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

[delericho]

Classes vary in length between 5 and 8 pages.

Many classes also need significant supporting material, notably the spells required by the casting classes. The Artificer is in that same category with its emphasis on item-crafting, and the guidelines in the DMG aren't going to cut it for a full-blown class.

But the artificer could work as a wizard or bard subclass, and take less than a page.

It's fair to say I disagree on that one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if that's their approach to the Artificer, they should just forget about supporting Eberron entirely. Do it properly, or don't bother doing it at all.

(My opinion, of course.)

 

[Onslaught]

If Eberron 5e had Action Points similar to what 3e did (it WAS a core part of the seeting system in that time), an AP-tax would be a way to implement Dragonmarks.

I don't like the idea of giving them for free because that may lead to a group full of Dragonmarked characters, and it was supposed to be something special at the time.

Anyway, one other thing we're lefting behind is enemies, and by that I means monsters. Eberron did have it's share of particular monsters like Corpse Collector, Quori and Living Spells, plus some variantions on weired stuff in Sarlona, Undeads for Karrnath and the Elven Court, antagonists from the new races, etc... the classic ECS alone had ~25 pages of monsters and antagonists.

 

[Tallifer]

I love Eberron. I run both my campaigns of 5th Edition in Eberron. I however see no need for anything beyond a few conversion articles. I already have more Eberron stuff than i can ever digest from 3E and 4E. Perhaps some adventures for other folks, but I myself only run my own completely free-form adventures.
I would never spend money (or read) a book of rehashed fluff and I would hate even more to see anything changed too much in a new version of Eberron.

 

[Duan'duliir]

I see everyone mentioning the 4 races of Eberron - presumably the Changling, Kalashtar, Shifter, and Warforged.
Does no-one remember the Daelkyr Half-Blood from Magic of Eberron, or does no-one care about it?

 

[Onslaught]

I, for one, don't care

Also I don't remember it, but anyway I usually dislike races added via splatbooks and too monster-y stuff that seems better suited to NPCs / BBEGs.

 

[Jester David]

Many classes also need significant supporting material, notably the spells required by the casting classes.

True. 3-4 unique spells are needed. So an extra page.

The Artificer is in that same category with its emphasis on item-crafting, and the guidelines in the DMG aren't going to cut it for a full-blown class.

Robust magic item creation was a convention of the class in 3rd edition, but that was an edition focused on permanent magic items. Magic items are optional in 5e, and crafting doubly so, therefore the artificer shouldn't be a dedicated crafter. Crafting wasn't a huge part of the class in 4e, and it worked fine.
Casting spells on items and a potions brewing feature should suffice.

It's fair to say I disagree on that one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if that's their approach to the Artificer, they should just forget about supporting Eberron entirely. Do it properly, or don't bother doing it at all.

(My opinion, of course.)

We don't need each and every new class that ever appeared in every past campaign setting ever. And everyone has a personal favourite.

A conversion and resigning of the bard would work. Rename a few class features and it does the job.

 

[delericho]

Robust magic item creation was a convention of the class in 3rd edition, but that was an edition focused on permanent magic items. Magic items are optional in 5e, and crafting doubly so, therefore the artificer shouldn't be a dedicated crafter.

I disagree. That's what the artificer is.

Crafting wasn't a huge part of the class in 4e, and it worked fine.

Yeah, I was underwhelmed by the 4e version, to say the least.

We don't need each and every new class that ever appeared in every past campaign setting ever.

No, but if they're supporting Eberron, they should include the core elements of Eberron. If they prefer not to support Eberron then that's their prerogative.

Do it right, or don't do it at all.

 

[Onslaught]

We don't need each and every new class that ever appeared in every past campaign setting ever.

That's a hell lot of ever, huh?!

I still think the Artificer is it's own thing and could easily have a few archetypes: a melee self buffer type, a pet master of sorts for humunculus/iron dog (way to fix Ranger too) and something more cater-y.

Besides the Artificer, I also think the major setting archetypes should be easily obtainable as I said before.

Anyway, someone gave a nice idea of a "setting gazetteer" with basic stuff from many settings, for me that's an amazing idea - it's also nice that WotC could spread knowledge of less known settings like Birthright for new players.

 

[Jester David]

That's a hell lot of ever, huh?!

A problem with replying to forum posts during breakfast before the coffee has kicked in.

I still think the Artificer is it's own thing and could easily have a few archetypes: a melee self buffer type, a pet master of sorts for humunculus/iron dog (way to fix Ranger too) and something more cater-y.

I agree.
But the exact same statement could be made about several - if not all - setting specific class options. Like Dragonlance's mystic, Dark Sun's defiler and templar, Ravenloft's avenger, etc.

It's easy to say "well, one isn't bloat" but everyone has a preference of their "one class". ENWorld sees a lot of Eberron love because it's a recent world and there's less of an Eberron fan community: its fans just used the official forums. Other worlds and settings often have their own forums, where these requests are made.

 

[Jester David]

I disagree. That's what the artificer is.

I'd argue that's what it *did* not what it *is*. It's how they implemented the concept in a very different game system.

The artificer as a class shouldn't assume the DM wants lots of permanent magic items. Or uses action points for that matter. Classes shouldn't require optional content to play.

The class still *needs* to be the 5e update of the artificer. You can't just tweak the math thrust the old artificer into 5e. That's not converting the class, that's just remaking the 3e artificer. A good update should emulate the original but fix its problems. It should start with the concept and create that, not just convert mechanics. The intent should be to make a better artificer.
One of the problems with the artificer was that making full use of it required knowledge of both spells and magic items, especially magic armour and weapon bonuses. That required a metric eff-tonne of system mastery, and use of material in a DM product. Plus it could be broken, as it allowed easy access to situational magic items that were otherwise inoptimal (my favourite example being infusing weapons with ghost touch).
It's significantly easier if those options are spells and/ or class features that imparts a bonus. Replicate the *feel* at the table of the artificer infusing magic into a weapon to make it better without actual just crafting a +1 sword.

Additionally, classes take a LOT of work to do right, requiring balancing and playtesting. Given the effort required, if WotC designs a brand new class, it should be something the majority of players will want in their settings, and something they can use in the Realms and Adventurer's League. But a class that makes permanent magic items breaks the math of 5e and changes the conventions of the game. It's an unnecessary shift.

A 5e artificer shouldn't be shackled to a fifteen-year-old design quirk of a dead edition.

No, but if they're supporting Eberron, they should include the core elements of Eberron. If they prefer not to support Eberron then that's their prerogative.

Do it right, or don't do it at all.

To me, "doing it right" is making a class that takes the concept and hook of the artificer and reinterprets it to work in a different and more elegant way, that feels like the best parts of playing an artificer.