Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Dragonlance Conversion Rules for D&D 5th Edition by Kentti

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    11

    Default Dragonlance Conversion Rules for D&D 5th Edition by Kentti

    Hello everyone!

    I've converted a lot of information for the 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons and I thought I'd share the conversions with you all. Included are races, classes, factions, coinage, item prices in steel, special materials, magic items, spells, and monsters. The information is raw data but you can find background information from previously published works by Wizards of the Coast and TSR, Inc.

    I've used various sources for my conversion work, mainly the Dragonlance Campaign Setting for the 3rd Edition D&D (all the sourcebooks), Unearthed Arcana articles on Wizards of the Coast website, and 2nd Edition AD&D Dragonlance material. Some information can be found from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and the Elemental Evil Player's Companion that can be downloaded from Wizards of the Coast website.

    Comments are much appreciated. I'll probably do more monster conversions in the future but for now these conversions are enough for my personal campaign use. Cheers!

    http://www.kurry.fi/viki/index.php/D...ns_(by_Kentti)

    The PDFs were made by using the awesome The Homebrewery by Natural Crit that can be found here: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,826

    Default

    Great job! Looks really professional. If you want feedback I'll start with the races.

    Dark Dwarves: I would give the ability bonus to Intelligence or Charisma to make them better Wizards or Warlocks. Magic use is what differentiates Dark Dwarves from the other clans. Daegar are generally thieves and necromancers, while the Thiewar are Black Robed Wizards (or Warlocks perhaps).

    Gully Dwarves: Negative ability scores aren't generally done in 5e, but if you want to use them you gotta balance out the penalty. You lose 4 points towards your ability scores for some fairly minor powers of grovelling and hiding, which is not enough compensation to make this race viable. Also, you don't need to repeat "Dwarven resilience" as Gully Dwarves are a subrace of dwarf so they already have it.

    Half-Dwarves: Looks good.

    Sea Elves: I would probably lose the sea porpise and sea otter shapechanging. Not particularly useful most of the time, and better off being done as a druid's wildshape. I would probably prefer to use the Triton from Volo's guide to represent a sea elf if I'm honest.

    Kender: I would put a +1 to wisdom in Afflicted Kender (better for clerics, paladins, rangers) and a +1 Con to true kender (making them harder to kill) I don't see the need for a +1 Charisma for either subspecies.
    I would replace Taunt with Lucky for the True Kender, since Afflicted Kender have proven themselves to not be so lucky after all. Taunt is also problematic for Kender because that ability suits paladin or fighter builds better than rogue builds. I also am not too keen on making roleplaying choices so hardwired into racial abilities. I would also keep kender nimbleness as a general trait for both subspecies as it is for the halfling. I notice you didn't use the Stout halfling's resilience. Perhaps if not for poison damage, perhaps to psychic damage would be appropriate. I still like that Afflicted Kender are brave and true kender are fearless though.

    Gnomes: Don't see any real difference between the 5e rock gnomes and the Forest gnomes just lost illusion magic. There isn't any reason to have mad gnomes because tinkers don't have crazy inventions anyway so why bother rewriting it? Just let people know they can find tinker (rock) gnomes and wild (forest) gnomes in the Player's Handbook.

    Centaurs: A few problems. The Centaur being large is game breaking, which is why the new Firbolg race in Volo's Guide is only considered to be medium, even though he is a giant-kin. Large creatures use Large weapons and instantly become twice as powerful as fighters, rangers, and paladins. So you need powerful build (I carry stuff as if I am large, but I'm not really). Also, 50 ft movement is really fast. 40 is fast enough with his natural weapons and is the same speed as a 5e horse. The Wendle Centaur is disappointing because he is exactly like the regular centaur but does less damage. So why would I ever choose to be a Wendle? He should at least have natural armor (since wendle centaurs had bony chest plates in 2e) to make up for his lack of attack power.

    The Draconians are great actually. Not sure why they have disease immunity though as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the races' traditional character traits. I would probably replace that with the Lizardman's natural armor ability from Volo's guide and it should still be fine. Very smart to leave it to just the Baaz and Kapaks as playable races.

    Goblin Races: Can't be bothered.

