I think Eberron popularity is highly overestimated by those with whom it is popular. As with, I suppose, most things D&D.
D&D 5E Eberron popularity in 5E
Eberron is a very unusual setting just because the timeline was "frozen" with its original release. Once you detailed all the areas once, that was it. It actually makes it much harder to revisit in later editions; to a large extent you're repeating what you've already done.
It's also a setting that was a big deal when it was released - the only setting designed for 3.5e by Wizards (and seeing significant support) - but it doesn't have that working for it any more.
I love Eberron, but it's a challenging setting to revisit.
Jester David
Hero
I meant it was insulting in that Eberron received an entire UA article devoted to updating content and advice on converting a storyline to that setting and advice on using the new subclasses from SCAG in Eberron. Meanwhile, Ravenloft and many other settings received... nada. And Eberron is also one of the three settings to be updated in 4e, and one of the four settings to receive an official 3e book (one of the two settings to receive a book in 3e and 4e).
And yet it's not enough. We apparently need more Eberron as soon as possible. And before any of the settings that have not been seen since 2e or actually need a revision to reflect changing lore. And not just a small PDF either but a really large book despite all the lore in both the 3e and 4e books still being usable as settings are system agnostic.
That's why it's insulting.
Now, I like Eberron. I do. And I think the races are flexible enough to appeal to players in multiple settings, making that useful content for everyone. And an additive dragonmark mechanic might also be interesting, especially if you can strip away the dragonmark house elements and use it as a psionic wild talent or spellscar. A good PDF document would be worthwhile and I'd probably buy a copy like I did the Elemental Evil Player's Companion.
But I don't think a new Eberron giant hardcover setting book should be a high priority.
"Nontraditional" fantasy covers the whole game. D&D as a rules set (at least with 5e and arguably most of the time since 2e) simply isn't intended to deliver "traditional" fantasy. And if FR is such a perfect fit for the Core Rules it's due to the Core Rules being written with FR in mind, and anything different can get lip service. They've tried experimenting with doing different things and the fanbase revolted, so they're running back to their favoured setting and hoping it does well enough to satisfy their masters at Hasbro.
delericho
Legend
One of the central conceits of Eberron was that it would have a place for just /everything/ in D&D. In that sense, it'd've been a perfect setting for 5e, which was supposed to be so all-fired all-inclusive.
But, it does mean that until 5e rolls out it's version of (or deterministic conversion rules for) all that's come before, any version of Eberron will seem 'incomplete.'
There's a difference between it having a space for everything and something being a core element. The four Eberron races and psionics are pretty fundamental to the setting; Eberron doesn't really work without them. Goliaths and Binders... not so much.
(Psionics and Kalashtar are perhaps less important than the other three races, in that you can worn around their absence. However, the entire continent of Sarlona incorporates them as key elements, so if you include that, you pretty much have to have those two.)
If there was a decent UA article covering Eberron then I would be more inclined to see your point.
Tony Vargas
Legend
FR has the trappings of traditional fantasy, however much it deviates from genre conventions, while Planescape or Eberron or Dark Sun have additional or different trappings. I think that's the distinction. FR may be as magocentric as anything short of Harry Potter, and that's decidedly un-traditional, but there are still rubes in armor, riding around on horseback and waving swords, as if they were in a traditional fantasy setting - there are no playable robots, insects, or devils.
FR was a setting conceived specifically for D&D, back in the AD&D era. 5e harkens back to that era.
Heck, the fanbase is still revolting.... ;P
Otterscrubber
First Post
Agreed, the vast majority of Eberron is the setting, which is prose and can be lifted into any campaign. As can the maps, NPC and faction relationships, etc....the only thing that is missing are the stats of monsters which as listed above can easily be taken from existing 5e creatures and re-skinned as needed, making minor changes to fit specifics on an ad-hoc basis. I do not see too much in the 3e or 4e settings that can't be easily transferred into 5e. In fact I've been playing 5e since the Beta in my group and it has always been in Eberron. Works just fine so far, although it makes a little extra work for me as DM to generate those stats, but it ain't too bad.
doctorhook
Legend
...as long as you don't want to include any archetypical Eberron characters in your party. I'm sure many people have also had excellent holidays in Rome without experiencing the local food, wine, art, fashion, architecture, or history, as well.
I asked them to take me somewhere famous and then they took me to this huge ruin. Then we went for dinner, I asked for a nice drink to go with it and they tried to pass off this old bottle of wine! I mean what are they thinking - they did not even clean all the dust off yet? =;o)
Similar Threads
