D&D 5E Eberron: Rising from the Last War Coming For D&D In November

A new D&D campaign setting has appeared on Amazon -- Eberron: Rising from the Last War. It's slated for November 19th, at $49.99.

​

Explore the lands of Eberron in this campaign sourcebook for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.

This book provides everything players and Dungeon Masters need to play Dungeons & Dragons in Eberron—a war-torn world filled with magic-fueled technology, airships and lightning trains, where noir-inspired mystery meets swashbuckling adventure. Will Eberron enter a prosperous new age or will the shadow of war descend once again?

• Dive straight into your pulp adventures with easy-to-use locations, complete with maps of floating castles, skyscrapers, and more.

• Explore Sharn, a city of skyscrapers, airships, and noirish intrigue and a crossroads for the world’s war-ravaged peoples.

• Include a campaign for characters venturing into the Mournland, a mist-cloaked, corpse-littered land twisted by magic.

• Meld magic and invention to craft objects of wonder as an artificer—the first official class to be released for fifth edition D&D since the Player’s Handbook.

• Flesh out your characters with a new D&D game element called a group patron—a background for your whole party.

• Explore 16 new race/subrace options including dragonmarks, which magically transform certain members of the races in the Player’s Handbook.

• Confront horrific monsters born from the world’s devastating wars.

There is an alternate cover for game stores:

WotC's Jeremy Crawford confirmed that "The book incorporates the material in "Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron" and adds a whole lot more."

 

[gyor]

In all seriousness, I think that the "default" nature of FR for 5e is what is keeping them from doing a campaign book.

I mean, since SCAG I haven't heard a single thing about it. I'm assuming that TPTB assume that the release of various products (Dungeon of the Mad Mage, etc.) is sufficient, and that it's the non-default settings that need source books.

Honestly I'd prefer a big FRCG that is well done to the drip drip drip of APs, which are too often set in the Swordcoast.the only reason I'm buying BG: DiA is because it ties into BG 3.

 

[Parmandur]

In all seriousness, I think that the "default" nature of FR for 5e is what is keeping them from doing a campaign book.

I mean, since SCAG I haven't heard a single thing about it. I'm assuming that TPTB assume that the release of various products (Dungeon of the Mad Mage, etc.) is sufficient, and that it's the non-default settings that need source books.

WotC folks have been speaking of settings the past few years as focused around genre offerings (see the discussion of genre in the DMG). The Forgotten Realms has specifically been called out repeatedly as matching the base genre expectations of D&D as of the '10's. So, yeah, a genre booster book based around the base assumptions seems a harder sell.

 

[gyor]

WotC folks have been speaking of settings the past few years as focused around genre offerings (see the discussion of genre in the DMG). The Forgotten Realms has specifically been called out repeatedly as matching the base genre expectations of D&D as of the '10's. So, yeah, a genre booster book based around the base assumptions seems a harder sell.

It would sell extremely well and would give alot more setting flexibility.

 

[Parmandur]

It would sell extremely well and would give alot more setting flexibility.

Quite probably, but I would expect it later than the settings that break from the core assumptions, and probably after they are done with the Sword Coast Adventure series.

I mean, right now, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is still selling well after nearly four years, selling better than the new Pathfinder Bestiary in point of fact.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Is something lazy? We can't say for sure. But saying that re-flavoring is lazy isn't some great leap of imagination. And telling someone their point is pointless drivel is pretty bad form for any conversation of substance.

As is insulting people. Which is what folks take from statements like "Such and such is lazy design." The person is ascribing negative beliefs onto a designer they do not know and for which they have no knowledge of, all because they don't like the results of said design. They are calling the designer lazy just because they don't like the result. And yes, when someone does that, others will come out and say "Hey, you know you can just state you don't like something without insulting the designer and make it sound like they are less-than-competent".

Now, you may feel that reaction from people is "bad form" for conversation... but you'll probably find that not insulting people is the "bad form" of conversation that will actually keep you from being tossed out of threads or given vacations from the EN World boards. I mean, you can try it the other way and see if you get away with it... but insulting other posters and people in the industry from my experience does not tend to succeed.

 

[Shardstone]

As is insulting people. Which is what folks take from statements like "Such and such is lazy design." The person is ascribing negative beliefs onto a designer they do not know and for which they have no knowledge of, all because they don't like the results of said design. They are calling the designer lazy just because they don't like the result. And yes, when someone does that, others will come out and say "Hey, you know you can just state you don't like something without insulting the designer and make it sound like they are less-than-competent".

Now, you may feel that reaction from people is "bad form" for conversation... but you'll probably find that not insulting people is the "bad form" of conversation that will actually keep you from being tossed out of threads or given vacations from the EN World boards. I mean, you can try it the other way and see if you get away with it... but insulting other posters and people in the industry from my experience does not tend to succeed.

Saying design is lazy isn't insulting the designer. And I haven't insulted anyone. You, however, are passive aggressive and always throwing out insults. I'm really getting sick and tired of you being passive aggressive towards me though. This is my 2nd post in this thread, but you seem to follow me around, insulting me, and trying to make it seem as if I'm lesser then you. Either leave me alone, or learn to type with respect, instead of saying I'm insulting people (I didn't say anyone was being lazy, that was another poster) and making stuff up. Its disgusting.