    Irda: I would do a +2 Cha/+1 Strength build for Irda. They are supposed to be the most beautiful of all the races, and there needs to be a nod to their Ogre blood in there somewhere. Polymorphing to a Large creature at will is also problematic due to the weapon size issue. Disguise self and powerful build like the Firbolg has in Volo's Guide would be better. I would also beef up the Irda magic. All the spells are largely for roleplaying, something from the illusion school that is useful in combat would be good as well.

    Ogre: Might be better as a monster, but if we have to have it, I would use the half-orc from the PHB or the Volo's Guide Goliath as templates. Again, there is a game breaking problem with large size.

    Half-ogre: Use the Half-orc.

    Minotaur: I would merge the two subraces together as one medium sized creature, taking the best abilities. Hammering Horns is sort of repeating the theme of Goring rush, so it would be better to replace it with something emphasizing their strength or constitution rather than their horns. Keep Labyrinthine Recall, cool racial ability you won't find anywhere else.

    A general note: You seem to have darkvision on everything because everything had darkvision in 3e. I would keep darkvision only for specifically underground races such as goblins and dwarves and take it off High Ogres, Draconians, Centaurs etc, replacing it with something more interesting.
    The official canon of Dragonlance, for a variety of reasons, is not as good as it could be. I do it better.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bastion and Parts North
    Posts
    11,883

    Default

    It occurs to me that you could add a racial trait that makes gully dwarves suffer disadvantage when using Intelligence ability checks or skill checks, and that would probably do all that you'd need to do in order to represent their well-known problems with reasoning. You can then have fairly cunning gully dwarves with higher Intelligence, it's just that they're hindered. And because disadvantage is canceled out with advantage, anything that confers advantage on their Intelligence ability checks or skill checks during play would negate it.

    To offset that drawback, you could just give them advantage on Dexterity ability checks and skill checks. That's pretty potent but doesn't overwhelm them in contrast to any other high-Dexterity race, and it surely reflects how squirrely they seem to be. And it'd not affect combat or anything like that, either.

    Cheers,
    Cam
    Moderator | Member - Whitestone Council
    Visit Atlas Games for information about Gloom, Once Upon a Time, Ars Magica, Over the Edge, Feng Shui, and many other card games & RPGs!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Castle Eastwatch
    Posts
    16,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cam Banks View Post
    It occurs to me that you could add a racial trait that makes gully dwarves suffer disadvantage when using Intelligence ability checks or skill checks, and that would probably do all that you'd need to do in order to represent their well-known problems with reasoning. You can then have fairly cunning gully dwarves with higher Intelligence, it's just that they're hindered. And because disadvantage is canceled out with advantage, anything that confers advantage on their Intelligence ability checks or skill checks during play would negate it.

    To offset that drawback, you could just give them advantage on Dexterity ability checks and skill checks. That's pretty potent but doesn't overwhelm them in contrast to any other high-Dexterity race, and it surely reflects how squirrely they seem to be. And it'd not affect combat or anything like that, either.

    Cheers,
    Cam
    I was thinking the same thing on disadvantage with Intelligence, but I wasn't totally sure how to balance it. What would you say to having advantage be for Constitution instead? They can eat garbage and survive, after all.
    Trampas Whiteman
    ---DragonHelm--->



    Long Live the Lance!

    "Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Dragonlance Nexus!"
    -David "Big Mac" Shepheard

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Stafford, UK
    Posts
    3,078

