the rule of D&D rules in Dragonlance. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

the rule of D&D rules in Dragonlance.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Jul 27, 2004 19:06:55 I had a confilct with someone about the connection of D&D to dragonlance. And I wanted to know if I am the only one thinking in my way.
Dragonlance started as a D&D game.
So basically many parts of dragonlance are effected by rules of D&D such as spells, types of dragons and so on...

But as we all know, the novels took wings and made their way without the D&D rules.

As I see it, dragonlance had allways have connection with D&D, even after the novels took their wings because the connection was very strong from the begining and left his mark.
Almost always I try to explaine situation in dragonlance with the D&D rules.
Example out of my conflict:
I said that Raistlin in his healthy mode could make a whole mass with his spells, despaite the curse of the magi. because he was high level wizards and probebly could handle the curse of the magi (based on the assumption that he had some fortitude and on the rules of curse of the magi in DLCS).
But the other man said that each magic drain some of the power of the mage and even couple of fireballs will make him faint.

Another example is also about the curse on the magi
I sai that Dalamar cast somekind of spell which apparently caused him to teleport a projection of him self and move with it freely. and he never got even fatigued for this spell.
I looked upon the Player's handbook and found the Arcan eye which is less effective but still one level higher than firball. so I said that raistlin could handle couple of fireballs.
the other man said I can make such claim from D&D rules (althogh even without the rules its sound like a higher level spell)

Anyway. I wanted to know how do you see Dragonlance.
Do you see DL with a storng connection to D&D without?
Do you think its ok to use D&D rules to explaine situations?
#2
zombiegleemax
Jul 27, 2004 19:29:03 I agree with you, but I will also disagree with you. Yes Dragonlance has very close ties with D&D. Afterall Dragonlance was Advanced D&D flagship. I'll probably take some flak for this next statement, but most Dragonlance authors take great pains to make sure that their books work with D&D system at the time they were written, except for Tracy and Margaret. Not that I mind though. It's their world so they can do what they want with it, and I love them for it. For pure storytelling reasons they don't need to follow the rules the rules need to follow them. Afterall, the story is always more important than the mechanics. That's what you see with Dalamar, Raistlin, Mina, etc. Half the things they do at the levels and abilities they're listed as are impossible.
As to the current variant of the D&D system (3.0 & 3.5) All you have to do is to look at what they did to the gnome and halfling from 2nd ED to see that there's a connection. The gnome went from a fun loving shy character to a cross between that and a tinker gnome. The halfing is more kender-like than the hobbit it was based off of.
That's how I see it. They're definately linked and will be forever just because they don't see eye to eye on everything doesn't mean they're incompatible. If that were the case I'd have been divorced long ago.
#3
zombiegleemax
Jul 27, 2004 19:46:48
Originally posted by Koranith
I agree with you, but I will also disagree with you. Yes Dragonlance has very close ties with D&D. Afterall Dragonlance was Advanced D&D flagship. I'll probably take some flak for this next statement, but most Dragonlance authors take great pains to make sure that their books work with D&D system at the time they were written, except for Tracy and Margaret. Not that I mind though. It's their world so they can do what they want with it, and I love them for it. For pure storytelling reasons they don't need to follow the rules the rules need to follow them. Afterall, the story is always more important than the mechanics. That's what you see with Dalamar, Raistlin, Mina, etc. Half the things they do at the levels and abilities they're listed as are impossible.
As to the current variant of the D&D system (3.0 & 3.5) All you have to do is to look at what they did to the gnome and halfling from 2nd ED to see that there's a connection. The gnome went from a fun loving shy character to a cross between that and a tinker gnome. The halfing is more kender-like than the hobbit it was based off of.
That's how I see it. They're definately linked and will be forever just because they don't see eye to eye on everything doesn't mean they're incompatible. If that were the case I'd have been divorced long ago.

the most important question to me I forgot to write, typcal!
I edited it. But I guess you wont read it again so I ask it once again. Do you think it allright to explaine situations in DL novals and beyond (like the examples I gave) with the D&D rules?
#4
zombiegleemax
Jul 27, 2004 20:00:14 I think one can explain most of the DL novels by refrence the PHB, DMG, or DLCS. There are just somethings though that won't work out correctly like the examples you listed. Someone else made a good point that, for example, for Raistlin to have cast the Time Reaver spell he would have needed to have been like 33rd level or something like that. Sometimes you just have to accept those inconsistencies as literarly liscense for the sake of telling a good story. Or another way of looking at it is, we are being give Astinus'/Bertrem's/Library of Palanthas version of waht happened. It's all subject to the how the writer interpets what he sees or is told (post WoS). Just like Paul Bunyan. A lumber jack by that name may have exsisted but through the many tellings he became a world famous pancake eather 12 feet tall and acquired a blue oxen (I think a kender got a hold of that story for a while). Just a thought
#5
zombiegleemax
Jul 28, 2004 10:16:15 come on people...
Dont you have any opinion on the subject ? or you just dont like my question.
#6
talinthas
Jul 28, 2004 11:06:49 well, have you read Wizard's Conclave? I can tell you what each character cast right from the PHB. Same with Temple of the Dragonslayer. DL, outside of the fifth age books, is all pure D&D rules, right down to the wizardly restrictyions. In fact, i'd go so far as to say that it is all highly chained to 1st edition rules, even now.
#7
zombiegleemax
Jul 28, 2004 12:28:20
Originally posted by talinthas
well, have you read Wizard's Conclave? I can tell you what each character cast right from the PHB. Same with Temple of the Dragonslayer. DL, outside of the fifth age books, is all pure D&D rules, right down to the wizardly restrictyions. In fact, i'd go so far as to say that it is all highly chained to 1st edition rules, even now.

