D&D 5E Eberron 5e

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by Elton74:

Ah, now that it's been officially announced, I'll be on pins and needles watching for this.  I'm excited, excited!  Fully Open or fully closed, I don't care (it's a game on the fence I hate)!  I've been waiting for 5th Edition since I was first frustrated with 4th Edition (and some of the people on these forums, thank you very much). 

I'm hoping to see Eberron continue into the new Edition for curiosity's sake.  Keith, I hope you will be as excited about this as I am.  

Originally posted by Mandarin:

I too hope that Eberron goes into 5e and I would definitely support it. Eberron is imo, the best piece of work Wizards have ever done! There is no Wizards book I've enjoyed reading more than what Eberron has released. And almost all of the extra materials (Five Nations, Magic of Eberron, Dragonmarked) was excellent. Too bad it didn't get that much support in 4e but I guess it would just be reprinting what was already said.

I do hope they make a Eberron Campaign Setting for 5e. I would also suggest maybe a few changes to the setting or just adding more elements. Maybe even let Eberron advance a few year forward in time. What worries me most with such a thing is that you might loose some of the "cold war" feeling of Eberron so it shouldn't be too many years. Maybe add some dramatic events. At least enough to make it worth a 5e upgrade. However Eberron fans seems to be quite sensitive about changing anything or advancing the setting a few years so be careful. Just my wishes for 5e Eberron.


Originally posted by Edymnion:

The announcement of 5e and the idea of them actually looking for player input was enough to drag me out of retirement.

I can only hope they can make it playable.

4e Eberron wasn't even worth looking at for me, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Elton74:

The announcement of 5e and the idea of them actually looking for player input was enough to drag me out of retirement.

I can only hope they can make it playable.

4e Eberron wasn't even worth looking at for me, unfortunately.

I got a copy.  The 3 pictures of the races was the best part of the Player's Guide, actually.
smile.gif
 The Layout was -- in a word -- terrible. 

Originally posted by Ogiwan:

Everybody here (presumably) knows that I love the 4th edition, but even I will say that the Dragonmarks of 4e Eberron were lackluster. So, yeah, I'm looking forward to 5e Eberron.

Originally posted by Ashlock:

My personal hope is that the new version of D&D will allow for easy portability of old material. That is, rules that are simple enough to accomodate any fluff text from any setting and any edition. So that my 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting
and my 4E Eberron Campaign Guide remain solid source material. 

Even in my 4E Eberron game, I often reach for the various 3.5 Eberron books. Throwing some mechanics together is no big deal; it's the story that makes Eberron great. 

For money reasons alone, I'm sure that the Forgotten Realms will remain in the vanguard of the new edition. (And I do like the Realms, but c'mon, I've been invested in Eberron since writing for it!) The hope is that Eberron will at least not be left out.

Originally posted by kare:

Hey,

I'm somewhat in two minds about 5e and eberron (5eberron, nexberron?). Clearly, to my mind, Dragonmarks would've worked better as themes rather than feats (particularly the element of progression that would've involved). In fact, I think if themes had been available at the start of 4e they would've been implemented that way - and I wouldn't mind an optional set of rules for dragonmarks implemented as themes (either additional or alternative to the feats), if anyone with the power to make that happen is reading.

That aside, however, I'm pretty happy with how 4e and Eberron work together. I would've liked to have seen a book on Khorvaire's nations other than the main five, but I still have hope that information will be drip-fed to us in a series of Dragon articles - and it's not really an edition problem anyway. 

Yours,

JMH 

Originally posted by Edymnion:

There is one thing that will be a dealbreaker for me with a 5e Eberron.

There.  Are.  No.  Dragonborn.

Period.

Dig out your 3e Eberron Campaign Setting book.  That is the base of what Eberron should be.  Not shoe-horned in dragon people who only suddenly exist because they were in the new PHB and the setting apparently wasn't allowed to say "Um, no, those don't exist here, you can't use that by default".

Simply put, I will not buy a single Eberron 5e product if they support Dragonborn by default.  A sidebar that gives them as a possible option, I could live with that, but the setting as a whole should not acknowledge their existance.

If it does, I'll stick to my 3e books and the 5e ones can rot on the shelf as far as I would be concerned.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

I'm fine with them, as a matter of fact they can throw in whatever they want if I don't like it I won't use it.

Originally posted by Elton74:

There is one thing that will be a dealbreaker for me with a 5e Eberron.

There.  Are.  No.  Dragonborn.

Period.

Dig out your 3e Eberron Campaign Setting book.  That is the base of what Eberron should be.  Not shoe-horned in dragon people who only suddenly exist because they were in the new PHB and the setting apparently wasn't allowed to say "Um, no, those don't exist here, you can't use that by default".

Simply put, I will not buy a single Eberron 5e product if they support Dragonborn by default.  A sidebar that gives them as a possible option, I could live with that, but the setting as a whole should not acknowledge their existance.

If it does, I'll stick to my 3e books and the 5e ones can rot on the shelf as far as I would be concerned.

You're mad that they put in Dragonborn.  Actually, it's true, they made no mention of any half-dragons except for Erandis Vol.  And that was just to try to stop a war that shouldn't have went as long as it did.  When they put them in, yeah it's a surprise.  However, I don't think they will add them in this time.  We haven't even seen what is going on with Eberron.  

Still, I think Keith will have some ideas on how to do things for the next "iteration."  Hopefully it will be modular because Eberron was designed to have everything including the kitchen sink.  Even if it doesn't make sense to have it. 

Originally posted by Ogiwan:

What's wrong with the Dragonborn being in Q'barra?

Originally posted by tallric_kruush:

I thought they did a great job of finding a suitable, believable home for them. Q'barra was perfect, and their role as guardians of Hakha'torvak made perfect sense, in my opinion.

They can play as major or minor a role as you wish. NPC dragonborn really have little reason to ever venture beyond Q'barra, unless you fashion such for your campaign.

I was apprehensive, since I'm as big a purist snob as there is, when it comes to Eberron (at least, I thought I was until reading Edy's post ;) ). In the end, though, I thought the races were well implemented.

Originally posted by Edymnion:

Ooh, just thought of another dealbreaker.

5e will have to have a robust crafting system, because Eberron has to have the Artificer.  Not just a "I buff your gear" 4e Artificer, but the full on master crafter from 3e.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

Ooh, just thought of another dealbreaker.

5e will have to have a robust crafting system, because Eberron has to have the Artificer.  Not just a "I buff your gear" 4e Artificer, but the full on master crafter from 3e.

They can in 4th ed, just has to take the ritualist feat.  Personally though I would drop the feat and just tie all rituals into Arcana anyways basically you don't need a feat to use rituals.

Originally posted by m4kitsu:

I really hate to be the one to call this out, Edymnion, but: 

Eberron Campaign Setting, v3.5 edition, page 8.
"If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron."
Eberron Campaign Guide, 4th Edition, page 4.
"If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a plce in Eberron."

There's a lot that changed between the two books, but that wasn't one of them. The fact that it's rule no. 1 on the "ten things to know" list in both books didn't change either.

Now you, as a DM, of course, are free to ignore the Dragonborn. You're free to rule them back to Lizardfolk in Q'barra or simply wave your wand and make them disappear completely. You could also do that to Tieflings, Eladrin and the Feyspires, the Feywild and Shadowfell, and everything else that was added or changed between the ECS and ECG. That you can do that is one of the best things about D&D.

But to flatly refuse to buy an entire line of books because there's one thing in them that you utterly refuse to even see mention of on the page, when that things is as insignificant as a race? That's incredibly arrogant and a fairly dire insult to everyone that's had a hand in making Eberron what it is, including Keith. 

I thought you were better than that. 

Originally posted by kare:

Hey,

I don't think it was too weird to open up a place for the Dragonborn in Argonessen and Q'barra, so that worked for me. Obviously it messed up Vol's backstory a bit, and her and the organisations surrounding her were and are a key portion of Eberron myth that characters can dive into. Tweaking her history to keep her and the mark of death unique (and distinct from her half-dragon status) was a tricky one, and it could've been handled more sensitively.

