Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana is Here - and it's all about EBERRON!

Pretty awesome that this series has started

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron

Will Greyhawk or Dragonlance be next??

Probably Dragonlance. Does Greyhawk have any particular crunchy player bits that aren't covered by the PHB already?

 

[AverageCitizen]

Dragonmarked people should just be presented as Eberron-specific racial variants. We have the drow as a good example of a subrace with evolving spellcasting ability. It can be done and balanced, and it would be much better than the solution they presented.

That is how I have been doing them. Its easy for standard races, you run into a little trouble with races that don't have sub races, like humans and half orcs, but it is doable. Combo of backgrounds and sub races does the job nicely, I think

 

[Minigiant]

I saw the artificer as a wizard subclass in 5e for a while. T

You'd have to go spell route and create specific spells for every infusion to mimic the 3rd or 4th edition artificer.

Or go the route of the pact blade warlock and do feat feats for each infusion and tagthem back go the artificer.

Because 5th is not a friend of the artificer's main gimmick: tossing around not from concentrate.

 

[DMZ2112]

I fear it is, sir!

(Unless I missed something, the "whole" as in "in the PHB/DMG" ruleset isn't available in PDF/HTML, only the "basic" ruleset, right? Not trying to argue just have been away!)

The /rules/ are all there; there's no difference between how the basic game and the standard game play. But you're right that the basic game is limited to four races, four classes, a handful of backgrounds, and no feats.

4E's digital stuff had a ton of problems initially, but they did manage a reliable digital offering eventually, which should (theoretically) have lead to easily doing a similar thing for 5E.

I remember this going the other way -- the original character builder was excellent, but by 2012 the web-based version was absolute garbage. Likewise the older digital issues of Dungeon and Dragon are /still/ not collated into single PDFs, while many of the later issues have been.

But I'm quibbling.

Then Morningstar was somehow a failure and got canned, and not only failed in WotC's eyes, but then attempts a Kickstarter which also failed, showing it'd sorely failed in the eyes of fans, too (quad-fail?) AND, as "the final insult", the Morningstar people SWITCHED TO PATHFINDER!

I'm not sure it's fair to lump Trapdoor in with Wizards. Firing Trapdoor was more "digital initiative" than Wizards had shown in years.

Given this level of serious fail, of intentionally doing things the hardest possible way then screwing them up, I have to say, I believe triple-synonym is totally on point and not excessive.

I see your position, even if I do not share it.

What's really sad is, getting a basic functional, attractive (in a simple way) character builder and monster builder out there is not hard (much like 4E's stuff but maybe even more basic), and would barely set WotC back six digits, and could be charged for, and pay for itself, in like, a month, if that. Just no insane decisions like 4E's Silverlight. I mean man what.

But does D&D5 /need/ these tools? The fact that I can dungeon master the edition without them is one of its greatest selling points, in my opinion.

Also, yes, "man what," indeed, and I would add a hearty, "is this I don't even."

 

[dream66_]

I remember this going the other way -- the original character builder was excellent, but by 2012 the web-based version was absolute garbage. Likewise the older digital issues of Dungeon and Dragon are /still/ not collated into single PDFs, while many of the later issues have been.

The Character Builder is an interesting thing.... Either you had a windows machine that would run it and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and the online version was a cheap limited imitation that would never be it's equal.

Or you didn't have a machine that would run it, and the original version was garbage and the online version was a blessing sent from heaven.

I was in the first camp.

 

[DMZ2112]

The Character Builder is an interesting thing.... Either you had a windows machine that would run it and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and the online version was a cheap limited imitation that would never be it's equal.
Or you didn't have a machine that would run it, and the original version was garbage and the online version was a blessing sent from heaven.
I was in the first camp.

Ah. I ran it in Boot Camp.

 

[Dausuul]

The Character Builder is an interesting thing.... Either you had a windows machine that would run it and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and the online version was a cheap limited imitation that would never be it's equal.

Or you didn't have a machine that would run it, and the original version was garbage and the online version was a blessing sent from heaven.

I was in the first camp.

I was in the third camp: The original version was mediocre, the online version was a wretched barely functional kludge.

 

[bogmad]

I was in the third camp: The original version was mediocre, the online version was a wretched barely functional kludge.

I'm in the 4th camp: Why am I still paying for a DDI subscription for an edition I don't even bother playing anymore?

but more on topic, I was wary of the artificer in the article, but I actually do like how the infusions basically give you a healing wizard. I'm not sure how I feel about it giving you an actual Eberron artificer; the proficiencies make that tough, but if you just want a guy throwing arcane healing canisters to people like some 4e versions of the class I played, it's an interesting archetype at least.

 

[Gradine]

Here's another major problem I have with Dragonmarks as feats (and similarly Dragonmarks as sub races, which I used to be a big supporter of) is in tying the growth of Dragonmarks to character level. A big part of Eberron as a campaign setting is that authority does not always equal butt-kicking. The heads of the houses shouldn't always have to reach a certain level in order to have the greater (or Siberys) Dragonmarks.

5th edition mitigates this somewhat by not tying NPCs directly to PC construction rules, but I'd still rather not tie them so directly to overall character power. The longer I think about it, the more I really like the idea of tying Dragonmarks with Blessings.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Here's another major problem I have with Dragonmarks as feats (and similarly Dragonmarks as sub races, which I used to be a big supporter of) is in tying the growth of Dragonmarks to character level. A big part of Eberron as a campaign setting is that authority does not always equal butt-kicking. The heads of the houses shouldn't always have to reach a certain level in order to have the greater (or Siberys) Dragonmarks.

It has always been this way. You can argue that it would be better if they didn't tie dragon marks to character level, but they're tied to character level since the concept was first presented in 3e. In that sense, "your mark grows stronger with level" is as much an Eberron concept as "no clerics" is a Dark Sun concept.

 

[Krakenspire]

Here's another major problem I have with Dragonmarks as feats (and similarly Dragonmarks as sub races, which I used to be a big supporter of) is in tying the growth of Dragonmarks to character level. A big part of Eberron as a campaign setting is that authority does not always equal butt-kicking. The heads of the houses shouldn't always have to reach a certain level in order to have the greater (or Siberys) Dragonmarks.

5th edition mitigates this somewhat by not tying NPCs directly to PC construction rules, but I'd still rather not tie them so directly to overall character power. The longer I think about it, the more I really like the idea of tying Dragonmarks with Blessings.

If you spent some time reading the ebberon fluff you might also notice that power of the dragon mark rarely coincides with being the head of the house. There are a few houses where that might have been true but not all. IIRC house Thraashak even had an unmarked scions as part of its triumvirate. Many house heads had levels in npc classes like expert vice pc classes. 5e got rid of npc classes so you house head can be whatever you want!