thats my kind of thinking.
glad I am not all alone in this :D

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Jul 27, 2004 19:06:55	I had a confilct with someone about the connection of D&D to dragonlance. And I wanted to know if I am the only one thinking in my way. Dragonlance started as a D&D game. So basically many parts of dragonlance are effected by rules of D&D such as spells, types of dragons and so on... But as we all know, the novels took wings and made their way without the D&D rules. As I see it, dragonlance had allways have connection with D&D, even after the novels took their wings because the connection was very strong from the begining and left his mark. Almost always I try to explaine situation in dragonlance with the D&D rules. Example out of my conflict: I said that Raistlin in his healthy mode could make a whole mass with his spells, despaite the curse of the magi. because he was high level wizards and probebly could handle the curse of the magi (based on the assumption that he had some fortitude and on the rules of curse of the magi in DLCS). But the other man said that each magic drain some of the power of the mage and even couple of fireballs will make him faint. Another example is also about the curse on the magi I sai that Dalamar cast somekind of spell which apparently caused him to teleport a projection of him self and move with it freely. and he never got even fatigued for this spell. I looked upon the Player's handbook and found the Arcan eye which is less effective but still one level higher than firball. so I said that raistlin could handle couple of fireballs. the other man said I can make such claim from D&D rules (althogh even without the rules its sound like a higher level spell) Anyway. I wanted to know how do you see Dragonlance. Do you see DL with a storng connection to D&D without? Do you think its ok to use D&D rules to explaine situations?
#2 zombiegleemax Jul 27, 2004 19:29:03	I agree with you, but I will also disagree with you. Yes Dragonlance has very close ties with D&D. Afterall Dragonlance was Advanced D&D flagship. I'll probably take some flak for this next statement, but most Dragonlance authors take great pains to make sure that their books work with D&D system at the time they were written, except for Tracy and Margaret. Not that I mind though. It's their world so they can do what they want with it, and I love them for it. For pure storytelling reasons they don't need to follow the rules the rules need to follow them. Afterall, the story is always more important than the mechanics. That's what you see with Dalamar, Raistlin, Mina, etc. Half the things they do at the levels and abilities they're listed as are impossible. As to the current variant of the D&D system (3.0 & 3.5) All you have to do is to look at what they did to the gnome and halfling from 2nd ED to see that there's a connection. The gnome went from a fun loving shy character to a cross between that and a tinker gnome. The halfing is more kender-like than the hobbit it was based off of. That's how I see it. They're definately linked and will be forever just because they don't see eye to eye on everything doesn't mean they're incompatible. If that were the case I'd have been divorced long ago.
#3 zombiegleemax Jul 27, 2004 19:46:48	Originally posted by Koranith I agree with you, but I will also disagree with you. Yes Dragonlance has very close ties with D&D. Afterall Dragonlance was Advanced D&D flagship. I'll probably take some flak for this next statement, but most Dragonlance authors take great pains to make sure that their books work with D&D system at the time they were written, except for Tracy and Margaret. Not that I mind though. It's their world so they can do what they want with it, and I love them for it. For pure storytelling reasons they don't need to follow the rules the rules need to follow them. Afterall, the story is always more important than the mechanics. That's what you see with Dalamar, Raistlin, Mina, etc. Half the things they do at the levels and abilities they're listed as are impossible. As to the current variant of the D&D system (3.0 & 3.5) All you have to do is to look at what they did to the gnome and halfling from 2nd ED to see that there's a connection. The gnome went from a fun loving shy character to a cross between that and a tinker gnome. The halfing is more kender-like than the hobbit it was based off of. That's how I see it. They're definately linked and will be forever just because they don't see eye to eye on everything doesn't mean they're incompatible. If that were the case I'd have been divorced long ago. the most important question to me I forgot to write, typcal! I edited it. But I guess you wont read it again so I ask it once again. Do you think it allright to explaine situations in DL novals and beyond (like the examples I gave) with the D&D rules?
#4 zombiegleemax Jul 27, 2004 20:00:14	I think one can explain most of the DL novels by refrence the PHB, DMG, or DLCS. There are just somethings though that won't work out correctly like the examples you listed. Someone else made a good point that, for example, for Raistlin to have cast the Time Reaver spell he would have needed to have been like 33rd level or something like that. Sometimes you just have to accept those inconsistencies as literarly liscense for the sake of telling a good story. Or another way of looking at it is, we are being give Astinus'/Bertrem's/Library of Palanthas version of waht happened. It's all subject to the how the writer interpets what he sees or is told (post WoS). Just like Paul Bunyan. A lumber jack by that name may have exsisted but through the many tellings he became a world famous pancake eather 12 feet tall and acquired a blue oxen (I think a kender got a hold of that story for a while). Just a thought
#5 zombiegleemax Jul 28, 2004 10:16:15	come on people... Dont you have any opinion on the subject ? or you just dont like my question.
#6 talinthas Jul 28, 2004 11:06:49	well, have you read Wizard's Conclave? I can tell you what each character cast right from the PHB. Same with Temple of the Dragonslayer. DL, outside of the fifth age books, is all pure D&D rules, right down to the wizardly restrictyions. In fact, i'd go so far as to say that it is all highly chained to 1st edition rules, even now.
#7 zombiegleemax Jul 28, 2004 12:28:20	Originally posted by talinthas well, have you read Wizard's Conclave? I can tell you what each character cast right from the PHB. Same with Temple of the Dragonslayer. DL, outside of the fifth age books, is all pure D&D rules, right down to the wizardly restrictyions. In fact, i'd go so far as to say that it is all highly chained to 1st edition rules, even now. thats my kind of thinking. glad I am not all alone in this :D