Broadly, I'm glad the core elements of D&D, including Dragonborn and Tieflings, were present in all the settings.

Yours,

JMH 

Originally posted by tallric_kruush:

I don't think the introduction of the Dragonborn affects Erandis' story at all. The Dragonborn are not half-dragons and have nothing to do with the elves, nor with the enmity between the Dragons and the Undying Court.

I'm not seeing a connection.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

I really hate to be the one to call this out, Edymnion, but: 

Eberron Campaign Setting, v3.5 edition, page 8.
"If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron."
Eberron Campaign Guide, 4th Edition, page 4.
"If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a plce in Eberron."

There's a lot that changed between the two books, but that wasn't one of them. The fact that it's rule no. 1 on the "ten things to know" list in both books didn't change either.

Now you, as a DM, of course, are free to ignore the Dragonborn. You're free to rule them back to Lizardfolk in Q'barra or simply wave your wand and make them disappear completely. You could also do that to Tieflings, Eladrin and the Feyspires, the Feywild and Shadowfell, and everything else that was added or changed between the ECS and ECG. That you can do that is one of the best things about D&D.

But to flatly refuse to buy an entire line of books because there's one thing in them that you utterly refuse to even see mention of on the page, when that things is as insignificant as a race? That's incredibly arrogant and a fairly dire insult to everyone that's had a hand in making Eberron what it is, including Keith. 

I thought you were better than that. 

He has always been against the adding of races outside the Eberron's orginal 8 or so.  I don't think it is arrogant, just his perfernce and while I think it isn't the best choice not to buy a book you might enjoy because of that, it is his right and I fully support him.  For instance I would not bother with D&D if it went classless but I know Endymnion would eat it up.  I agree with you though that the best thing, is to ignore the things you like, I don't use Bator in 4th ed.

Anyways dragonmarks need to be implemented better in 5th ed.  in both 3rd and 4th they were lacking.  The theme system is a much better way to do it then feats. 

Originally posted by m4kitsu:

He has always been against the adding of races outside the Eberron's orginal 8 or so.  I don't think it is arrogant, just his perfernce and while I think it isn't the best choice not to buy a book you might enjoy because of that, it is his right and I fully support him.  For instance I would not bother with D&D if it went classless but I know Endymnion would eat it up.  I agree with you though that the best thing, is to ignore the things you like, I don't use Bator in 4th ed.
I know, and I think that's unfortunate. I rather pity anyone who would be driven away from something they obviously liked at least fairly well by something so trivial as the inclusion of a single element that changed nothing and can be easily ignored. 

Something like going classless (or, in my case, shoehorning in "classic" feeling classes to a game that neither wanted nor needed them and hopelessly muddying the game's presentation in the process) is a much more fundamental change than adding a single race to a remote corner of the campaign setting. 

Anyways dragonmarks need to be implemented better in 5th ed.  in both 3rd and 4th they were lacking.  The theme system is a much better way to do it then feats. 
Considering the 3e version was the original, intended form of Dragonmarks, I fail to see how their presentation in that form could be "lacking", with nothing to compare them against. However, I do agree that the 4e presentation was inadequate, and that the full potential of dragonmarks as both story and mechanical device has yet to me reached. 

Themes would be a wonderful way to do so. If Themes do become the "third pillar" of character creation in the new edition (something I wouldn't mind at all), I can see 5berron following doing exactly that. The question is: is that one Theme ("Dragonmark Heir"), or fourteen (twelve true marks for thirteen houses, plus Aberrant)? And how would you fit Siberys Marks into that? Their own theme? PP? ED? 


Originally posted by mylon:

I'm currently running an Eberron game using a non-D&D system and it's going great so far.  There's so many resources to fall on and the intrigue is an awesome foil to work with, it's exactly what I've been after in a fantasy setting, yet incredibly rare.

My only complaint about the setting is the "If it exists in D&D there's a place for it in Eberron" philosophy.  Changelings already have incredible potential to muck things up given how intrigue oriented the setting is.  Shifters are like the new half-orc in the form of, "Your kind is not welcome here".  Gnomes have always felt redundant with halflings around.  Khalashtar are very human in appearance and nature and they seem more or less like an excuse to have a psion race.  As opposed to giving more options for any race to excel at psionics.  Warforged were a great addition though.  They do suffer from racial prejudice, but it's an interesting difference from the uncout barbarians of orcs or shifters.

Everything else?  It stretches the suspension of disbelief.  Putting in evil-dwarves ruins the shades of gray style of Eberron.  And there just isn't room for more races anyhow.  I could understand perhaps how Xen`drik could be an excuse to add a player's favorite material, but it shouldn't be an excuse for EVERYTHING to exist.  That was just a means to try and sell more books.  Sometimes a setting is made more interesting by what it does not have.  Cyre, anyone?

Originally posted by Edymnion:

I really hate to be the one to call this out, Edymnion, but: 

Eberron Campaign Setting, v3.5 edition, page 8.
"If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron."
Eberron Campaign Guide, 4th Edition, page 4.
"If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a plce in Eberron."

There's a lot that changed between the two books, but that wasn't one of them. The fact that it's rule no. 1 on the "ten things to know" list in both books didn't change either.
Thats been brought up before, and my answer to it now is the same as it was then (least this place is consistant, 5 years gone and people are still saying the exact same things).

There is a vast, overwhelming difference between "it has a place" and making it default core.  The spirit of it was that "Hey, if you just found something cool you want to use, then by all means use it.  There will be someplace you can squeeze it in and make it work.  If not, we left a whole continent open for you, you could fit anything in there."

People don't seem to understand the differnence anymore between having the option to use something, and having it rammed down your throat as being there by default.  To use those lines to support a slightly more absurd position, if WotC were to print D&D stats for My Little Ponies as a playable race, are you honestly going to tell me we have to add Ponyland to Eberron just because "if its in D&D, its in Eberron", and that if it did you would be completely okay with that?

Again, there is a world of difference between "You can fit anything you want into the setting" and "By default, this setting has everything ever printed for any setting, any expansion, or anything else you can find.  Even that subrace of warforged kitchen sinks.  And it all lives in Sharn."

Originally posted by glowinghyren:

You're right. A race of ponies would be kind of dumb. So I would do what you should do with the Dragonborn and ignore them and their rules entirely. That's one of the great things about this game, you can pick and choose what you want to use and totally ignore everything else. I think it'd be silly to ignore an entire setting because one line in the rules says that you can include something if you want to.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

Anyways dragonmarks need to be implemented better in 5th ed.  in both 3rd and 4th they were lacking.  The theme system is a much better way to do it then feats. 
Considering the 3e version was the original, intended form of Dragonmarks, I fail to see how their presentation in that form could be "lacking", with nothing to compare them against. However, I do agree that the 4e presentation was inadequate, and that the full potential of dragonmarks as both story and mechanical device has yet to me reached. 

Themes would be a wonderful way to do so. If Themes do become the "third pillar" of character creation in the new edition (something I wouldn't mind at all), I can see 5berron following doing exactly that. The question is: is that one Theme ("Dragonmark Heir"), or fourteen (twelve true marks for thirteen houses, plus Aberrant)? And how would you fit Siberys Marks into that? Their own theme? PP? ED? 

That is what I mean yes 3rd ed's version was the orginal but much like 4th I didn't really like it's application.  The prestige class part worked, but the feat system add on failed in my opinion.  Still both systems required to much sacrafice that the theme system doesn't.

Anyways I do think Endymion is right about one thing, they shouldn't try to fit everything in.  I believe more should be left up to individual groups playing.  So for instance if a player wanted to play a shardmind in my game, I would work to make it happen with the player, but Wizards shouldn't have a book giving them a country here.  This also figures in that not every race needs their own country. 

