D&D 3E/3.5 5E Eberron - should it be closer to 3.5E or 4E/

[Ratinyourwalls]

I'm talking about the hamfisted way they forced the 4E races like Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Eladrin into Eberron + the changes to dragonmarks specifically.

Opinions?

Should Eberron be retconned in 5E?

 

[Shroomy]

While I would personally prefer that the dragonmarks return to their 3.5e state (though its not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination), I'm fine with the rest of the 4e updates. In particular, the eladrin feyspires are all kind of awesome (a couple of them got nice treatments in the DDI).

 

[amerigoV]

The Minions under 4e help with the pulp feel that 3.5 struggles to replicate.

 

[Vael]

While I would personally prefer that the dragonmarks return to their 3.5e state (though its not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination), I'm fine with the rest of the 4e updates. In particular, the eladrin feyspires are all kind of awesome (a couple of them got nice treatments in the DDI).

Yeah, I'd agree with this. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing Eberron's cosmology restored to 3.5, but the addition of the eladrin feyspires was really awesome. The Thorn novel "The Fading Dream" is practically canon in my view of Eberron. Eberron wasn't really all that altered on it's trip to 4e.

What's more important to me is how 5e's Artificer class is developed. The 3.5 Artificer was too fiddly, but insanely flexible. 4e's Artificer lost too much of that flexibility and felt too much like just another arcane caster. I liked it, but it wasn't quite there.

 

[keterys]

Heh, yeah, I hadn't realized that Eberron really changed between 3e and 4e. So, I choose option C: "whatever"

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I liked most of the 4th Edition updates, but agree that Dragonmarks need to be more like they were in 3rd Edition.

Honestly, it was mostly the same.

 

[Tallifer]

Except for the Fey Spires (which are awesome), there is hardly any difference that I could see. (Including the possibility of characters as rare new races is just part of D&D: every edition has to allow the kitchen sink into the mix: it is up to the table at home to decide.)

I did not study the mechanics of 3.5 dragon marks since I had no knowledge of the 3.5 rules, but dragon marks worked very well in the Fourth Edition. Perhaps some of the 3.5 mechanics could be blended in, if there was some cool stuff missing.

Regardless, I will happy with any sort of Eberron in the Fifth Edition.

 

[delericho]

Honestly, I'll be a bit surprised if we see Eberron getting any significant support in 5e, at least for a goodly number of years.

Given that the 4e races appear to be dropping significantly in profile with 5e, I think I would prefer they went with the 3.5e version of the setting. But it honestly doesn't matter to me all that much.

 

[Spatula]

I'd like to see the racial restrictions back on the Dragonmarks. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to me that 3e Eberron and 4e Eberron are really all that different.

 

[Siberys]

Other than the Feyspires, there really wasn't anything changed, and certainly nothing major. I mean, Tieflings have been in Ohr Kaluun as long as we've known what Ohr Kaluun was (so, since whenever SoS was released), and D-born's addition was in the most logical place they'd fit, and their very rare to boot. And the dmark change? Only in the rules. Flavor-wise, they were still race-restricted.

IOW, d. - "There's a difference?"

And I should know. Eberron is my thing.

EDIT: I'm not actually 100% sure on the Tiefling bit. They've certainly been in the setting from the start, though, and honestly, ancient magocracy that trafficked with fiends? Yeah, Tieflings fit there. The other place they're seen a lot is the Demon Wastes, and that's regardless of edition.