Dragonlance: Shadows of the Dragon Queen

[Sparky McDibben]

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

Well, crap.

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Libertad]

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

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[P. G. Macer]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

[t209]

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

[Psyren]

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

Dislike of Kender is indeed well-documented.

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

[Libertad]

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

[Unoriginal]

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

[stoutstien]

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

[Brookshw]

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

So, in other words, Dragonlance

[Sparky McDibben]

So, in other words, Dragonlance

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

[Witty Username]

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

Well that brings sadness to me.

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

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

So, in other words, Dragonlance

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

[JadedDM]

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

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

[Brookshw]

Dragonlance is not nearly as railroady as its reputation suggests.

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

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

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

[Sparky McDibben]

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

[JadedDM]

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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

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

Being flummoxed that your party just bumped into a vampire is one thing. Having a strong sense that the vampire just shouldn't be there for meta reasons is another.

[Sparky McDibben]

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

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

[JadedDM]

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

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

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

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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