Originally posted by Edymnion:

Call me a grognard, but the 3e campaign setting is Eberron to me.  The main reason I don't like things like the Dragonborn being in the core, beyond the "Hey look, its a LA+0 half dragon for you to play!" is that anything in the core book is going to be assumed to be standard in all games, so future books will continue to address them.

I honestly would not mind the Dragonborn if they were handled in a one off splatbook that said "You can normally find them over here, and their interactions with group X and Y generally go as follows".  Thats fine.  Its great for people that want to use them, and great for people that don't want to use them because its self contained.

By putting them into the core, base book, it means not only do I (and everyone else that doesn't want to use them) have to unwind them from one book, we have to unwind them from EVERY book.

Eberron should stick to the core races it was designed to use, the ones in the 3e books.  Keep that as the default.  Anyone that wants to add or subtract from it are perfectly free to do so, and an updated Races of Eberron (that doesn't suck) could be done to provide detailed info on how to do it.

Just don't stick it in the core campaign setting book.

Originally posted by bofdm:

Regarding the races that were added to the 4th edition of Eberron, I have to somewhat agree with Edymnion's grudge against the Dragonborn but for a different reason. Aside from the Eladrin and their feyspires (though even the Eladrin suffer this) none of the *new* races that were shoved into the setting in 4th edition actually contributed to the history of the world in any meaningful way.

You have these elaborate detailed histories on the formation of the nation of Galifar, the creation of the Warforged, the battle of the Quori, the escape from Xen'drik of the Elves, etc etc. And then you get "By the way there are dragonborn in Q'barra. They've been there the whole time. Totally different from a half dragon."

And then as more books came out it was the same thing. "Goliaths exist here in this one mountain range. They've been there the entire time."

"Tieflings exist in the demon waste cause...there ya go. Enjoy."

But for some reason the strangest change to the setting, and one that I still don't get why they changed it is the cosmology. The Orrery setup was awesome. I loved there being multiple moons that doubled as other planes of existence. And then it all kinda got lumped into like a giant PB&J sandwich.

Now I do agree that the quality of the 4e Eberron books was fantastic. The art was incredible and the maps were way better than the 3e books. But I want Eberron to feel....unique among DnD settings.

Does anyone else feel the same? I'd love to hear other opinions on what they hope for in the next edition of Eberron.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

Regarding the races that were added to the 4th edition of Eberron, I have to somewhat agree with Edymnion's grudge against the Dragonborn but for a different reason. Aside from the Eladrin and their feyspires (though even the Eladrin suffer this) none of the *new* races that were shoved into the setting in 4th edition actually contributed to the history of the world in any meaningful way.

You have these elaborate detailed histories on the formation of the nation of Galifar, the creation of the Warforged, the battle of the Quori, the escape from Xen'drik of the Elves, etc etc. And then you get "By the way there are dragonborn in Q'barra. They've been there the whole time. Totally different from a half dragon."

And then as more books came out it was the same thing. "Goliaths exist here in this one mountain range. They've been there the entire time."

"Tieflings exist in the demon waste cause...there ya go. Enjoy."

But for some reason the strangest change to the setting, and one that I still don't get why they changed it is the cosmology. The Orrery setup was awesome. I loved there being multiple moons that doubled as other planes of existence. And then it all kinda got lumped into like a giant PB&J sandwich.

Now I do agree that the quality of the 4e Eberron books was fantastic. The art was incredible and the maps were way better than the 3e books. But I want Eberron to feel....unique among DnD settings.

Does anyone else feel the same? I'd love to hear other opinions on what they hope for in the next edition of Eberron.

Not to be mean but a lot of the stuff that was added with races contributing was added after the intial book especially shifter and changelings.  Also Eberron does to me because of the things that actually make it unique, the broad magic accesible by most everyone and the way it is used, the way religion was treated, the similarites of post WW Europe.  These are the things that really made it unique to me, not the races used or the planes.

Originally posted by Gilo:

I kinda liked the way those new races were added to 4E Eberron:
The Tifflings (4E EPG) have a very nice backstory that connects the the fallen Ohr Kaluun nation in Sarlona. It gives a DM away to plant Khorvairen hooks that lead to a great Secrets of Sarlona's chapter (btw, paizo's did a nice job in flashing-out the concept of an infernal themed nation in the Council of Thieves adventure path set in the Inner Sea nation of Cheliax).

The Dragonborn: I liked that addition especially due to the - "Explore Q'barra, Part 2 Poison Dusk, Black Sun" article: 'Duty before Glory.' So says the inscription on the gates of Ka'rhashan. Our ancestors carved this when they fled the western lands and returned to watch these dusty ruins. For a hundred generations we have been told that this is all we can aspire to, that we must guard these cursed cities until the end of time. I say no more!"

-This gives a very noir feel to the Dragonborn culture in Eberron.

I don't mind new stuff getting added (races included) as long as the concept is cool and they integrate seamlessly with the existing canon (which I think so far it did).


Originally posted by bofdm:

Not to be mean but a lot of the stuff that was added with races contributing was added after the intial book especially shifter and changelings.  Also Eberron does to me because of the things that actually make it unique, the broad magic accesible by most everyone and the way it is used, the way religion was treated, the similarites of post WW Europe.  These are the things that really made it unique to me, not the races used or the planes.

I do not see any malice in your words Lugnut and I appreciate the point of view. I do agree with the things you like about the setting as well, the broad use of magic, the different take on religion (particularly the distance of the gods) and the similarities to post WW Europe. I don't want to come off as saying I hate the setting, I don't. It's still my favorite DnD setting despite the changes made in 4th edition. I guess it's that I don't understand why they changed things like the Cosmology or added in all these new races.
The design philosophy behind adding all of the new races into every setting, and making the Cosmology the same in every setting, is what I feel takes away from the uniqueness of Eberron.

Gilo I also appreciate the point of view you presented as well. I unfortunately do not have a DnD Insider subscription so I can't read the article you reference, could you explain how it gives a noir feel to the Dragonborn culture?

I will have to go back and read on the Tiefling connection to Ohr Kaluun in Sarlona since you bring it up.

Thank you for responding! I'd love to hear more opinions! =)

Originally posted by Gilo:

Gilo I also appreciate the point of view you presented as well. I unfortunately do not have a DnD Insider subscription so I can't read the article you reference, could you explain how it gives a noir feel to the Dragonborn culture?

offtopic Dragonborns
[sblock]Noir In the sense that there is a feeling of disillusionment, pessimism attached the Dragonborn culture: They live in the ruins of their own crumbling empire(which at its height included the Blade Desert and the Talenta Plains during the Age of Monsters). They are race of arrgont, glory seeking warriors (originally hand picked from the legions of the Light of Siberys) but they are stuck on permanent sentry duty (since the age of Demons), guarding against an enemy (Cold Sun overlord) which they they cannot defeat (and yet his influance corrupt a presentage of each Dragonborn generation)...[/sblock]  


Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

I've been playing both 3.5 Eberron and 4e eberron with equal frequency, due to DDO. From the Loremaster threads there, online research of my own, flipping through 3.5 eberron books at my hobby shop, and playing 4e, I don't see much real difference in the cosmology.

The moons interact like they always have. The cosmology of eberron IS different from core. I honestly felt like they took a long look at eberron before they came up with the 4e cosmology. World Above, World below, etc.

Originally posted by AvonRekaes:

Personally, I'm very open when it comes to the inclusion of races or classes when I'm runing a DnD game. I know that when I'm playing a character for someone else's game, I *HATE* to hear blanket statements like "Oh, and there are no goliaths" if I really wanted to play a goliath. It's not my job as DM to limit player fun, and I like to keep the entire catalouge of options open.

Rather, I feel my job is to find that interesting way to include that race into the setting, and ground them in available lore. Goliaths in my Eberron are not just mountain folk. They mostly live in a specific range, the Byshek Mountains, and they're the ones that mine byshek and produce weapons out of it, simply because it's the most readily available workable metal to them. Then they trade these weapons and raw byshek ore to the druids of the Eldeen Reaches.

