made them 'setting agnostic' then. I should have anticipated that.

Hopefully they make them more setting specific for Dragonlance, when it's released.

[Tawmis]

I see. They made them 'setting agnostic' then. I should have anticipated that.
Hopefully they make them more setting specific for Dragonlance, when it's released.

Well, other than the Sivaks (which you could custom a death throw that they cast polymorph on themselves) - the others could still fit with the standard Dragonlance Draconian.
Just change they come from other specific eggs - and change their origin and colors to match the Chromatic Dragons (which they are derived from in Dragonlance).
I think the Fizban's book was to "test the waters" for Dragonlance, so the Draconians were made to fit "any D&D setting."
Which worked out for me, because I home brew my entire world - and had a mad wizard experimenting on Dragon eggs, and corrupting them to become Draconians.
But he did it on any dragon eggs he got his hands on.

It would be nice, if they at least footnoted "The XYZ Draconian found in Fizban's can optionally be called a Kopak with the following ability."

But then that makes people need the Fizban's book to get the reference...

[JadedDM]

Just change they come from other specific eggs - and change their origin and colors to match the Chromatic Dragons (which they are derived from in Dragonlance).
Actually, Dragonlance Draconians were specifically created from Metallic Dragon eggs.

(*Although there were a handful of Chromatic Draconians created toward the end of the world, when the forces of Evil started getting desperate. Oddly, the ritual warped them in the opposite direction, and the Draconians created from those eggs became Good. They were known as Noble Draconians, but are exceedingly rare.)

[Tawmis]

Actually, Dragonlance Draconians were specifically created from Metallic Dragon eggs.
(*Although there were a handful of Chromatic Draconians created toward the end of the world, when the forces of Evil started getting desperate. Oddly, the ritual warped them in the opposite direction, and the Draconians created from those eggs became Good. They were known as Noble Draconians, but are exceedingly rare.)

Mother trucker, sorry - that's what I meant, metallic.
No idea why I said Chromatic.

[gloryblaze]

Well, other than the Sivaks (which you could custom a death throw that they cast polymorph on themselves) - the others could still fit with the standard Dragonlance Draconian.
Just change they come from other specific eggs - and change their origin and colors to match the Chromatic Dragons (which they are derived from in Dragonlance).
I think the Fizban's book was to "test the waters" for Dragonlance, so the Draconians were made to fit "any D&D setting."
Which worked out for me, because I home brew my entire world - and had a mad wizard experimenting on Dragon eggs, and corrupting them to become Draconians.
But he did it on any dragon eggs he got his hands on.

It would be nice, if they at least footnoted "The XYZ Draconian found in Fizban's can optionally be called a Kopak with the following ability."

But then that makes people need the Fizban's book to get the reference...

(Bold for emphasis)

They did do that in Fizban's. For instance, here's the Infiltrator flavor text:



Copper, black, and topaz dragon eggs yield these sly and stealthy draconians, who often serve their creators as scouts and spies. They use the paralytic venom of their saliva to coat their weapons, making them formidable assassins as well. Their wings allow them to turn a fall into a rough glide. When draconian infiltrators die, their bodies dissolve into pools of acid.

On the world of Krynn, draconian infiltrators formed from copper dragon eggs are called kapak draconians.


EDIT: And the sivaks AKA dreadnoughts do still seem to have a polymorph-to-sow-confusion feature, it was just decoupled from their Death Throes.



The largest of the draconians are the dreadnoughts, who are born from the eggs of silver, blue, or sapphire dragons. They fly on mighty wings over the battlefield to wherever the fighting is the thickest. Their magical ability to change their appearance to mimic those they've slain allows them to sow confusion and despair among their enemies. When dreadnoughts are killed, their bodies burst into flames, scorching everything around them.

On the world of Krynn, draconian dreadnoughts formed from silver dragon eggs are called sivak draconians.




Shape Theft. After the draconian kills a Medium or smaller Humanoid, the draconian can magically transform itself to look and feel like that creature while retaining its game statistics (other than its size). This transformation lasts until the draconian dies or uses an action to end it.