D&D 5E Eberron 5e - What do we want?

[Jester David]

For player mechanics, I also don't want a UA or PDF. Instead... I want to see the new WotC "Big Book Of Mechanics" or "Player's Handbook II" or whatever you want to call it that they apparently are working on or thinking of working on... to include the required mechanics (races, classes, subclasses, backgrounds etc.) for ALL of their primary campaign settings.

That means psionics, that means the four Eberron races and the Artificer, that means Dark Sun's races plus defiling and preserving, that means Dragonlance's three wizard schools, that means Greyhawk's backgrounds, that means Planescape's factions, that means stuff for Mystara and Birthright... etc. etc. etc.

My opinions on splatbooks, bloat, and sourcebooks are on record.
But that's still a solid idea. Instead of 5+ campaign sourcebooks, just to all the most essential stuff in one place. Give everyone the one product.
That's probably the best idea for a splatbook I've every heard.

 

[collin]

Instead of 5+ campaign sourcebooks, just to all the most essential stuff in one place. Give everyone the one product.
That's probably the best idea for a splatbook I've every heard.

I agree, which is why I don't think a total Eberron CS re-do is needed but a SCAG or some form of website or document that takes what little has been done already and coalesces it into one location or document, but revised and expanded to allow for a true, full 5th edition Campaign setting. I disagree with some of the posts here that I am seeing that say "You don't need updated rules, just use the 5th edition rules and add in a few Eberron elements and you're done.". Okay, how do you handle dragonmarks? They were considered feats in the old system. And, yes, what about artificers and their infusions? Warforged? The Kalashtar (psionics)? You can transfer the locations and setting pretty easily, but the stuff that really under-girds and makes Eberron Eberron is the history and flavor (1920's/30's pulp overlayed with a fantasy setting).

Magic items for the most part are not a problem. Yes, there is a plethora of magic items in Eberron but it is primarily low-level magic, the kind that is more favored within the 5th edition rules so that works out fine.

I don't think advancing the timeline is necessary and may even be somewhat detrimental. Eberron is basically Europe after World War I. If you advance the timeline much, guess where everything is headed ... Maybe some folks would like a World War Eberron setting, but I think that should be more of an alternative supplement than the mainstream campaign setting. The fun is in the mistrust and shaky relations that each of the main power groups has after having been at war for many years.

 

[Onslaught]

Back when WotC was discussing Eberron for 4e we had a HUGE topic on Wizard's boards on if they should advance the timeline or not and why. Thankfully they didn't - someone from Wizards even took the time to reply the discussion and make some questions.

Sadly I don't have all that list on why they shouldn't advance the timeline, but basically it boils down to: state of affairs right now is the most tense one possible. Last War is fresh on everyone's minds and schemers didn't had enought time to go big with their schemes. Advancing the timeline would take away some of the most interesting aspects of the setting.

That said... The most important thing is to be able to convert ECS stuff: Races, Artificer, Dragonmarks. But more than that I think *archetypes* should be easily archieveable, like: halflings on dinossaurs, desert nomad elves with double-scimitars, warforgeds juggernauts... maybe through new classes (Artificer) or new backgrounds + class archetype (maybe to represent what used to be prestige classes).

Also, a Mega-Adventure would be nice. Those are always nice

 

[Jester David]

I agree, which is why I don't think a total Eberron CS re-do is needed but a SCAG or some form of website or document that takes what little has been done already and coalesces it into one location or document, but revised and expanded to allow for a true, full 5th edition Campaign setting. I disagree with some of the posts here that I am seeing that say "You don't need updated rules, just use the 5th edition rules and add in a few Eberron elements and you're done.". Okay, how do you handle dragonmarks? They were considered feats in the old system. And, yes, what about artificers and their infusions? Warforged? The Kalashtar (psionics)? You can transfer the locations and setting pretty easily, but the stuff that really under-girds and makes Eberron Eberron is the history and flavor (1920's/30's pulp overlayed with a fantasy setting).

The must-have Eberron rules elements are the races (kalashtar, warforged, shifters, and changelings), the artificer, dragonmarks, and dragonshards.