So there. Now Goliaths actually have something to do with Eberron beyond "they exist in it".

The way dragonborn were handled in the 4e setting book left much to be desired. I think they were trying TOO HARD to make them non-obtrusive. However because little was said to mitigate their prescence, it just came across as a hard fact that they were there. BAM. Dragonborn in Eberron: "they exist in it".

The above linked Dragon article did wonders for their inclusion (not to mention fleshing out Q'barra as an adventuring locale with awesome "wild west meets the rainforest" flavor). I love the fact that to humans and the rest of Khorvair, dragonborn aren't "Dragonborn", they're just another flavor of "scale", the derogatory term they have for all lizardfolk.

Now go back and read the 3.5 Eberron setting. Replace any mention of "lizardfolk" with "scale". Did you see what happened there? To the rest of Khorvare, in-character, Dragonborn are Lizardfolk. They always have been. You don't have to suddenly question where these half-dragons came from. What dragons? That's just a walking lizard-man. He breathes lightning? Crazy tribal lizard-magic. (Plus, not like Khorvaire hasn't seen it's share of fire-breathing human sorcerers).

Now Dragonborn have seemlessly been meshed with the background lore of Q'barra, as guardians of Hav.. Hata... Havatorvak? (Forget what it's called) They have a place in the lore of the Age of Monsters and their fledgling empire's fall highlights one of the fundamental dangers of the setting (Rajah influence), and their relation with modern day Khorvaire is already accounted for.

This is how I like to see it done, because this is how I run my own campaigns. I'm not going to tell a friend who I want to have fun "don't play the character you want to play because I don't like it", I'm going to say "Sure, you can play your drow assassin! BUT, Eberron drow are not like Menzoberanzan drow. You see there are three separate cultures..." etc. etc. etc.

Whether the race, class, theme, or whatever in question is in the PHB, PHB2, Heroes of the Exceptionally Exotic Extradimensional Emporium, I'm going to find a way to include it if a player wants to play it.

Originally posted by marcigny:

I understand many statements here, but for my part, I'm a traditionalist and for me, Dragonborns are not Lizardfolks.
Tieflings, no problem.... It's not as if they didn't exist before in Eberron.
Eladrin, no problem, they have a very interesting story (personnal POV), and integrate themselves in a very "fae" way.
But dragonborn.... If limited in the context of Argonessen, yes, but to put them in Q'barra, the "paradise" of my beloved lizardfolks, no way ;).
(Where I'm concerned, goliath can go to hell.) (And my players (all GMs), are a lot more "stuck up" about races than I am, so...)

For this new edition, I do hope that they won't go the way they did for the 4th about races and subtypes.
Enough races have already been implemented (even if we had to wait the publication of Dark Sun for the Thri-keen (Xendrik, mostly). I mean:
-Dwarf, Human, Eladrin, Kalashtar, Thri-keen, drow (and umbragen), elves, warforged, shifter, changeling, orcs, goblinoids, tiefling, gnome, halfling.... and many variations for each. (If I was vicious
smiley-innocent.gif
, I would put vampire and lycanthropes, trolls, oni, medusa and Illithid in the batch.)
That's a lot more than many universes propose in terms of racial types and subtypes (and I'm limiting myself to D20 games).
And that's for Eberron as a planet alone... (If we put the plans in the mix, we are overwhelmed with races and subtypes...) In this view, I don't see the need to put some more races in the mix... Bloody hell, it's not Star Wars with it's thousands of planets !

If they were to advance the timeline, well, it would have to be enough to be significant, but not so much as to destroy one of the major backbones of the setting, which is the noir, "cold war" feeling. At least, making the unrest more palpable "indoors", with each country having domestic events of significance preventing them to go all out on their neighbours (a purge in the Silver Flame, a ersatz of revolution in Breland, etc....).

And for classes, or the lack of those, well, "themes", or "lifepath", "Specialties" should be present, fleshing out the characters (and I concur with the idea of "themed" dragonmarks).
As for the artificer, a "retour aux sources" is, in my humble opinion, needed. Crafting felt bland, without flavour in 4th (in my opinion and that of my players). I don't mean that we should take a step back and keep 3.5 crafting feats, but, well... doing something about it. (A crafting system like in Ars Magica, perhaps.) 

My two cents, anyway
smile.gif

 

Originally posted by Hellcow:

It's been a crazy few months for me, hence my virtual absence from the boards. I only just noticed this thread, but obviously it's a topic I'm very interested in and I'm glad to see the old band coming back together. I'm involved in the current playtests, and so far I like what I see. However, I have no knowledge about plans for Eberron.

Regarding things like the Dragonborn and Tieflings, when it came to 4E these things weren't choices. It was a mandate that the setting provide support for the races of the Player's Handbook. One way to look at it is that for many people, 4E was their first introduction to Eberron. For people who came to the setting in 3.5 it was a "Wait, this peanut butter doesn't belong in my chocolate" scenario; the counter is that the solely 4E player would say "I don't understand - I bought this book, but what am I supposed to do with my peanut butter?"

It has always been my preference to limit the number of races in the world but add depth to each one; I've never been a fan of thirty-one flavors of elf. However, this wasn't a choice we were given: it was a mandate, so the question was how to proceed with it. What I sought to do was to limit the impact they had on the world. Looking to tiefling, dragonborn, and eladrin, while you might find one in Sharn, none of them possess true nations, dragonmarks, or a particular impact on history. And while you could find one in Sharn, you'll also find that most of the inhabitants of Sharn who encounter an eladrin are going to wonder why that elf has funny eyes; that most people don't know the difference between lizardfolk and dragonborn; and that tieflings are just bizarre, but in a world where you could potentially meet a medusa on a city street they can live with that bizarre.

The use of the feyspires gave the Eladrin a role in the world, but one that separated them from history - specifically, they've been intentionally hiding from the people of Eberron. Note that in The Fading Dream, Thorn herself doesn't initially know what Eladrin are. Tying tieflings to Ohr Kaluun seemed logical - it's a fallen empire known for its use of dark magic and traffic with fiends - and was a way to make that nation a little more relevant in the world. As for the dragonborn in Q'barra, the goal was to say "They've always been there, but humans don't really know or care." As AvonRekaes says, they're all scales to me. My intention in doing this wasn't to downplay the relevance of the lizardfolk; on the contrary, if you read "Poison Dusk, Cold Sun" (ok, "Black Sun", but it SHOULD have been "Cold Sun") the lizardfolk of the Cold Sun Federation consider the dragonborn to be just as much of a problem as the humans, for all that the dragonborn have been there longer. Q'barra is the homeland of the lizardfolk, while Argonnessen is the home of the dragonborn; it simply happens that there is an ancient outpost of dragonborn in Q'barra that provides an easy entry point for player characters, as opposed to having a PC dragonborn from Argonnessen.

Just like gnomes or elves, my goal with working these things into Eberron is to try to find an angle that holds to what they are while providing some sort of new hook for people to explore. As for the comment that one is forced to use them if they're in the core books, well, *I* don't. Case in point: Baator. It was dropped into Eberron in the ECG. And for the next year I completely ignored it. If anyone in my campaign asked, I'd have said "What's Baator? Never heard of it." And if they said "It's on page 5X of the book," I'd say "Not in MY Eberron." Then I decided to find a way to fit Baator into the world in a way that made me actually want to use it - something that felt like it belonged in Eberron and wasn't just there because it existed in another book. You'll see the result in this month's Eye On Eberron. But if you still want to ignore it? Ignore it. For me, a core principle of Eberron has always been that the books are guides - but you should make the world your own.

With that said...


Originally posted by Hellcow:

... Just as this is a time to shape the next edition of D&D, it's also the opportunity to determine the fate of Eberron. If you want to see print support for Eberron, let WotC know! And if there are specific things you want or don't want - Dragonborn? Timeline adjustment? Race-restricted dragonmarks? - tell them. Eberron lacks the novel support of Forgotten Realms, and it doesn't have a board game. There's not a lot of ways for WotC to see that there IS a market for Eberron or to judge what people want from it. So if you want to see more Eberron, get the word out!