    Default

    I read somewhere that the new Volo's Guide to Monsters has example of monstrous creatures as PCs, and they explicitly get penalties to ability scores. Might be worth checking to get some inspiration.
    It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you [...] YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER.
    E. G. Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, 1979.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Dark Dwarves: I would give the ability bonus to Intelligence or Charisma to make them better Wizards or Warlocks. Magic use is what differentiates Dark Dwarves from the other clans. Daegar are generally thieves and necromancers, while the Thiewar are Black Robed Wizards (or Warlocks perhaps).
    Thanks for the feedback! I'm basing a lot of these conversions on Races of Krynn book. In 3rd edition, dark dwarves get +2 Con, -4 Cha, and +2 bonus to Hide, Listen, and Move Silently checks. Their favored class is rogue. Theiwar are indeed often black-robed wizards (or sorcerers/warlocks in eras of play where it's possible). I'd go with +1 Wisdom because their stealthiness is taken care of by giving them proficiency in the Stealth skill and giving them an increase in Wisdom is in tune with their 3rd edition +2 to Listen checks. Charisma bonus wouldn't be plausible because in 3rd edition you get -4 to Cha which is a huge decrease. As Theiwar are the only clan who are drawn to arcane arts and the rest of the dark dwarf clans do not, I wouldn't give them an Intelligence increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Gully Dwarves: Negative ability scores aren't generally done in 5e, but if you want to use them you gotta balance out the penalty. You lose 4 points towards your ability scores for some fairly minor powers of grovelling and hiding, which is not enough compensation to make this race viable. Also, you don't need to repeat "Dwarven resilience" as Gully Dwarves are a subrace of dwarf so they already have it.
    I just got my copy of Volo's Guide to Monsters and as there are races that have reductions in their starting abilities. Gully dwarves are tough to convert and to make a balanced race because in 3rd edition they're not. They get -4 to Int and Cha. Gully dwarves are basically a dwarf subrace, but in game terms they differ from regular dwarves so much that they're practically a race of their own. They got Dex increase and their size is Small when regular dwarves are Medium size. That's why I had to write all the racial traits and that's why I left out that they're a dwarf subrace. They have as much traits as dwarves but I could add one trait to make up to their reductions to Int and Cha. I changed the Pitiable trait to Grovel, Cower, and Beg trait found from Volo's Guide to Monsters, the same trait kobolds have. I also added the Nimble Escape trait from goblins to balance the reduction on abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Sea Elves: I would probably lose the sea porpise and sea otter shapechanging. Not particularly useful most of the time, and better off being done as a druid's wildshape. I would probably prefer to use the Triton from Volo's guide to represent a sea elf if I'm honest.
    I wouldn't lose sea elves' shapechanging trait because the trait is integral of being a sea elf on Krynn. I changed the name of the trait to Change Shape. Surface Sensitivity trait is a big negative trait that balances the ability to change shape quite well. In addition, as Dargonesti elves would be too powerful, their innate spellcasting is a feat, the same way as Svirfneblins in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Kender: I would put a +1 to wisdom in Afflicted Kender (better for clerics, paladins, rangers) and a +1 Con to true kender (making them harder to kill) I don't see the need for a +1 Charisma for either subspecies.
    I would replace Taunt with Lucky for the True Kender, since Afflicted Kender have proven themselves to not be so lucky after all. Taunt is also problematic for Kender because that ability suits paladin or fighter builds better than rogue builds. I also am not too keen on making roleplaying choices so hardwired into racial abilities. I would also keep kender nimbleness as a general trait for both subspecies as it is for the halfling. I notice you didn't use the Stout halfling's resilience. Perhaps if not for poison damage, perhaps to psychic damage would be appropriate. I still like that Afflicted Kender are brave and true kender are fearless though.
    The conversion of Kender has been taken directly from the D&D Next Playtest document in addition to Halfling race from 5e PHB. In 3rd edition, Kender have +2 DEX, -2 STR, -2 WIS. The +1 Charisma is in the playtest document probably because Taunt trait is Charisma-based. Some racial traits in 5e are combat oriented, for example goblins' Fury of the Small. Making Kender Nimbleness, as per the Halfling trait, as a common Kender trait sounds good, I'll change that. I'll also add Lucky as a True Kender trait and I forgot to add Taunt and Kender Pockets to Afflicted Kender which I added. In 3rd edition Afflicted Kender have both, they don't just get a bonus to Taunt. Taunt is as iconic Kender trait as Fearlessness and it would be a shame to lose it. The Kender have one more trait more than Halflings making them more powerful. That's why I'll lose Lucky for True Kender as when they say "Ooops", it should have a meaning, and Naturally Stealthy for Afflicted Kender.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Gnomes: Don't see any real difference between the 5e rock gnomes and the Forest gnomes just lost illusion magic. There isn't any reason to have mad gnomes because tinkers don't have crazy inventions anyway so why bother rewriting it? Just let people know they can find tinker (rock) gnomes and wild (forest) gnomes in the Player's Handbook.
