Seriously, Eberron is probably one of the worst examples of limitations in D&D and that's intended. There are things unique to Eberron (warforged, Dragonmarks) and things that are altered (cultures of elves and halflings) but nothing (and I mean nothing) is banned. So if an Eberron DM bans anything, that's his preferences overriding the settings.
I thought this was a curious quote, because I remember the 3e Eberron books having sidebars for splatbook character options suggesting how the DM could fit them into the world, if the DM wanted to.
So I looked up the quote:
One of the core principles of Eberron is that you should make it your own. People often say “If it’s in D&D it’s in Eberron,” but the actual quote is “If it’…
keith-baker.com
One of the core principles of Eberron is that you should make it your own. People often say “If it’s in D&D it’s in Eberron,” but the actual quote is “If it’s in D&D it has a place in Eberron” – it’s up to you if you want to put it there. You don’t HAVE to use abeil in Eberron. But if you want to, it’s a simple matter to add a lost city of bee-people in Xen’drik, to make them the Mourning-warped inhabitants of a Cyran city, or the latest creations of Mordain the Fleshweaver. It’s up to you to decide if the Sovereigns still exist or if divine magic is another form of sorcery. You decide the cause of the Mourning. And so on.
I thought this was a curious quote, because I remember the 3e Eberron books having sidebars for splatbook character options suggesting how the DM could fit them into the world, if the DM wanted to.
So I looked up the quote:
One of the core principles of Eberron is that you should make it your own. People often say “If it’s in D&D it’s in Eberron,” but the actual quote is “If it’…
You can put anything in or out of any setting if you want to. The qualification is meaningless. The point is there is no “setting integrity” justification for not letting players play whatever they want.
I thought this was a curious quote, because I remember the 3e Eberron books having sidebars for splatbook character options suggesting how the DM could fit them into the world, if the DM wanted to.
So I looked up the quote:
I don't want to find the paragraph again in the 3e, 4e, and 5e version of the Eberron setting, but the statement is based on a simple premise: there is no lore reason why something can't exist in Eberron. There is a reason in lore why I can't play an orc in Dragonlance or a dwarf in Theros, but there is no such limit on a Eberron unless the DM wants one. So if a DM wants to run Eberron without orcs or dwarves or samurai or divine magic, they can. But they cannot use Eberron lore to justify it. Hence "So if an Eberron DM bans anything, that's his preferences overriding the settings."
Who said anything about Level 20...? Getting to Level 3 takes two whole sessions if you are counting XP. Planning two sessions ahead isn't all that weird, and frankly it seems a strange idea that a Wizard or Druid would discover what tradition they belong to before Session 3 just as much as Warlocks or Clerics. Planning for Level 3 is the default assumption of the game, that's why flavor does not all come online until then. I have never seen anyone play any Class in 2014 without having preplanned their Subclass choice and baking it into RP at Level 1 & 2.
I'm counting XP in my current campaign. Yeah level 1 was one session, but getting from two to three was like 3 sessions.
And with good.old days I don't mean 5e2014, but e1,2,3 ...
Characters develop during game and don't come fully formed.
I'm counting XP in my current campaign. Yeah level 1 was one session, but getting from two to three was like 3 sessions.
And with good.old days I don't mean 5e2014, but e1,2,3 ...
Characters develop during game and don't come fully formed.
Be that as it may, in 5E the first two Levels have always been quick intro Levels, with Level 3 where things come fully online. And I have never, ever seen anyone not begin RPing their 3rd Level Subclass choice from Level 1, for any Class. That is is just how it works, and the 2024 changes really just seem to work with what people were already doing.
You can put anything in or out of any setting if you want to. The qualification is meaningless. The point is there is no “setting integrity” justification for not letting players play whatever they want.
Well when someone is quoting someone to support an argument, and the quote is in fact stated to be misquoted by the speaker of said quote, it can help to share the origin and the actual quote for full context.
So let’s say you are running Eberron what classes and Wizards released species would you say me as a metaphorical player would not be allowed to play? Could I play Dragonborn, Goliath or Tortle?
It's a reasonable question and one with a real experience already already in the thread back in 409. One of the posters pushing the It'S mY cHaReCtEr /nOt YoUr WoRlD side of the discussion where players☆ should not be expected to have any responsibility in fitting their character to the world/setting has already leapt in with the toxic 4e ECG quote & others with Keith's correction. I'll circle back to that with the ECS ECG & RftLW snippets, but I feel like more context from that example is needed first because it shows how a lack of player☆ responsibility to work with the gm in fitting their character leads to problems.