Originally posted by VoyRager:

... Just as this is a time to shape the next edition of D&D, it's also the opportunity to determine the fate of Eberron. If you want to see print support for Eberron, let WotC know! And if there are specific things you want or don't want - Dragonborn? Timeline adjustment? Race-restricted dragonmarks? - tell them. Eberron lacks the novel support of Forgotten Realms, and it doesn't have a board game. There's not a lot of ways for WotC to see that there IS a market for Eberron or to judge what people want from it. So if you want to see more Eberron, get the word out!
Pardon me I was passing by when your posting on the forum's main sideboard caught my attention and couldn't resisted sharing the ideas and suggestions that your message quickly brought up.

To begin with:

I been enjoying the evolutionary changes happening with Athas, Faerun, Feywild and the introductions to the new dephts of the DnD World that occurred during the 4E era but sadly I feel somewhat disappointed with my favorite section of the DnD universe of Eberron's contributions to 4E.

I also feel the getting the word out would be an easier transition by sharing tales and results from the Players and DMs whom has experiment with Eberron base ideas and annouced the results for other to put add their inputs on or to or simply utilized the information with their future DnD experiences.

Like what I'm doing (or attempting) at my forum, The Players' Vault(x) (here at the WotC's Forums)using the DM's Guidebook's chapters on Houseruled and the DM's toolbox while religiously avoiding the overly homebrew overtones to created several interesting campaigns for all tiers revolving around one epic event and all unfolding (for now) in different Eberron's settings.

As for the development of the Eberron board game all I can come up with are some suggestions that I believe would escalate Eberron's settings popularity with DnD's Players and DMs' all over but as in drawning in newcomers to the market, I do understand how important the novels (graphic and paperback) are this type of expanding for the DnD marketbase. 

As for those suggestions for 5E Eberron:

1.  Theme features with powers and new class features based from Eberron past campaigns and with prerequisites of the classes in PH1, PH2, PH3 instaed of just focusing on Eberron based Classes.

2.  More uniquely focused backgrounds' bonuses and themes' features as well as feats; all based from Eberron regions, with prerequisites for races found in PH1, PH2, PH3 (as dictated by the indicated Eberron's region population's make-up) as options to choose from instead of choosing houses' or dragonmarks' feats, and general area's backgrounds bonuses.

3. Expanded class features by introducing new class features and new feats that are cannibalized, reformed and redeveloped from defeated evils means of past Eberron's campaigns or is of a displaced, transplanted and matured with an Eberron's accent from "The-meant-for-travelling-type of settings like the Planes Above and Planes Below.

4. Introduced couple of new campaigns for The Rule Of Threes series that has 5E Eberron's settings as a segment and this last suggestion I think is the best of the suggestions I just quickly came up with right now.

Thx. V. 

P.S.
One more question. If one would like to send-in feedbacks and/or to offered support for 5E Eberron workings, where or/and to whom should one send these sorts of expression of admirations and appreciations?


        

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

... Just as this is a time to shape the next edition of D&D, it's also the opportunity to determine the fate of Eberron. If you want to see print support for Eberron, let WotC know! And if there are specific things you want or don't want - Dragonborn? Timeline adjustment? Race-restricted dragonmarks? - tell them. Eberron lacks the novel support of Forgotten Realms, and it doesn't have a board game. There's not a lot of ways for WotC to see that there IS a market for Eberron or to judge what people want from it. So if you want to see more Eberron, get the word out!

I certainly want Eberron to be supported in 5E, because it is my favorite campaign setting ever for multiple reasons. The question is, how to let WoTC that many of us want that support? Creating a group in WoTC's webpage where our suggestions, preferences and ideas are shared and officially presented? I, for instance, have only played 2E, but own the ECS and have read several of the novels, so I do not have experience playing in the setting but know about its lore (and, even if I have heard that Keith prefers to play Eberron with 4E, I prefer simpler mechanics and would love to play by using the core of 5E).
On the other hand, I for one would love the setting book to stress the good things about the Church of the Silver Flame, which I love, because sadly I have the feeling that many regard all flamers as corrupt or fanatics and ignore the merciful and selfless tenets that inspire them, so while I understand that stressing how in every organization there may be people with several tendencies, it would be good to highlight how corrupt flamers are either a minority or blatantly ignore what they are supposed to live up to (theology treatises examine this).

Originally posted by Hellcow:

I certainly want Eberron to be supported in 5E, because it is my favorite campaign setting ever for multiple reasons. The question is, how to let WoTC that many of us want that support?

It's a good question. I don't have an ideal answer at the moment, but I'll look into it. 

Creating a group in WoTC's webpage where our suggestions, preferences and ideas are shared and officially presented?

It certainly couldn't hurt.

...even if I have heard that Keith prefers to play Eberron with 4E, I prefer simpler mechanics and would love to play by using the core of 5E.

Obviously it's still in its infancy, but I'll say that I like what I've see of the new edition - as long as it continues down the same road, I expect that it's what I'll use.
 
On the other hand, I for one would love the setting book to stress the good things about the Church of the Silver Flame, which I love, because sadly I have the feeling that many regard all flamers as corrupt or fanatics and ignore the merciful and selfless tenets that inspire them, so while I understand that stressing how in every organization there may be people with several tendencies, it would be good to highlight how corrupt flamers are either a minority or blatantly ignore what they are supposed to live up to (theology treatises examine this).

If you read through old threads, you'll certainly find a lot of posts by me on this very subject. There is corruption in the church - but no more than among the followers of the Sovereign Host, and far less than the Blood of Vol (Erandis herself is a corrupt figurehead abusing the faith of her followers). The point was always to say that even the followers of the Flame aren't perfect; that you can find corruption in this bastion of light. But overall, it IS a force driven by compassion, and a force that does a great deal of good in the world. The corrupt are there, but as you say they are supposed to be a minority who tarnish the reputation of the Church - not a majority who define it.

Originally posted by Hellcow:

Like what I'm doing (or attempting) at my forum, The Players' Vault(x) (here at the WotC's Forums)using the DM's Guidebook's chapters on Houseruled and the DM's toolbox while religiously avoiding the overly homebrew overtones to created several interesting campaigns for all tiers revolving around one epic event and all unfolding (for now) in different Eberron's settings.

Thanks for the link and your thoughts. As noted above, I'm not sure who one should send feedback to, but I'll see if I can find out. Creating a group specifically for this purpose couldn't hurt.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Like what I'm doing (or attempting) at my forum, The Players' Vault(x) (here at the WotC's Forums)using the DM's Guidebook's chapters on Houseruled and the DM's toolbox while religiously avoiding the overly homebrew overtones to created several interesting campaigns for all tiers revolving around one epic event and all unfolding (for now) in different Eberron's settings.

Thanks for the link and your thoughts. As noted above, I'm not sure who one should send feedback to, but I'll see if I can find out. Creating a group specifically for this purpose couldn't hurt.

(First of all, I apologize for any English mistakes I make) I don't know if this is a crazy idea or not, but would it not be good for Keith to talk to the guys at WoTC to ask them to support all of us who would like to officially playtest D&DNext in Eberron? In other words, perhaps a sub-set of playtesters (once the public playtest begins) could play (in person or online) and while testing the proposed new rules of 5E simultaneously playtest features that are unique to Eberron (e.g. dragonmarks, artificers, etc.). Wizards is certainly interested in raising support and legitimacy by means of the public playtests, and certainly they could likewise be interested in having one popular campaign as Eberron benefit from the same features. Additionally, this would speed up the process for the next campaign book/setting.

