Personally, I have to say v3.5, since I have never played DragonLance during the 1E & 2E phases. The 2nd Edition DM I used to play under had what I would describe as a collage of 1E & 2E books.
I do recall the DragonLance Adventures book by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman. From what I could tell it was a 2nd edition book. Overall, I think 2E had alot more fluff than 3E, but that is my personal opinion on the two editions(2E & 3E).
~~~
1e Dragonlance broke so many 'established' rules it was a breath of fresh air. Hill Dwarf Rangers, Silvanesti Paladins, Kagonesti Barbarians, Kender Barbarians
(I always wanted to get high enough to summon a horde of kender barbarians), Mountain Dwarf Cavaliers, Knight of Solamnia base class, Sword Knight spellcasters, specialist priests essentially before 2nd, etc. etc. etc.If I ever ran Dragonlance again it would be 1st, or possibly Castles & Crusades, now that's an idea.
Ahh, the memories. Despite what anti-Dragonlancers say, my players never played 2nd fiddle to the Heroes of the Lance.
When I think of DL though I'm always harkened to 1st Ed though. DL was fresh and new. I never actually played 1st but I had all the books for reference. I really didn't care for 2nd all that much especially Skills and Powers, even though a lot of 3rd is based of it.
I did noticed you forgot SAGA though. If I had to order them I'd say;
1st-3.x Ed
2nd-SAGA
3rd-1st Ed
4th-2nd Ed
I'll play DL in whatever form it comes in. If someone moved it to HARP, MERP, Rolemaster, RIFTs, FATAL, Toon, whatever, i'd still be at the table =)
FATAL? o_O
You'd play Dragonlance using FATAL?
I like statting out the Heroes of the Lance as much as the next guy, but I don't need that much detail. Really. No thanks. :D
never had the chance to play SAGA, but would be interested to ...
On the otherhand, the Dragonlance Campaign Setting for 3.5 is also really good. I don't have WotL (haven't found it at the local hobby shops) but my only disappointment is that it just doesn't seem to catch ANY of the flavor of the early eras if we decide to play them...as per Dragonlance Adventures. So what if someone is a Black Robe or a White Robe...Black Robes don't really advance quicker in power anymore, and end up less powerful, they all advance the same, are basically the same vanilla flavor except that they 'favor' different specializations, and even that isn't a fast and steady rule. The Holy Order of the Stars lost their distinct flavor as well overall, becoming a lot more as the generic D&D cleric with their spellcasting and abilities.
However, I like how they handle the Knightly Orders a lot. The Prestige class fits the Knightly Orders perfectly. As much as I dislike how the Wizards of High Sorcery were handled, the idea of them being a prestige class also fits, I'd just also like the flavor added by the different progressions each made. I think it's great how they've allowed more freedom with the Tinker Gnomes, and I also enjoy how they have fleshed out the bestiary as well as various races. I think there is a lot of information on the different lands as well as including the Knights of Neraka/Takhisis as PC characters.
I don't like how the Kagonesti were made to be more like the 'tame' Wild Elves of D&D 3.5 where basically, wild simply means stupid. Give them the Strength as they did in Dragonlance Adventures, as well as some of their subservience to the other elves (as in olden times they were wild, but some of them were basically servants and slaves, and you don't get that impression of the other elves scorning the kagonesti as much in 3.5).
I like how the Minotaurs are fleshed out more, probably due to their development in the books and especially due to Knaak's books and influence on the series over time.
So all in all, it becomes a toss up between DLCS and DLA for me.
Cheers,
Cam
When I think of Dragonlance gaming I think of 1e. That is where all my memorable characters are from. I had alot of fun in 2nd but 1e is home for me.
For me, most of my gaming time in DL comes from 2e, both as a DM and as a player.
If I ever ran Dragonlance again it would be 1st, or possibly Castles & Crusades, now that's an idea.
C&C would be a great system to use with DL. The knight base class would be especially nice. Plus, the bard, paladin, and ranger classes don't cast spells, so they would be well-suited for DL. I wonder if the C&C ranger would fit Tanis or not. Hrm...
Granted, there wouldn't be any rules for sorcerers or mystics, but C&C is open enough that you could create them. Perhaps the alternate spell system they talked about in the Castle Keeper's Guide would be of use there. I'm not sure what that's going to be like.
Plus, we need to see what C&C's multiclassing rules are going to be like. A knight would need to multiclass to fulfill certain roles in both knightly orders.
You would also have to create some rules for DL-specific races, too.
I've been quite pleased with what I've seen of C&C thus far. It's a good, simple system that pays homage to AD&D while taking some good parts from D&D 3rd edition. I don't think I would switch wholesale, but I would use it some here and there for yucks.
Ahh, the memories. Despite what anti-Dragonlancers say, my players never played 2nd fiddle to the Heroes of the Lance.