    A fair point. I changed Tinker and Mad Gnomes to having the same traits as rock gnomes and Wild Gnomes to have the same traits as forest gnomes in 5e.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Centaurs: A few problems. The Centaur being large is game breaking, which is why the new Firbolg race in Volo's Guide is only considered to be medium, even though he is a giant-kin. Large creatures use Large weapons and instantly become twice as powerful as fighters, rangers, and paladins. So you need powerful build (I carry stuff as if I am large, but I'm not really). Also, 50 ft movement is really fast. 40 is fast enough with his natural weapons and is the same speed as a 5e horse. The Wendle Centaur is disappointing because he is exactly like the regular centaur but does less damage. So why would I ever choose to be a Wendle? He should at least have natural armor (since wendle centaurs had bony chest plates in 2e) to make up for his lack of attack power.
    I'll mention in Centaur Weapon Training that any weapon a Centaur uses is considered to be a Medium-sized creature weapon because they are basically Medium-sized humanoids from the waist up. This is also taken into consideration in the 5e Monster Manual. 5e Centaur has a 50 ft. speed, only Draft Horse is slower at 40 ft. Warhorse and Riding Horse have 60 ft. speed. In 3rd edition, Centaurs of Krynn have darkvision but I got rid of it because 5e Centaurs do not have it. I gave Natural Armor to Wendle Centaurs the same way as Lizardfolk have in Volo's Guide to Monsters and because they have natural armor in 3e.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    The Draconians are great actually. Not sure why they have disease immunity though as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the races' traditional character traits. I would probably replace that with the Lizardman's natural armor ability from Volo's guide and it should still be fine. Very smart to leave it to just the Baaz and Kapaks as playable races.
    In 3e Baaz and Kapaks were the only playable races, the rest are too powerful. Baaz and Kapaks have Disease Immunity in 3e. In addition, they are immune to sleep and paralysis effects but I didn't incorporate that trait into the conversion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Goblin Races: Can't be bothered.
    The goblin races now use traits found in Volo's Guide to Monsters.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Irda: I would do a +2 Cha/+1 Strength build for Irda. They are supposed to be the most beautiful of all the races, and there needs to be a nod to their Ogre blood in there somewhere. Polymorphing to a Large creature at will is also problematic due to the weapon size issue. Disguise self and powerful build like the Firbolg has in Volo's Guide would be better. I would also beef up the Irda magic. All the spells are largely for roleplaying, something from the illusion school that is useful in combat would be good as well.
    A good point, Irda are now +2 Cha but I gave them +1 Int because in 3e they have -2 CON, +2 INT, +2 CHA. I changed Change Shape trait so that they can only change to a Small or Medium size humanoid. The spells are converted from 3e Irda that can cast dancing lights, detect language, flare, ghost sound, light, and mage hand spells once per day.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Ogre: Might be better as a monster, but if we have to have it, I would use the half-orc from the PHB or the Volo's Guide Goliath as templates. Again, there is a game breaking problem with large size.
    As Fallen Ogres have only darkvision and ogre weapon training, and 40 ft. speed, their Large size isn't overpowering.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Half-ogre: Use the Half-orc.
    Good idea, I'll do that. Only Languages change from Common and Orc to Common and Ogre.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Minotaur: I would merge the two subraces together as one medium sized creature, taking the best abilities. Hammering Horns is sort of repeating the theme of Goring rush, so it would be better to replace it with something emphasizing their strength or constitution rather than their horns. Keep Labyrinthine Recall, cool racial ability you won't find anywhere else.
    As Thoradorian Minotaurs are about the same as the Minotaur monster in the Monster Manual, they closely resemble the monster. They are Large and have ability decreases to balance that out somewhat. The normal two Minotaurs differ so much that they are two different species. The "normal" Minotaur is taken almost exactly from the Unearthed Arcana: Waterborne Adventures write-up.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    A general note: You seem to have darkvision on everything because everything had darkvision in 3e. I would keep darkvision only for specifically underground races such as goblins and dwarves and take it off High Ogres, Draconians, Centaurs etc, replacing it with something more interesting.
    That is not always true. I'm going to correct the situation by giving darkvision only to races or monsters that have darkvision in 5e. Elves in 3e had only low-light vision (except Krynn elves which had 30 ft. darkvision).