P.S. I am an international law scholar, and would like to know if Eberron is somehow inspired in the Peace of Westphalia: after the 30 years war in Europe, the treaty of Westphalia was agreed upon and paved the way for the inter-State system of international relations 

Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

If you read through old threads, you'll certainly find a lot of posts by me on this very subject. There is corruption in the church - but no more than among the followers of the Sovereign Host, and far less than the Blood of Vol (Erandis herself is a corrupt figurehead abusing the faith of her followers). The point was always to say that even the followers of the Flame aren't perfect; that you can find corruption in this bastion of light. But overall, it IS a force driven by compassion, and a force that does a great deal of good in the world. The corrupt are there, but as you say they are supposed to be a minority who tarnish the reputation of the Church - not a majority who define it.

This. I really hope that this comes across as well in the next Eberron book as it does when you talk on the forums about the Silver Flame.

Now, I really feel like the things that were added in 4e are good additions. If feel natural and right to me to have draconic humanoids running around somewhere. The Feyspires strike me as a reminder that the cosmos is vast and mysterious, and that there are perils unknown even to the great scholars.

Of course, I also always use elves and eladrin interchangeably in every elven or eladrin society. I just use them as part of the same race.

Originally posted by Hellcow:

Of course, I also always use elves and eladrin interchangeably in every elven or eladrin society. I just use them as part of the same race.

Yes, I think this is a perfectly reasonable way to handle things in an Eberron campaign where you don't want a multitude of races. I don't use devas as a race, but I've used reskinned devas in a number of cases. I played a "deva" avenger with the Shaman multiclass feat, on the basis that he was a Cyran human possessed by thousands of spirits from the Mourning. His Memories of a Thousand Lifetimes were the memories of the spirits within him; they were the source of his necrotic resistance; and his ability to conjure a spirit was essentially yanking one out of those inside him. So mechanically he was a deva with shaman abilities... but flavorwise he was just a human peasant possessed by vengeful spirits.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by Elton74:

Ah, now that it's been officially announced, I'll be on pins and needles watching for this.  I'm excited, excited!  Fully Open or fully closed, I don't care (it's a game on the fence I hate)!  I've been waiting for 5th Edition since I was first frustrated with 4th Edition (and some of the people on these forums, thank you very much). 

I'm hoping to see Eberron continue into the new Edition for curiosity's sake.  Keith, I hope you will be as excited about this as I am.  

Originally posted by Mandarin:

I too hope that Eberron goes into 5e and I would definitely support it. Eberron is imo, the best piece of work Wizards have ever done! There is no Wizards book I've enjoyed reading more than what Eberron has released. And almost all of the extra materials (Five Nations, Magic of Eberron, Dragonmarked) was excellent. Too bad it didn't get that much support in 4e but I guess it would just be reprinting what was already said.

I do hope they make a Eberron Campaign Setting for 5e. I would also suggest maybe a few changes to the setting or just adding more elements. Maybe even let Eberron advance a few year forward in time. What worries me most with such a thing is that you might loose some of the "cold war" feeling of Eberron so it shouldn't be too many years. Maybe add some dramatic events. At least enough to make it worth a 5e upgrade. However Eberron fans seems to be quite sensitive about changing anything or advancing the setting a few years so be careful. Just my wishes for 5e Eberron.


Originally posted by Edymnion:

The announcement of 5e and the idea of them actually looking for player input was enough to drag me out of retirement.

I can only hope they can make it playable.

4e Eberron wasn't even worth looking at for me, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Elton74:

The announcement of 5e and the idea of them actually looking for player input was enough to drag me out of retirement.

I can only hope they can make it playable.

4e Eberron wasn't even worth looking at for me, unfortunately.

I got a copy.  The 3 pictures of the races was the best part of the Player's Guide, actually.
smile.gif
 The Layout was -- in a word -- terrible. 

Originally posted by Ogiwan:

Everybody here (presumably) knows that I love the 4th edition, but even I will say that the Dragonmarks of 4e Eberron were lackluster. So, yeah, I'm looking forward to 5e Eberron.

Originally posted by Ashlock:

My personal hope is that the new version of D&D will allow for easy portability of old material. That is, rules that are simple enough to accomodate any fluff text from any setting and any edition. So that my 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting
and my 4E Eberron Campaign Guide remain solid source material. 

Even in my 4E Eberron game, I often reach for the various 3.5 Eberron books. Throwing some mechanics together is no big deal; it's the story that makes Eberron great. 

For money reasons alone, I'm sure that the Forgotten Realms will remain in the vanguard of the new edition. (And I do like the Realms, but c'mon, I've been invested in Eberron since writing for it!) The hope is that Eberron will at least not be left out.

Originally posted by kare:

Hey,

I'm somewhat in two minds about 5e and eberron (5eberron, nexberron?). Clearly, to my mind, Dragonmarks would've worked better as themes rather than feats (particularly the element of progression that would've involved). In fact, I think if themes had been available at the start of 4e they would've been implemented that way - and I wouldn't mind an optional set of rules for dragonmarks implemented as themes (either additional or alternative to the feats), if anyone with the power to make that happen is reading.

That aside, however, I'm pretty happy with how 4e and Eberron work together. I would've liked to have seen a book on Khorvaire's nations other than the main five, but I still have hope that information will be drip-fed to us in a series of Dragon articles - and it's not really an edition problem anyway. 

Yours,

JMH 

Originally posted by Edymnion:

There is one thing that will be a dealbreaker for me with a 5e Eberron.

There.  Are.  No.  Dragonborn.

Period.

Dig out your 3e Eberron Campaign Setting book.  That is the base of what Eberron should be.  Not shoe-horned in dragon people who only suddenly exist because they were in the new PHB and the setting apparently wasn't allowed to say "Um, no, those don't exist here, you can't use that by default".

Simply put, I will not buy a single Eberron 5e product if they support Dragonborn by default.  A sidebar that gives them as a possible option, I could live with that, but the setting as a whole should not acknowledge their existance.

If it does, I'll stick to my 3e books and the 5e ones can rot on the shelf as far as I would be concerned.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

I'm fine with them, as a matter of fact they can throw in whatever they want if I don't like it I won't use it.

Originally posted by Elton74:

There is one thing that will be a dealbreaker for me with a 5e Eberron.

There.  Are.  No.  Dragonborn.

Period.

Dig out your 3e Eberron Campaign Setting book.  That is the base of what Eberron should be.  Not shoe-horned in dragon people who only suddenly exist because they were in the new PHB and the setting apparently wasn't allowed to say "Um, no, those don't exist here, you can't use that by default".

Simply put, I will not buy a single Eberron 5e product if they support Dragonborn by default.  A sidebar that gives them as a possible option, I could live with that, but the setting as a whole should not acknowledge their existance.

If it does, I'll stick to my 3e books and the 5e ones can rot on the shelf as far as I would be concerned.

You're mad that they put in Dragonborn.  Actually, it's true, they made no mention of any half-dragons except for Erandis Vol.  And that was just to try to stop a war that shouldn't have went as long as it did.  When they put them in, yeah it's a surprise.  However, I don't think they will add them in this time.  We haven't even seen what is going on with Eberron.  

Still, I think Keith will have some ideas on how to do things for the next "iteration."  Hopefully it will be modular because Eberron was designed to have everything including the kitchen sink.  Even if it doesn't make sense to have it. 

Originally posted by Ogiwan:

What's wrong with the Dragonborn being in Q'barra?

Originally posted by tallric_kruush:

I thought they did a great job of finding a suitable, believable home for them. Q'barra was perfect, and their role as guardians of Hakha'torvak made perfect sense, in my opinion.

They can play as major or minor a role as you wish. NPC dragonborn really have little reason to ever venture beyond Q'barra, unless you fashion such for your campaign.

I was apprehensive, since I'm as big a purist snob as there is, when it comes to Eberron (at least, I thought I was until reading Edy's post ;) ). In the end, though, I thought the races were well implemented.

Originally posted by Edymnion:

Ooh, just thought of another dealbreaker.

5e will have to have a robust crafting system, because Eberron has to have the Artificer.  Not just a "I buff your gear" 4e Artificer, but the full on master crafter from 3e.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

Ooh, just thought of another dealbreaker.