The player described in 409 joined the game because one of my existing AL sourced players☆ said "hey I have a friend who would like to join" as we were wrapping up one campaign about to start another & you know how that goes. The new player☆ first was told "it's going to be an eberron game" and given a quick description of eberron after admitting they knew nothing about the setting. Setting knowledge is not required though and I told them that we could probably work something out & figure out how the phb lore needs to change to fit if he tells me a little about he wants to play -> "Let me tell you about my fursona" -> "No. Please. Stop. " ->Moving on from that, the player asked if they could play an asimaar. I pointed out that the gods in eberron are extremely different and hands off to the point that they might not even exist but described manifest zones & said that it would be fine if he was a mutated something or descendant of a mutated something that lived near a manifest zone because that sidesteps all of the lore stuff he didn't know while fitting the setting & cleaving off some of the stuff from the last exchange. Things went downhill from there & he started telling me about his 4e character where every no but/no because/yes if was being pushed aside with suggestions about how I could just change something about the setting even when the being suggested for revision literally came up while explaining why making some other change to the setting would have huge ripples that made the setting something unrecognizable that I didn't want to track. Eventually he settled on an aberrant marked paladin & I don't remember anything else about it.
All of that occurred because instead of working with me to actively adapt their concept they just kept looking for ways to justify how some portion of it already fit & making suggestions for how the setting could be changed. That disconnect and recusal to collaborate so their character fit the existing setting caused things to get more and more extreme until getting to the character concept described in 409
Those snippets are relevant to what I prefer to disallow in my eberron games. At the time I had the 3.5 ECS & the spiral bound printout of a pseudo-setting guide complete with a bunch of character options, the constant finger wagging suggestions looking to shield problem player behavior by saying that a GM should offer new options when adding limits is frankly insulting when it was dozens of pages at that point. I generally allow most races & classes in my eberron games but quickly draw a hard line when it's obvious that the thing in question will be used as a vehicle to loredump stuff from FR or Tolkien where I'm more likely to just say no or ask the player to reconsider. Drow and Dwarves are frequently high on that list & I have several posts talking about why on drow in this thread & feel like my reasons are pretty clear there, dwarves simply because I'm tired of Gimli clones loredumping FR & Tolkein when eberron's dwarves known best for very different stuff like banking.
The most frustrating thing about trying to collaboratively work with players to adapt things to eberron where those things can probably fit but be expected to have some "twist" is that collaboration is a two way process and one side of the collaboration often no longer acts like an active participant rather than holding their ground while simply looking for the square hole... I did not really have that problem in my pre-5e eberron & darksun games when I generally found players eager to find ways they themselves could pour their PC into a setting shaped mold hoping it would earn them some gm granted cool thing added to the resulting PC's character sheet.
☆ Remember "player" describes someone who somehow learned about a game, agreed to join said game, and has not yet chosen to leave the game for whatever reason so is presumably still a "player".
3e? The edition of feat chains and prestige classes? The one where you could build an utterly ineffective character if you didn't plan your build down to the last skill point and constantly buy new +X gear 3e? I might give you AD&D (90% of your character design was done at level 1, unless you planned to dual -class) and I certainly agree that about Basic (again, the only mechanical choice you had was at name level and it involves if you are making a keep or not). But builds existed at least since AD&D and bloomed in 3e. To the point people hated to wait to 5th level to get their prestige class so they could be a duelist or dragon disciple.
And I have never, ever seen anyone not begin RPing their 3rd Level Subclass choice from Level 1, for any Class. That is is just how it works, and the 2024 changes really just seem to work with what people were already doing.
You should try running a club for beginners! Subclass is a whole new world at level 3; they are definitely not RPing their subclass before that (and usually not after).
For that matter, most of my veterans start with a character concept and then spend a long time debating subclass (or multiclass) at level 3 and beyond. So our experiences definitely differ, and thus I have to strongly disagree with your assumption that players having the subclass in mind from the start is just how 5e works.
Speaking for myself, I want to be flexible enough with my character concept so that my subclass/multiclass choice might depend on what has happened in the previous games.
pre-5e eberron & darksun games when I generally found players eager to find ways they themselves could pour their PC into a setting shaped mold hoping it would earn them some gm granted cool thing added to the resulting PC's character sheet.
And it's my opinion that this is good--Since the negative version of this as 'It doesn't fit my aesthetic preference so you get screwed over' also happens less! It's also great that the baseline of power doesn't need 'buffs' from the DM to make the player feel safe.
keith-baker.com
no but/no because/yes if
