Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
You're missing my point.
Why is this FTD choice "more generic" or "generalized" in a way that necessitates changing what the Dragonlance source material said? If you want to include more dragon types, that's fine and dandy; you still should make sure that the Dragonlance source lore is consistent with it. If, for example, the Dragonlance Source Lore says that a Draconian made from a Gold Dragon has the midas touch (I know it doesn't say that, but bear with me), then when you make it more general to include additioanl dragon types, you retain the "petrifying touch" draconian type, and specify that it comes from gold dragons plus whatever others you group with it that aren't present in Dragonlance's lore. Maybe with some special text that the petrification takes the form of the dragon's associated material.
That way, you have no "wait, what?" questions about why gold draconians no longer have the midas touch. In this example.
To "generalize" something in a way that breaks the original, less general lore, requires that there be something in extrinsic lore you need to find a way to reconcile. You might drop some overly-specific things that don't work in general, but you shouldn't just make up new stuff that breaks with existing source material for no reason and then say, "Generaization!" as your excuse.
What makes the new stuff "more general" than the old stuff in a way that requires the old lore be broken to accommodate it? Why couldn't the old lore have been used to make the basis of the more general lore, such that backwards compatibility is maintained?
"It's more general" is actually a false statement, because nothing about the new abilities is somehow more general, except by declaring it to apply to non-Dragonlance draconians. It could have been equally general if it were the exact same abilities as Dragonlance draconians...unless I'm missing something. (I confess to not being well-versed in Dragonlance lore. I am only reacting to how poor I find the argument of, "It's more general!" to be in this case.)
I am a huge Dragonlance fan (got about 80 DL books sitting behind me).
As for more than "to make it more general" - I was indicating that because more than one type of dragon makes a specific draconian (where as in DL, one type of dragon made each kind (for example: Kapak draconians are the result of corrupting the eggs of copper dragons) - and with these Draconians, they didn't limit it to the Metallic Dragons (which Dragonlance did). This included all the existing dragons and the types of Draconians they'd make. So I feel like, as a result, because it's not just one BASE Dragon making a Draconian, they changed things around. As for changing it, yes, there's a whole novel series - but Draconians in D&D, haven't existed since 2nd Edition. So by adding other dragons to it, and making these changes, did not bother me. If I need a replica of the Dragonlance ones, I at least have a BASE Draconian to base it off - and just make the death throw change. If I need it to be petrification - I do that - make it a Dexterity Save to pull your weapon free, before it turns to stone, or whatever.

I see it because they may not expect people to play "true Dragonlance" - for example, someone in my "Need a character background" thread asked me to write an Aasimar Beserker for a Dragonlance campaign - and my head was spinning on how to make that work, because there are no Aasimar in Dragonlance (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...&postcount=990). Or Tieflings. But people are probably going to want to play them in the Dragonlance setting. So there are going to be changes to - sorry, to say it again - "generalize" things. And that will include making changes to monsters, races (for example, I doubt Kender will be 100% immune to all forms of fear, as they are written).

So by adding a mixed stew of all these different dragons, that create each of these specific Draconians, I didn't mind.

The names are also different than they are from Dragonlance.

Maybe that's intentional. Maybe the Dragonlance campaign will have versions of Draconians that are more aligned to the Dragonlance campaign (Sivaks, Kapal, Baaz, etc). Maybe they won't - and in the campaign stuff - it will be Draconian Dreadnaughts, or whatever.

I, personally, don't see the big issue, myself.

And I am a Dragonlance fan. As I said before.

If others are bothered, at least there's a base for each Draconian for which you can customize if you want (if the Dragonlance doesn't provide "true" Draconians).