Races take between 2 and 4 pages, with most taking 3. Kalashtar and changelings don't have much going on with subclasses, while shifters have a lot of options so the race section would likely be 11 pages.
Dragonmarks could be handled via a feat like in the UA document, or some other variant rule. Even if each dragonmark is given a full feat write-up (or unique power) that's still likely 4 pages at most (12 dragonmarks, with 3 per page). Dragonshards are also 2 pages at most. So far, we're looking at a document that is 17 pages.
Classes vary in length between 5 and 8 pages. So even if the artificer is a hefty 6 pages, the fairly comprehensive Eberron update is 23 pages. Just a hair smaller than the free Elemental Evil Player's Companion product. But the artificer could work as a wizard or bard subclass, and take less than a page. So it could be as short as 19 page. And if dragonmarks are handled in a simpler way, it could be smaller still.

 

[feartheminotaur]

And if dragonmarks are handled in a simpler way, it could be smaller still.

I guess this, coupled with a comment a few back about divorcing the marks from feats, begs the question: How should the dragonmarks be done? I'd prefer they not be a feat as well; I'd like to see them tied to the character in some way as opposed to just picking one up at the DragonmarkMart.

My suggestion: Sub-racial features similar to sub-classes: choose a least mark based on race at 3rd, lesser at 6th, greater at 10th, siberys at 14th.

Example: A human PC picks House Orien and gains the mark of passage at 3rd, giving them +5' of speed. Then at 6th level, it becomes a lesser mark allowing the PC to 'cast' expedition retreat or misty step 1/day; 10th level a greater mark allowing dimension door or fly; 14th a Siberys allowing teleport or wind walk.

Maybe these kind of conversions have been covered already, but the more I think about, the more I like the idea of a short, just the basics Eberron guide.

 

[Ahglock]

Not a mega dungeon. One too many of them. And two for me I don't think it fits the setting. The setting seemed smaller scale and more personal. More find the murderer, deal with guild business and not stop the end of the world. I'd have alternate rules for advancement that slowed advancement by at least half with a series of small adventures.

 

[Jester David]

I guess this, coupled with a comment a few back about divorcing the marks from feats, begs the question: How should the dragonmarks be done? I'd prefer they not be a feat as well; I'd like to see them tied to the character in some way as opposed to just picking one up at the DragonmarkMart.

My suggestion: Sub-racial features similar to sub-classes: choose a least mark based on race at 3rd, lesser at 6th, greater at 10th, siberys at 14th.

Example: A human PC picks House Orien and gains the mark of passage at 3rd, giving them +5' of speed. Then at 6th level, it becomes a lesser mark allowing the PC to 'cast' expedition retreat or misty step 1/day; 10th level a greater mark allowing dimension door or fly; 14th a Siberys allowing teleport or wind walk.

Maybe these kind of conversions have been covered already, but the more I think about, the more I like the idea of a short, just the basics Eberron guide.

I'd treat dragonmarks as just a bonus, an extra power that you can just do, but that takes an attunement slot so your character can use fewer magic items. Treat it like an inherent magic item.
And tie least/lesser/greater to magic item rarity and increase it by level.

It is a straigh power increase, but balances quickly as more magic items are introduced. And it requires DM approval so there is a veto option, so it's not just an optimizer build choice.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I guess this, coupled with a comment a few back about divorcing the marks from feats, begs the question: How should the dragonmarks be done? I'd prefer they not be a feat as well; I'd like to see them tied to the character in some way as opposed to just picking one up at the DragonmarkMart.

My suggestion: Sub-racial features similar to sub-classes: choose a least mark based on race at 3rd, lesser at 6th, greater at 10th, siberys at 14th.

What would you have to give up to gain a Dragonmark? Ability bonuses?

 

[feartheminotaur]

I like [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]'s idea - use an attunement slot.

 

[hbarsquared]

Although I'm also fond of the idea "just give PCs and extra feat at 1st level," I think Jester Canuck's idea of using an attunement slot is also perfect. On a power level as a feat, and bif you want to run a higher-powered Eberron, just add more attunable slots!