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?

 

[bmfrosty]

Love that they're doing this this way. Maybe we'll get an ebberon specific DMG/Adventure book to go with this.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Which I translate as, we are getting a published UA book of rules, and which will be based on our input, how awesome is that?!?

While I wouldn't rule out a 5E UA book, I translate it as ... it's throwing out stuff that might appear anywhere in the future. Like this article might appear in a new Ebberon setting book. There might be an adventure path book in the future where it might make sense to include the Mass Combat rules. Or, in the case of the home campaign house rules mentioned, they may never appear anywhere but the UA web articles. Could be anything.

 

[Zaukrie]

Not bad. But is it only monthly? Is that it until March? Not sure i will use any of this, but it b is a decent way to give it out

 

[Sailor Moon]

I would rather pay for something better.

 

[Wrathamon]

On Dragonmarks: I don't see why you cant say your character has a least Mark as part of your backstory and at 4th level it's power manifests to a lesser (you taking the feat). Liking the Dragonmark rules.

I think Shifters look pretty solid (even thou a lot of +2 dex options). Looks good.

Warforged are simple and a bit boring and not a fan of the 4e wearing armor. I would have preferred seeing something else. This looks like it is straight from the old playtest doc if Im not mistaken ... which I might be.

Artificer ... it works (as a long thread on making it a wizard tradition/subclass had a long debate on the matter) I'm in the camp of it doesn't feel right as a wizard, but is a much simpler solution than trying to make an entire new class and should play out fine. If you want to recreate your 3rd or 4th edition artificer you will have to multiclass, or take appropriate feats.

Changeling ... by using the keyword Polymorph does that mean you use the spell? do the changeling stats change to that of the Humanoid you pick? it is a bit confusing opposed to just saying your appearance changes to that of a humanoid you have seen.

Good stuff but would have been nice to have had a bit on kalashtar (like how to make one using existing psionic abilities) like just give them telepathy like the warlock or something.

 

[Lord Blackstone]

Do all the Shifter sub-races make anyone else envision running a D&D Grimm game with all the different Wesen?

No? Just me then?

Now that you mention it... Nice bro.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I would rather pay for something better.

It sounds like you may get that chance. As the UA article says, things presented there are just draft rules, and might appear in a published product later.

 

[Paraxis]

Bleh. I have seen better rules for dragonmarks made by posters here on various thread, they shouldn't be a feat. Don't like the races only getting +1/+1, and Artificers work better as a Cleric variant like Keith Baker did on his blog, but I would still prefer a whole new class myself. Shifting only once per rest is very weak, along the same line as dragonborn breathweapon and Changeling's only turning into people they have seen is very odd, it is also a polymorph and doesn't seem to have any chance of being seen through at all and other issues if you use that spell as it's base.

 

[Roger]

We can all celebrate that the humans and halflings won't be all alone in the no-darkvision club any more.

 

[Dire Bare]

I don't like changelings only being able to mimic people they've seen. Why can't I look like whatever my changeling WANTS to look like? That move weakens their ability to play to themes of identity and personal choice that play into Eberoon's modern themes.

It makes perfect sense to me. If you have never seen an orc before, how could you change your form to mimic one? As a DM, I would rule that the common races of Eberron are an automatic go for shapechanger, but something more exotic like a catfolk might not be. Or if the player wants to shapechange into a race they have heard about but not ever seen, I might require a deception check to see if they pulled it off convincingly.

Dragonmarks are interesting!. I kind of wish there was a better way to have them represented than feats...because it's not a comfy fit...(characters won't be developing marks until after 4th level unless they're human...), and not every game is going to have feats....but I suppose that is the best home for them.

How else would you model dragonmarks, if not through feats? If you are playing a campaign that relies on them, you could give all of your players a free feat at 1st level. Or, allow a player to *have* a dragonmark, but without powers manifesting until 4th level when they take the feat.

What confused me about the dragonmark rules . . . do you need to take the dragonmark feat three times to gain a greater mark? Or does the mark automatically improve with level? The wording used implied both at different points . . .

Hmmm, maybe a dragonmarked character could be modeled as a subrace?

Similar problem if you develop warforged feats for different construct bodies. Would a warforged built with the equivalent of plate mail require a feat . . . . or a subrace?