    But I'd like to thank you for your input on races of Krynn! Your suggestions made me do several changes and all for the better. Looking forward to hearing feedback from other areas too!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I'll inform you when I have made changes to the Races of Krynn file.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kentti View Post
    Thanks for the feedback! I'm basing a lot of these conversions on Races of Krynn book. In 3rd edition, dark dwarves get +2 Con, -4 Cha, and +2 bonus to Hide, Listen, and Move Silently checks. Their favored class is rogue. Theiwar are indeed often black-robed wizards (or sorcerers/warlocks in eras of play where it's possible). I'd go with +1 Wisdom because their stealthiness is taken care of by giving them proficiency in the Stealth skill and giving them an increase in Wisdom is in tune with their 3rd edition +2 to Listen checks. Charisma bonus wouldn't be plausible because in 3rd edition you get -4 to Cha which is a huge decrease. As Theiwar are the only clan who are drawn to arcane arts and the rest of the dark dwarf clans do not, I wouldn't give them an Intelligence increase.
    Okay, but if you give them a wisdom increase, the race becomes predisposed to playing druids, clerics, rangers and paladins.

    How about a dexterity boost since the Duegar/Thiewar/Zhakar are described as sneaky? A con/dex build would favour brutish rogues. You could also do a sidebar talking about dwarven savants, and give the option for a player to choose a +1 intelligence bonus instead of Dexterity to cover the magic using dwarves.


    I just got my copy of Volo's Guide to Monsters and as there are races that have reductions in their starting abilities. Gully dwarves are tough to convert and to make a balanced race because in 3rd edition they're not. They get -4 to Int and Cha. Gully dwarves are basically a dwarf subrace, but in game terms they differ from regular dwarves so much that they're practically a race of their own. They got Dex increase and their size is Small when regular dwarves are Medium size. That's why I had to write all the racial traits and that's why I left out that they're a dwarf subrace. They have as much traits as dwarves but I could add one trait to make up to their reductions to Int and Cha. I changed the Pitiable trait to Grovel, Cower, and Beg trait found from Volo's Guide to Monsters, the same trait kobolds have. I also added the Nimble Escape trait from goblins to balance the reduction on abilities.
    That should make it better. I have to say that I hate gully dwarves as written traditionally. I think they are embarrassing for the setting and should probably be reworked into something else.

    I wouldn't lose sea elves' shapechanging trait because the trait is integral of being a sea elf on Krynn. I changed the name of the trait to Change Shape. Surface Sensitivity trait is a big negative trait that balances the ability to change shape quite well. In addition, as Dargonesti elves would be too powerful, their innate spellcasting is a feat, the same way as Svirfneblins in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
    Eh... well they were a monster first. The only reason that someone decided to stick porpoise shapechanging on them was because they were being clever about the association of mermaids and dolphins and how the latter could be confused with the former. But when sea elves showed up in the novels, they didn't really use the whole porpoise thing. That's why I'd keep the shapechanging for the druids myself. More to the point, the triton looks like more fun to play than yours.

    The +1 Charisma is in the playtest document probably because Taunt trait is Charisma-based.
    Taunt is as iconic Kender trait as Fearlessness and it would be a shame to lose it.
    I guess it isn't too bad because you get attacked with disadvantaged, so it isn't a death sentence for a rogue after all. But it is still better for paladin and fighter builds than for thieves. I also rather hate kender being pigeon-holed with one type of personality, so I would be glad to lose it.

    I certainly wouldn't give taunt to the afflicted kender. They have always been depicted as suspicious, quiet and withdrawn. Taunt seems to have a certain reckless boisterousness that afflicted kender have been traumatized out of.

    The Kender have one more trait more than Halflings making them more powerful. That's why I'll lose Lucky for True Kender as when they say "Ooops", it should have a meaning, and Naturally Stealthy for Afflicted Kender.
    Yeah, Lucky seems to be something that the Kender shouldn't have at all.

    I'll mention in Centaur Weapon Training that any weapon a Centaur uses is considered to be a Medium-sized creature weapon because they are basically Medium-sized humanoids from the waist up. This is also taken into consideration in the 5e Monster Manual.
    Yeah that's a good solution.

    5e Centaur has a 50 ft. speed, only Draft Horse is slower at 40 ft. Warhorse and Riding Horse have 60 ft. speed. In 3rd edition, Centaurs of Krynn have darkvision but I got rid of it because 5e Centaurs do not have it. I gave Natural Armor to Wendle Centaurs the same way as Lizardfolk have in Volo's Guide to Monsters and because they have natural armor in 3e.
    Still maybe way too fast. getting a +10 speed is pretty much the main ability of the wood elf, and you are giving the centaurs large size and natural attacks. How about +10 or +20 speed only when dashing or charging? That makes it less like nimble superspeed in a crowded dungeon.