Same here. I never had a problem with it.
As for the topic at hand, much of which people think is the best system is based on preferences, and when one got into gaming. People who got into DL when SAGA came out probably prefer SAGA.
Personally, I feel that Dragonlance is a D&D world, and as such, should be run using a D&D system. This isn't to say that SAGA is a bad system, just one that I don't prefer for DL. Many characters and setting info in DL are based on D&D rules and archetypes. I also started playing circa the Tales of the Lance boxed set, so in my mind, DL and D&D go hand-in-hand.
Most of my time actually playing or DMing DL has been with AD&D. Granted, I had more time in those days.
These days, I prefer 3rd edition for Dragonlance. I feel that it exemplifies the world better than other editions did. Honestly, I feel that some 3rd edition rules ideas really fit DL well. Prestige classes, for example, seem to be tailor made for the setting. Considering that the KoS, KoT, and WoHS all require a test or trial prior to entering, it's a natural fit.
Go on. Try and guess.
Cheers,
Cam
WEG d6 system. :D
(Yes, I know full well you converted the HotL to that system.) lol
C&C would be a great system to use with DL. The knight base class would be especially nice. Plus, the bard, paladin, and ranger classes don't cast spells, so they would be well-suited for DL. I wonder if the C&C ranger would fit Tanis or not. Hrm....
I think the only realistic option in my mind outside of the 3.5 D&D version we have now would be Green Ronin's upcoming Blue Rose RPG, released under the Open Game License and utilizing a modified d20 system. It has only 3 classes: expert, warrior and adept, which with some additional layers of setting-specific rules would be ideal.
You could use Castles and Crusades as-is with the original 1st edition Classic modules, but you'd have next to none of the stuff you would expect to have for DL that's been in place since Dragonlance Adventures came out. Then again, you could use Hackmaster, too.
Or 1st edition AD&D. Crazy thought.
Cheers,
Cam
You could use Castles and Crusades as-is with the original 1st edition Classic modules, but you'd have next to none of the stuff you would expect to have for DL that's been in place since Dragonlance Adventures came out.
Right, you'd have to modify some of the DL-specific classes to fit. AD&D translates very well to C&C. Generally you just switch out the AC and THAC0 to BtH.
Switching 3e to C&C is a bit more difficult, and there aren't any definitive rules on adapting PrCs, feats, and skills to C&C yet. Of course, if you do all that, you may as well play a lite version of 3e.
Then again, you could use Hackmaster, too.
Or 1st edition AD&D. Crazy thought.
Or Basic D&D, or a variant on d20 Modern, or... ;)
It's just too bad WotC had to swipe DL's kender and gnomes to do it.
Right, you'd have to modify some of the DL-specific classes to fit.
Nope, you wouldn't need to. The original modules didn't use any of those, so it'd be business as usual. I'm sure you could use the knight instead of the fighter for the Solamnics - the knight's clearly supposed to replace the 1e cavalier, which is what formed the basis for DLA's knight of Solamnia.
Cheers,
Cam
Nope, you wouldn't need to. The original modules didn't use any of those, so it'd be business as usual. I'm sure you could use the knight instead of the fighter for the Solamnics - the knight's clearly supposed to replace the 1e cavalier, which is what formed the basis for DLA's knight of Solamnia.
I wasn't referring to the original mods above, but rather anything DLA on if a person was wanting to incorporate some of the DLA/TotL rules.
I agree with your assessment, though. I've heard a few people say that you can run an AD&D module and convert on the fly.
I figure the knight base class could be used for any Crown or Lily Knight in DL, and non-spellcasting Sword and Rose Knights too. To get the spellcasting abilities of any of the knighthoods, it would be a matter of multiclassing (again, TLG will be posting those rules in the future).
why is that too bad? Did DL lose anything by having kender and gnomes get folded into the core rules? I daresay the core rules gained a lot of flavor from that. DL is responsible for giving gnomes an actual archtype. How is that wrong?
I think DL did lose something. Kender and Tinker Gnomes were one of the things that really set DL apart from other settings. It was one of the shining jewels in DL's crown (along with the Knights of Solmania, Wizards of High Sorcery, Balance), and now it's lost a lot of it's luster. Taking any one of those things cheapens DL making it feel like just another setting instead of Dragonlance.
Granted in a way I also feel proud that they felt DL had something worth "handling" after the way it got shelved.
But yeah, 3.5E suffers from one drawback, and that is that Wizards lost a large portion of their unique power base to the Priest classes(when I saw the new spell lists for the classes, I was a major opponent of 3.5). Thankfully DL has been good to me with giving me unique Wizard spells that are really powerful. Wizards have the worst spell progression, IMO, for a reason and that is because their spells are lots more powerful. Clerics get, on average, two more spells per day per level more than the Wizard. Giving them formerly exclusive Wizard spells diminishes that and I dislike that.