5e will have to have a robust crafting system, because Eberron has to have the Artificer.  Not just a "I buff your gear" 4e Artificer, but the full on master crafter from 3e.

They can in 4th ed, just has to take the ritualist feat.  Personally though I would drop the feat and just tie all rituals into Arcana anyways basically you don't need a feat to use rituals.

Originally posted by m4kitsu:

I really hate to be the one to call this out, Edymnion, but: 

Eberron Campaign Setting, v3.5 edition, page 8.
"If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron."
Eberron Campaign Guide, 4th Edition, page 4.
"If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a plce in Eberron."

There's a lot that changed between the two books, but that wasn't one of them. The fact that it's rule no. 1 on the "ten things to know" list in both books didn't change either.

Now you, as a DM, of course, are free to ignore the Dragonborn. You're free to rule them back to Lizardfolk in Q'barra or simply wave your wand and make them disappear completely. You could also do that to Tieflings, Eladrin and the Feyspires, the Feywild and Shadowfell, and everything else that was added or changed between the ECS and ECG. That you can do that is one of the best things about D&D.

But to flatly refuse to buy an entire line of books because there's one thing in them that you utterly refuse to even see mention of on the page, when that things is as insignificant as a race? That's incredibly arrogant and a fairly dire insult to everyone that's had a hand in making Eberron what it is, including Keith. 

I thought you were better than that. 

Originally posted by kare:

Hey,

I don't think it was too weird to open up a place for the Dragonborn in Argonessen and Q'barra, so that worked for me. Obviously it messed up Vol's backstory a bit, and her and the organisations surrounding her were and are a key portion of Eberron myth that characters can dive into. Tweaking her history to keep her and the mark of death unique (and distinct from her half-dragon status) was a tricky one, and it could've been handled more sensitively.

Broadly, I'm glad the core elements of D&D, including Dragonborn and Tieflings, were present in all the settings.

Yours,

JMH 

Originally posted by tallric_kruush:

I don't think the introduction of the Dragonborn affects Erandis' story at all. The Dragonborn are not half-dragons and have nothing to do with the elves, nor with the enmity between the Dragons and the Undying Court.

I'm not seeing a connection.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

I really hate to be the one to call this out, Edymnion, but: 

Eberron Campaign Setting, v3.5 edition, page 8.
"If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron."
Eberron Campaign Guide, 4th Edition, page 4.
"If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a plce in Eberron."

There's a lot that changed between the two books, but that wasn't one of them. The fact that it's rule no. 1 on the "ten things to know" list in both books didn't change either.

Now you, as a DM, of course, are free to ignore the Dragonborn. You're free to rule them back to Lizardfolk in Q'barra or simply wave your wand and make them disappear completely. You could also do that to Tieflings, Eladrin and the Feyspires, the Feywild and Shadowfell, and everything else that was added or changed between the ECS and ECG. That you can do that is one of the best things about D&D.

But to flatly refuse to buy an entire line of books because there's one thing in them that you utterly refuse to even see mention of on the page, when that things is as insignificant as a race? That's incredibly arrogant and a fairly dire insult to everyone that's had a hand in making Eberron what it is, including Keith. 

I thought you were better than that. 

He has always been against the adding of races outside the Eberron's orginal 8 or so.  I don't think it is arrogant, just his perfernce and while I think it isn't the best choice not to buy a book you might enjoy because of that, it is his right and I fully support him.  For instance I would not bother with D&D if it went classless but I know Endymnion would eat it up.  I agree with you though that the best thing, is to ignore the things you like, I don't use Bator in 4th ed.

Anyways dragonmarks need to be implemented better in 5th ed.  in both 3rd and 4th they were lacking.  The theme system is a much better way to do it then feats. 

Originally posted by m4kitsu:

He has always been against the adding of races outside the Eberron's orginal 8 or so.  I don't think it is arrogant, just his perfernce and while I think it isn't the best choice not to buy a book you might enjoy because of that, it is his right and I fully support him.  For instance I would not bother with D&D if it went classless but I know Endymnion would eat it up.  I agree with you though that the best thing, is to ignore the things you like, I don't use Bator in 4th ed.
I know, and I think that's unfortunate. I rather pity anyone who would be driven away from something they obviously liked at least fairly well by something so trivial as the inclusion of a single element that changed nothing and can be easily ignored. 

Something like going classless (or, in my case, shoehorning in "classic" feeling classes to a game that neither wanted nor needed them and hopelessly muddying the game's presentation in the process) is a much more fundamental change than adding a single race to a remote corner of the campaign setting. 

Anyways dragonmarks need to be implemented better in 5th ed.  in both 3rd and 4th they were lacking.  The theme system is a much better way to do it then feats. 
Considering the 3e version was the original, intended form of Dragonmarks, I fail to see how their presentation in that form could be "lacking", with nothing to compare them against. However, I do agree that the 4e presentation was inadequate, and that the full potential of dragonmarks as both story and mechanical device has yet to me reached. 

Themes would be a wonderful way to do so. If Themes do become the "third pillar" of character creation in the new edition (something I wouldn't mind at all), I can see 5berron following doing exactly that. The question is: is that one Theme ("Dragonmark Heir"), or fourteen (twelve true marks for thirteen houses, plus Aberrant)? And how would you fit Siberys Marks into that? Their own theme? PP? ED? 


Originally posted by mylon:

I'm currently running an Eberron game using a non-D&D system and it's going great so far.  There's so many resources to fall on and the intrigue is an awesome foil to work with, it's exactly what I've been after in a fantasy setting, yet incredibly rare.

My only complaint about the setting is the "If it exists in D&D there's a place for it in Eberron" philosophy.  Changelings already have incredible potential to muck things up given how intrigue oriented the setting is.  Shifters are like the new half-orc in the form of, "Your kind is not welcome here".  Gnomes have always felt redundant with halflings around.  Khalashtar are very human in appearance and nature and they seem more or less like an excuse to have a psion race.  As opposed to giving more options for any race to excel at psionics.  Warforged were a great addition though.  They do suffer from racial prejudice, but it's an interesting difference from the uncout barbarians of orcs or shifters.

Everything else?  It stretches the suspension of disbelief.  Putting in evil-dwarves ruins the shades of gray style of Eberron.  And there just isn't room for more races anyhow.  I could understand perhaps how Xen`drik could be an excuse to add a player's favorite material, but it shouldn't be an excuse for EVERYTHING to exist.  That was just a means to try and sell more books.  Sometimes a setting is made more interesting by what it does not have.  Cyre, anyone?

Originally posted by Edymnion:

I really hate to be the one to call this out, Edymnion, but: 

Eberron Campaign Setting, v3.5 edition, page 8.
"If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron."
Eberron Campaign Guide, 4th Edition, page 4.
"If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a plce in Eberron."

There's a lot that changed between the two books, but that wasn't one of them. The fact that it's rule no. 1 on the "ten things to know" list in both books didn't change either.
Thats been brought up before, and my answer to it now is the same as it was then (least this place is consistant, 5 years gone and people are still saying the exact same things).

There is a vast, overwhelming difference between "it has a place" and making it default core.  The spirit of it was that "Hey, if you just found something cool you want to use, then by all means use it.  There will be someplace you can squeeze it in and make it work.  If not, we left a whole continent open for you, you could fit anything in there."

People don't seem to understand the differnence anymore between having the option to use something, and having it rammed down your throat as being there by default.  To use those lines to support a slightly more absurd position, if WotC were to print D&D stats for My Little Ponies as a playable race, are you honestly going to tell me we have to add Ponyland to Eberron just because "if its in D&D, its in Eberron", and that if it did you would be completely okay with that?

Again, there is a world of difference between "You can fit anything you want into the setting" and "By default, this setting has everything ever printed for any setting, any expansion, or anything else you can find.  Even that subrace of warforged kitchen sinks.  And it all lives in Sharn."