    In 3e Baaz and Kapaks were the only playable races, the rest are too powerful. Baaz and Kapaks have Disease Immunity in 3e. In addition, they are immune to sleep and paralysis effects but I didn't incorporate that trait into the conversion.
    Yeah, I'm not too sure why draconians had disease immunity in 3e either. They didn't have it before that, and there are two short stories that shows draconians sick. One involves two charlatans who were selling dwarf spirits as a magical elixer, and another story involved a solamnic knight going into a dragonarmy camp sick with the plague.

    Someone thought that since they were so different from mammals they wouldn't have the same disease vectors I guess? I dunno, but it isn't really necessary. They do have scales though, and that should be reflected somewhere.


    A good point, Irda are now +2 Cha but I gave them +1 Int because in 3e they have -2 CON, +2 INT, +2 CHA. I changed Change Shape trait so that they can only change to a Small or Medium size humanoid. The spells are converted from 3e Irda that can cast dancing lights, detect language, flare, ghost sound, light, and mage hand spells once per day.
    Well... 3e had a whole bunch of assumptions based on how powerful the racial abilities are (the 5e racial abilities are more powerful and relevant at higher levels than in 3e). So I wouldn't look to do a 1:1 conversion. The 3e Dragonlance Campaign Setting also had some design problems. You should instead look to what classes you want to encourage players to take with that race, and eyeball it based on "If I want to play a sorcerer, would I choose a dragonborn or an irda?" If it is a hard choice, you've done it right.

    As for +1 Intelligence vs. Strength, yeah that's a valid interpretation for the class and will make them a very good sorcerer. I just like giving Irda a strength bonus because they are "ogres" and my first exposure to a playable Irda was the 2e Dragonlance Monstrous Compendium appendix. Those Irda had exceptional strength - 18(50) I believe.

    As Fallen Ogres have only darkvision and ogre weapon training, and 40 ft. speed, their Large size isn't overpowering.
    No, they will stomp everything. Doing double damage is huge. If you disagree I'll roll up a Ogre barbarian with a large sized greataxe or greatclub and pulverize everything in your campaign with ease. Even negative ability scores won't compensate because I'll just build based on what scores I don't need. I don't care if I have 3's in intelligence, charisma and wisdom if I am a barbarian doing double damage.

    But I'd like to thank you for your input on races of Krynn! Your suggestions made me do several changes and all for the better. Looking forward to hearing feedback from other areas too!
    No problem, it is a lot easier to criticize than to do something productive like you are doing. I am impressed at the whole write-up overall.
    The official canon of Dragonlance, for a variety of reasons, is not as good as it could be. I do it better.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Okay, but if you give them a wisdom increase, the race becomes predisposed to playing druids, clerics, rangers and paladins.

    How about a dexterity boost since the Duegar/Thiewar/Zhakar are described as sneaky? A con/dex build would favour brutish rogues. You could also do a sidebar talking about dwarven savants, and give the option for a player to choose a +1 intelligence bonus instead of Dexterity to cover the magic using dwarves.
    I never do conversions thinking about which class the race becomes predisposed to playing, I only think about what the race is about, but I understand your point. I was thinking about doing the same thing as with Unearthed Arcana had done with Minotaurs. I'll give +1 Dex to Zhakar, +1 Int to Theiwar, and +1 Str to Daergar.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    That should make it better. I have to say that I hate gully dwarves as written traditionally. I think they are embarrassing for the setting and should probably be reworked into something else.
    I don't like gully dwarves and wonder why anyone would like to play one. Maybe if it's a one-off where all the players are gully dwarves.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Eh... well they were a monster first. The only reason that someone decided to stick porpoise shapechanging on them was because they were being clever about the association of mermaids and dolphins and how the latter could be confused with the former. But when sea elves showed up in the novels, they didn't really use the whole porpoise thing. That's why I'd keep the shapechanging for the druids myself. More to the point, the triton looks like more fun to play than yours.
    I checked my 1st edition AD&D Dragonlance Adventures and sea elves have shapchanging ability. So they've had it from the start in game terms. Tritons could be more fun but they're not sea elves. =D

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    I guess it isn't too bad because you get attacked with disadvantaged, so it isn't a death sentence for a rogue after all. But it is still better for paladin and fighter builds than for thieves. I also rather hate kender being pigeon-holed with one type of personality, so I would be glad to lose it.