One of the cruelest spell combos I have come up with is Hold Person + Raistlin's Wheel of Flame. Cast Hold Person on them, then put them at the epicenter of the spell, and watch them progressively take 1d6 x Caster Level factorial damage. Especially since they should not be able to make reflex saves since they are incapacitated.
Casting Hold person is a neat idea, but the guy gets a saving throw each round, I just dont foresee someone failing that whole time to get to a point where you are doing massivies amount of damage. If he fails for 4 rounds, he's had 1d6+2d6+3d6+4d6 or 10d6 damage. While thats pretty good, it requires you to cast two spells. And you could have probably have just cast a fireball. You have to be 11th level to cast Raistlin's Wheel of Fire, and with just one fireball you would do 10d6 right away. With the person getting the same kind of saving throw, reflex. I mean its possible the guy could fail over and over again, but I would think that would be pretty rare to fail more than 4 rounds in a row. But of course it is possible and would cause a little bit of hurt. That getting up to the major damage is what irks me =\. Wish it would have started at 3d6 or so. But over time, cumulative damage of 1d6+CL factorial is pretty cool.. if the person actually stays in the area.
*edit* But you do possibly affect other people at the same time... but then again so does Fireball. All in one shot. Makes a neat spell to maybe herd someone, if you dont want them going a certain way, the longer they wait the more damage they take if they decide to.
)That old hardcover with Tanis and Soth on the cover was the best accessory of its days. Even today, I can't help but feel impressed whenever I (re-)read it.
A change here or there is good, as I was saying when talking about the robe colors, but it seems as if WoTC, and other d20 companies, is just throwing a whole bunch of stuff out to clutter up a campaign while providing no ROLE PLAYING opportunities. I would prefer that a PC distinguish his/her character by picking a regular fighter, and afterwards ROLE PLAYING them differently than any other fighter.
It seems with 3E that players think feats, skill points, and dozens of new races can do the role playing for them; hence the role playing portion of the game gets neglected. 3E also seems to have created a good deal of "whiney gamers", which is not a good thing.
~~~
I'm not sure why ROLE PLAYING is in all caps, but whatever.
Cheers,
Cam
I think the ROLE PLAYING happens whether you have options or not.
If anything, the trick in our group is to get people to knock off the roleplaying, 3.5 options and all.
If anything, the trick in our group is to get people to knock off the roleplaying, 3.5 options and all.
Yeah, the roleplaying really gets in the way of our hack and slash fests. Man. I wish they'd just focus on their little lead painted minis and roll the dice and get on with it.
Wait, no I don't. My gaming group rules from orbit.
Carry on,
Cam
I wish they'd just focus on their little lead painted minis and roll the dice and get on with it.
What are you saying? Are you saying people don't like the minis I've painted?
(And you and Amanda.)Oh wait, no, the minis are fine. Folks just don't notice them, they're distracted by the story you're putting together.
To post something on-topic, 3.X is the only one i played, and i really like it's Dragonlance. I will never play in Core D&D again.
For me, most of my gaming time in DL comes from 2e, both as a DM and as a player.
C&C would be a great system to use with DL. The knight base class would be especially nice. Plus, the bard, paladin, and ranger classes don't cast spells, so they would be well-suited for DL. I wonder if the C&C ranger would fit Tanis or not. Hrm...
Granted, there wouldn't be any rules for sorcerers or mystics, but C&C is open enough that you could create them. Perhaps the alternate spell system they talked about in the Castle Keeper's Guide would be of use there. I'm not sure what that's going to be like.
Plus, we need to see what C&C's multiclassing rules are going to be like. A knight would need to multiclass to fulfill certain roles in both knightly orders.
You would also have to create some rules for DL-specific races, too.
As for the topic at hand, much of which people think is the best system is based on preferences, and when one got into gaming. People who got into DL when SAGA came out probably prefer SAGA.
Personally, I feel that Dragonlance is a D&D world, and as such, should be run using a D&D system. This isn't to say that SAGA is a bad system, just one that I don't prefer for DL. Many characters and setting info in DL are based on D&D rules and archetypes. I also started playing circa the Tales of the Lance boxed set, so in my mind, DL and D&D go hand-in-hand.
Most of my time actually playing or DMing DL has been with AD&D. Granted, I had more time in those days.
These days, I prefer 3rd edition for Dragonlance. I feel that it exemplifies the world better than other editions did. Honestly, I feel that some 3rd edition rules ideas really fit DL well. Prestige classes, for example, seem to be tailor made for the setting. Considering that the KoS, KoT, and WoHS all require a test or trial prior to entering, it's a natural fit.
Agreed Dragonhelm. C&C would be a good fit. I've already created stats for Irda, without a doubt my favorite race in all D&Ddom. I also agree that Dragonlance was always a D&D world.
I also like the customization of 3.x edition. I ran a Dragonlance campaign shortly after 3e was released, but it wasn't a typical 'world as we know it'. You see, I really hated what was done with DL for saga, so I had an alternate history thing happen. In the old 2e Chronomancer accessory, Krynn was described as having nodes, which were essentially places along the River of Time that were significant events.
Well, I had the Chaos War be one of these nodes. When the gods left they took some of their followers from each race and went and created a new world, patterned after the old one. The beauty of it was that I could have what I loved about Dragonlance, like Wizards of High Sorcery, Irda, racial cultures etc., while adding in stuff I've always wanted to.
I had rules and mechanics for the way I thought Dragonlance should be done in 3.x and that's enough for me. It's the main reason I haven't bought the books by Sovereign Press, because they didn't do 'MY VISION" (jk) and I really didn't need them, even for the fluff, as my timeline was so divergent.
Agreed Dragonhelm. C&C would be a good fit. I've already created stats for Irda, without a doubt my favorite race in all D&Ddom.
I'm going to see how Troll Lord Games would feel about the Nexus hosting C&C rules for Dragonlance. While our focus is definitely 3e, I'm not opposed to hosting materials from AD&D, SAGA, or C&C (TLG willing).
I also like the customization of 3.x edition. I ran a Dragonlance campaign shortly after 3e was released, but it wasn't a typical 'world as we know it'. You see, I really hated what was done with DL for saga, so I had an alternate history thing happen. In the old 2e Chronomancer accessory, Krynn was described as having nodes, which were essentially places along the River of Time that were significant events.
Chronomancer was a cool product.
One of the things I try to promote with the site is the idea of multiple views of Dragonlance. While that's sometimes rules, that also goes into the idea of alternate histories and alternate ways of looking at the setting. If you're up for it, feel free to write up your alternate take and send it in.
I had rules and mechanics for the way I thought Dragonlance should be done in 3.x and that's enough for me. It's the main reason I haven't bought the books by Sovereign Press, because they didn't do 'MY VISION" (jk) and I really didn't need them, even for the fluff, as my timeline was so divergent.
Still, I would think they might offer up some new ideas. Besides, they're just so damn cool! ;)
Which edition of DragonLance do you like best: 1E, 2E, or 3E(v3.5) ?
3e. Not a fan of the Nonweapon Proficiency System, and the segregated dual-class/multiclassing system.
I have to say that I wasn't really a fan of the First edition, maybe because it's a little before my time, and I went back to it after I had started playing 2nd edition and used TotL.
Go on. Try and guess.
I'm going to agree with Cam here. The new books are what got me into it.
I've run it in under 1e, 2e (very briefly), Rolemaster and under 3.5E.
I can say that the current version of D&D - and of DragonLance - is hands down easily the best. It is not even close, IMO.
3.x gives more options and optional rules, but I think 2nd edition is my favorite if for no other reason than that was when we made the most memorable characters of any roleplaying game I've ever played, and had the most fun. 10-15 years later, we still get a bit of nostalgia whenever we bring up those old characters, and have even gone so far as having them as local legendary heroes that have made cameo appearances in DL games since. *sighs* Ahh, the good old days.
Yeah, my friends and I had a game like that too. It was the one we measured all others by.
Funny thing is, my current character is the son of my old character. By tying in my new character's history to the old game, I was able to flesh out his background quite well.
Yeah, my friends and I had a game like that too. It was the one we measured all others by.
Funny thing is, my current character is the son of my old character. By tying in my new character's history to the old game, I was able to flesh out his background quite well.
Yuppers. Our old group was comprised of a half elf fighter, a minotaur fighter, a kender rogue, a human wizard, a dimernesti fighter/rogue and a pixie with a faerie dragon 'pet'. The character interaction there was priceless. You had the Madmartigan ('Willow' character) style aloof half elf. An honor bound stoic minotaur with a 'fondness' for alcohol, a swaggering dimernesti, an altruistic naive wizard, the mischievous kender, and to top it all off, a pixie and her pet faerie dragon that created illusions both to benefit us, and hinder us alternately for fun. Sometimes highly unpredictable gaming sessions, but always memorable. Gawd, I miss that group sometimes. That gives me an idea for a new thread...
I'd also like to mention SAGA, I only have a small hands-on experience with playing the SAGA-system but I wonder if it had succeeded if it didn't come tied up with the Fifth Age. I like the system well enough to have used it in some special 2e and even 3e sessions (mass combat mostly).
Setting-wise however, things are not so clear cut. While I love 3.5's version because of its greater emphasis (but not enough in my book) on geography and fleshing out the world, I have to say that 2e is probably my favourite in terms of "fantastical feel". Perhaps this harkens back to D&D 3e's alleged mechanic, almost nutered, behaviour.