 

[Remathilis]

Fair enough (and sorry about your bad DM).

I agree that settings should grow and change over time. The difference is that I don't want them to simply change the setting to accommodate new stuff, because there's new stuff. That's the way of madness, and Forgotten Realms.

(I kid, mostly, but we already have a setting for the whole generic D&D experience that eats others settings)

That's why I wrote in one of these many threads (and also, how is it that we have like five conversations going about GH when it's Eberron being released?) that for me, the main thing is to stay true to the core ideas that differentiate the setting.

For GH, that's the S&S, slightly gonzo, DIY nature of the setting. I don't care if they change or add new stuff that makes it more interesting here and there, so long as there is a good thematic reason and it's fun. I do think they should start the process with the de minimis Gygax 1983 material and add from there, if only because there was a lot of cruft and bad stuff along with the decent stuff after that.

As for "exotic" or "non-standard" races (say, Dragonborn, monstrous races) they should probably get a quick sidebar explaining that they are non-standard, but here's a few ideas as to how a DM can incorporate them into their campaign if necessary.

In the end, I just want everyone to have the opportunity to make the setting their own; whether that's Humans and Dwarves, or Tabaxi and Dragonborn. .... but I don't want the core setting to incorporate unlimited choices as a default, but instead to be a switch that a table can choose to turn on.

I think its easy to assume that my stance is close to a hyperbolic "tabaxi half-dragon paladins in Dark Sun" since that is the logical extreme (similar to my hyperbolic "if you restrict options, everyone can only be human fighters" above).

Basically, every D&D setting that is printed under a specific edition (be it the edition it was created for or the one its been updated to) has to account for what the current PHB has as the "bare minimum" options. The 1983 Folio only had to account for the races and classes in the 1e PHB, while the 3e update accounts for the later additions in that edition. The trend has been to try and find homes for those things rather than exclude them. All the 3e updates of various settings (Forgotten Realms, Living Greyhawk, Arthaus Ravenloft, Dragonlance, and Dragon's Dark Sun) found places for every class and most of the races (though not all). The 4e versions of Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun likewise found homes for most of the core options of 4e (some less eloquently than others, but I digress). That said, not everything fits, and I get that. But I have three maxim's I think should be applied when a setting gets updated to a new edition.

1. Try to account for as much of the PHB as possible. I don't care about supplemental works; those are supplemental for a reason. But the core PHB should be as close to available as humanly possible. Basically, I don't care about tortles, shadar-kai, or bladesingers, but I do about the 9 races and 12 classes in the PHB.

2. Options should be restricted only when it contradicts the setting. Ravnica doesn't have halflings because MtG doesn't have them. Gnomes are extinct on Athas; there are no orcs in Krynn or Barovia so no half-orcs exist there. These are logical choices made at the time of creation for those settings. Sometimes things just don't fit, but they are explained logically why they don't rather than "they didn't exist when it was created".

3. When an option is removed, another option should replace it. If you're removing half-orcs from a setting, a new race (like Ravenloft's Calibans, or Dragonlance's minotaurs) should attempt to fill the niche with a more appropriate choice. That is easier done with races and subclasses, but harder with core classes, so (returning to 1) I think its fair for most settings to account for as many classes as possible, since I don't imagine there will be a lot of room to create or rewrite dozens of new classes to replace removed options.

4. The DM still has the right to say no. The above is guidelines for WotC producing books, not DMs running games. I think its a far better method to say where something in the PHB exists and let the DM decide if his version has it than to say it doesn't exist and force the DM to figure out where to insert it.

5. Included doesn't mean important. Tieflings and Dragonborn are both in Eberron and Realms, neither are important. Neither has a nation of their own (or those that do they are small and on the borders of the map) and neither has substantial representation in populations or NPCs. Basically, you could carve them out of both settings and affect little, unlike elves in either setting. I imagine both race in Dark Sun, Dragonlance, or Greyhawk would have a similar minority status of being from "the edge of the map" and appearing rarely.

So Basically, if any other settings get an update like Eberron has, just account for what's in the PHB. That's all.

 

[ChaosOS]

Weighing in on the racial status of Dragonmarks vs the 3.5 feat progression - I think the 5e design hits the notes better, Dragonmarks aren't really about the limited SLAs as they are about your connection to the house and special ability to use Dragonmark focus items. For characters that really want to emphasize their mark, tying class abilities as mark powers works great (the ur example being a Lyrandar Storm Sorcerer). Siberys Marks need separate mechanics because of how distinct they are, but I've seen a few quality takes on Dmsguild that make them level restricted feats.

 

[Umbran]

Why aren't people allowed to be critical of Eberron or whatever?

Folks can be critical of Eberron, or whatever gaming material.

Ascribing personal flaws to designers is not valid criticism of the product, though.

 

[Bolongo]

Don't like the cover art.

Yeah, this is actually the first one where I'm gonna get the alternate cover.