    I certainly wouldn't give taunt to the afflicted kender. They have always been depicted as suspicious, quiet and withdrawn. Taunt seems to have a certain reckless boisterousness that afflicted kender have been traumatized out of.
    As I was younger I really liked Kender and wanted to play them all the time. Nowadays I'm not a big fan. Taunting and pickpocketing is a cultural, mental, and probably genetic thing with Kender so it's ok to give them the two abilities Kender have had from the beginning of DL.

    Talking about afflicted Kender, I don't care about them too much. I really hated the whole Dragon Overlord plot, feels like what happened to Forgotten Realms with 4e D&D. Age of Mortals after the 5th Age disaster is great because you can incorporate every class in it from warlocks to mystics. In game terms, afflicted Kender do have taunt, in 3rd edition they're not just so good at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Still maybe way too fast. getting a +10 speed is pretty much the main ability of the wood elf, and you are giving the centaurs large size and natural attacks. How about +10 or +20 speed only when dashing or charging? That makes it less like nimble superspeed in a crowded dungeon.
    I think centaur base speed should be the same as centaur base speed in 5e Monster Manual to make it consistent with game rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Yeah, I'm not too sure why draconians had disease immunity in 3e either. They didn't have it before that, and there are two short stories that shows draconians sick. One involves two charlatans who were selling dwarf spirits as a magical elixer, and another story involved a solamnic knight going into a dragonarmy camp sick with the plague.

    Someone thought that since they were so different from mammals they wouldn't have the same disease vectors I guess? I dunno, but it isn't really necessary. They do have scales though, and that should be reflected somewhere.
    Yeah, I'm going to lose disease immunity altogether. Seems a bit forced.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    Well... 3e had a whole bunch of assumptions based on how powerful the racial abilities are (the 5e racial abilities are more powerful and relevant at higher levels than in 3e). So I wouldn't look to do a 1:1 conversion. The 3e Dragonlance Campaign Setting also had some design problems. You should instead look to what classes you want to encourage players to take with that race, and eyeball it based on "If I want to play a sorcerer, would I choose a dragonborn or an irda?" If it is a hard choice, you've done it right.

    As for +1 Intelligence vs. Strength, yeah that's a valid interpretation for the class and will make them a very good sorcerer. I just like giving Irda a strength bonus because they are "ogres" and my first exposure to a playable Irda was the 2e Dragonlance Monstrous Compendium appendix. Those Irda had exceptional strength - 18(50) I believe.
    It's true that making a 1:1 conversion doesn't work. All the conversions have to made from the ground up. I've used 3e only as a basis and have been looking at 1st and 2nd edition AD&D sourcebooks, too. Looking at 1st ed AD&D Dragonlance Adventures, Irda have -2 Con, +2 Dex, +2 Int, and +2 Cha. Irda Str maximum is 18. They have shapechanging ability and can cast one additional wizard or cleric spell.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    No, they will stomp everything. Doing double damage is huge. If you disagree I'll roll up a Ogre barbarian with a large sized greataxe or greatclub and pulverize everything in your campaign with ease. Even negative ability scores won't compensate because I'll just build based on what scores I don't need. I don't care if I have 3's in intelligence, charisma and wisdom if I am a barbarian doing double damage.
    Ogres only get Large size, darkvision, and training in some weapons, nothing else. They even have abilities reduced. They do get double die for weapon damage if the weapon is Large but they won't get any fancy racial traits. In honesty, I don't see many GMs agreeing to a player wanting to play an Ogre when everyone else plays humans, elves, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    No problem, it is a lot easier to criticize than to do something productive like you are doing. I am impressed at the whole write-up overall.
    Thanks for the continuing feedback! I added Kyrie, Phaetons, Thanoi, and Ursoi. They might be overpowering and probably need tweaking. Making everything level is hard. For example in Middle-earth elves are superior in almost every aspect to humans, that's just how the reality is in the world. I see goblins, draconians, kyrie, pahetons, irda, ogres, and such minor races curiosities that hardly never get to be played. And because there aren't any rules in 5e about playing powerful monsters as there were in 3e (monster hit dice, getting racial traits as they advance in levels, etc.), it would be great if someone would make rules to playing powerful races. There's no level adjustment system in 5e.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I've uploaded the newest version about Races of Ansalon.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •