Search results

Is this based on anything other than your opinion?

Yeah. In 5e the rest of d&d actually got closer to how eberron does canon, and not the other way around

Here’s Keith’s take on this subject from a few years ago… Post in thread 'Eberron Is Here Today!' D&D 5E - Eberron Is Here Today!

you got Rising backwards. By default it isn’t connected, and they give you an option as how to connect it (Baker himself says as much). And Eberron showing up in Vecna’s adventure is not a problem.. it will just not be canon in Eberron

Every book published that ignores every piece of eberron content shows that. Sure, it’s not something that is explicitly written in a book. But it doesn’t need to be. Keith doesn’t have control over Eberron, but he is the creator, has been one of the major designers of every setting book and is...

Isn’t that what they did in essentials?

They’ve said multiple times that they are done with editions and their de plan is to just keep updating 5e. The most they’ve said (that I’ve seen) is that if they had to compare to an edition it would be 5.5 not anytting new. But the discussion is kind of pointless and people already have their...

Me today:

Keith has stated that, yes.

That’s not what I’m saying. In Eberron, the only thing considered canon is the lore information in the setting books. Nothing else is canon or advances the metaplot. It has always been the case and I don’t see why any change to thhte multiverse would need to change that

I just need them to allow dm guild production and player options up to date to the new edition. All my books from previous editions are still prefectly useful for lore.

I’m not saying they can’t. I’m saying I don’t think they will. They had plenty of opportunities to do it by now

There are already multiversal conections with Eberron. V is mentioned in other books and I wouldn’t be surprised if she appears in planescape. None of that affected Eberron’s metaplot

You actually can. You just don’t consider the stories canon for Eberron.

yeah, I really think they won't change something that is integral to what Eberron is...

to be fair... all our opinions are kind of irrelevant

Thanks for posting this. As I've said before, I didn't like the message, but don't think KP is being purposedly acting in bad faith here, and I still see the company in a good light. I'm just curious about the statement that Wotc is going to lean heavilly in a subscription based model. I...

yeah... that sucks, because I'm really self-contious about being clear in what I'm saying in english. I hate being misinterpreted, and this not being my first language ends making me second guessing my statements quite often. I guess I'll just disengage.

what's FUD?

I'm I really not being clear here or just being gaslighted?