Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Siberys" data-source="post: 6075933" data-attributes="member: 30619">As a /major/ Eberron fan, I'd contest these.Tieflings weren't 'forced' in; Ohr Kaluun already existed (See Secrets of Sarlona), and the other suggestion for their use in 3e (nearness to supernaturally evil influences, such as in the Demon Wastes) still works just fine.Dragonborn almost all live in Argonnessen, and are bit players in Q'barra, where they're next most common. Everything described about 'em fit pretty well with existing lore.Eladrin are about the /most/ notable, but they're still rate and were worked in with the lore very well.I'll agree on the planes, but that's honestly a non-issue - Thelanis and Dolurrh have new names, and Baator's there (which I can easily ignore).Not sure what you mean with the Houses. If you'd just said Marks, I'd follow you, even if I disagree. (a couple of houserules to Rituals and they're /better/ than 3es, and encourage a more holistic approach to building 'marked characters than 3e where IME it was usually just a tacked on 'cool' feat.)As for other settings, Dark Sun was very well recieved. In fact, the timeline rollback is pretty widely considered to be an improvement over the post-novel setting. I'd have liked to see something similar with DL; the focus on the novels and their characters makes it difficult to use the settings, IME. A rollback to, say, partway through the War of the Lance (with descriptions of the official timeline and possible 'branches') could be very good.In the end, I honestly don't care about fluff changes - I'll only use 'em if they're good, and I'll ignore them if I don't like them, so something like that determining someone's opinion of an edition just seems foreign to me. Mechanics? Yeah, I dig it - even stuff there that's easy to change requires some know-how, regardless of game, and it can color the tone. But fluff takes next to no work to change.</blockquote>

Verification