Originally posted by glowinghyren:

You're right. A race of ponies would be kind of dumb. So I would do what you should do with the Dragonborn and ignore them and their rules entirely. That's one of the great things about this game, you can pick and choose what you want to use and totally ignore everything else. I think it'd be silly to ignore an entire setting because one line in the rules says that you can include something if you want to.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

Anyways dragonmarks need to be implemented better in 5th ed.  in both 3rd and 4th they were lacking.  The theme system is a much better way to do it then feats. 
Considering the 3e version was the original, intended form of Dragonmarks, I fail to see how their presentation in that form could be "lacking", with nothing to compare them against. However, I do agree that the 4e presentation was inadequate, and that the full potential of dragonmarks as both story and mechanical device has yet to me reached. 

Themes would be a wonderful way to do so. If Themes do become the "third pillar" of character creation in the new edition (something I wouldn't mind at all), I can see 5berron following doing exactly that. The question is: is that one Theme ("Dragonmark Heir"), or fourteen (twelve true marks for thirteen houses, plus Aberrant)? And how would you fit Siberys Marks into that? Their own theme? PP? ED? 

That is what I mean yes 3rd ed's version was the orginal but much like 4th I didn't really like it's application.  The prestige class part worked, but the feat system add on failed in my opinion.  Still both systems required to much sacrafice that the theme system doesn't.

Anyways I do think Endymion is right about one thing, they shouldn't try to fit everything in.  I believe more should be left up to individual groups playing.  So for instance if a player wanted to play a shardmind in my game, I would work to make it happen with the player, but Wizards shouldn't have a book giving them a country here.  This also figures in that not every race needs their own country. 

Originally posted by Edymnion:

Call me a grognard, but the 3e campaign setting is Eberron to me.  The main reason I don't like things like the Dragonborn being in the core, beyond the "Hey look, its a LA+0 half dragon for you to play!" is that anything in the core book is going to be assumed to be standard in all games, so future books will continue to address them.

I honestly would not mind the Dragonborn if they were handled in a one off splatbook that said "You can normally find them over here, and their interactions with group X and Y generally go as follows".  Thats fine.  Its great for people that want to use them, and great for people that don't want to use them because its self contained.

By putting them into the core, base book, it means not only do I (and everyone else that doesn't want to use them) have to unwind them from one book, we have to unwind them from EVERY book.

Eberron should stick to the core races it was designed to use, the ones in the 3e books.  Keep that as the default.  Anyone that wants to add or subtract from it are perfectly free to do so, and an updated Races of Eberron (that doesn't suck) could be done to provide detailed info on how to do it.

Just don't stick it in the core campaign setting book.

Originally posted by bofdm:

Regarding the races that were added to the 4th edition of Eberron, I have to somewhat agree with Edymnion's grudge against the Dragonborn but for a different reason. Aside from the Eladrin and their feyspires (though even the Eladrin suffer this) none of the *new* races that were shoved into the setting in 4th edition actually contributed to the history of the world in any meaningful way.

You have these elaborate detailed histories on the formation of the nation of Galifar, the creation of the Warforged, the battle of the Quori, the escape from Xen'drik of the Elves, etc etc. And then you get "By the way there are dragonborn in Q'barra. They've been there the whole time. Totally different from a half dragon."

And then as more books came out it was the same thing. "Goliaths exist here in this one mountain range. They've been there the entire time."

"Tieflings exist in the demon waste cause...there ya go. Enjoy."

But for some reason the strangest change to the setting, and one that I still don't get why they changed it is the cosmology. The Orrery setup was awesome. I loved there being multiple moons that doubled as other planes of existence. And then it all kinda got lumped into like a giant PB&J sandwich.

Now I do agree that the quality of the 4e Eberron books was fantastic. The art was incredible and the maps were way better than the 3e books. But I want Eberron to feel....unique among DnD settings.

Does anyone else feel the same? I'd love to hear other opinions on what they hope for in the next edition of Eberron.

Originally posted by Lugnut171:

Regarding the races that were added to the 4th edition of Eberron, I have to somewhat agree with Edymnion's grudge against the Dragonborn but for a different reason. Aside from the Eladrin and their feyspires (though even the Eladrin suffer this) none of the *new* races that were shoved into the setting in 4th edition actually contributed to the history of the world in any meaningful way.

You have these elaborate detailed histories on the formation of the nation of Galifar, the creation of the Warforged, the battle of the Quori, the escape from Xen'drik of the Elves, etc etc. And then you get "By the way there are dragonborn in Q'barra. They've been there the whole time. Totally different from a half dragon."

And then as more books came out it was the same thing. "Goliaths exist here in this one mountain range. They've been there the entire time."

"Tieflings exist in the demon waste cause...there ya go. Enjoy."

But for some reason the strangest change to the setting, and one that I still don't get why they changed it is the cosmology. The Orrery setup was awesome. I loved there being multiple moons that doubled as other planes of existence. And then it all kinda got lumped into like a giant PB&J sandwich.

Now I do agree that the quality of the 4e Eberron books was fantastic. The art was incredible and the maps were way better than the 3e books. But I want Eberron to feel....unique among DnD settings.

Does anyone else feel the same? I'd love to hear other opinions on what they hope for in the next edition of Eberron.

Not to be mean but a lot of the stuff that was added with races contributing was added after the intial book especially shifter and changelings.  Also Eberron does to me because of the things that actually make it unique, the broad magic accesible by most everyone and the way it is used, the way religion was treated, the similarites of post WW Europe.  These are the things that really made it unique to me, not the races used or the planes.

Originally posted by Gilo:

I kinda liked the way those new races were added to 4E Eberron:
The Tifflings (4E EPG) have a very nice backstory that connects the the fallen Ohr Kaluun nation in Sarlona. It gives a DM away to plant Khorvairen hooks that lead to a great Secrets of Sarlona's chapter (btw, paizo's did a nice job in flashing-out the concept of an infernal themed nation in the Council of Thieves adventure path set in the Inner Sea nation of Cheliax).

The Dragonborn: I liked that addition especially due to the - "Explore Q'barra, Part 2 Poison Dusk, Black Sun" article: 'Duty before Glory.' So says the inscription on the gates of Ka'rhashan. Our ancestors carved this when they fled the western lands and returned to watch these dusty ruins. For a hundred generations we have been told that this is all we can aspire to, that we must guard these cursed cities until the end of time. I say no more!"

-This gives a very noir feel to the Dragonborn culture in Eberron.

I don't mind new stuff getting added (races included) as long as the concept is cool and they integrate seamlessly with the existing canon (which I think so far it did).


Originally posted by bofdm:

Not to be mean but a lot of the stuff that was added with races contributing was added after the intial book especially shifter and changelings.  Also Eberron does to me because of the things that actually make it unique, the broad magic accesible by most everyone and the way it is used, the way religion was treated, the similarites of post WW Europe.  These are the things that really made it unique to me, not the races used or the planes.

I do not see any malice in your words Lugnut and I appreciate the point of view. I do agree with the things you like about the setting as well, the broad use of magic, the different take on religion (particularly the distance of the gods) and the similarities to post WW Europe. I don't want to come off as saying I hate the setting, I don't. It's still my favorite DnD setting despite the changes made in 4th edition. I guess it's that I don't understand why they changed things like the Cosmology or added in all these new races.
The design philosophy behind adding all of the new races into every setting, and making the Cosmology the same in every setting, is what I feel takes away from the uniqueness of Eberron.

Gilo I also appreciate the point of view you presented as well. I unfortunately do not have a DnD Insider subscription so I can't read the article you reference, could you explain how it gives a noir feel to the Dragonborn culture?

I will have to go back and read on the Tiefling connection to Ohr Kaluun in Sarlona since you bring it up.

Thank you for responding! I'd love to hear more opinions! =)

Originally posted by Gilo:

Gilo I also appreciate the point of view you presented as well. I unfortunately do not have a DnD Insider subscription so I can't read the article you reference, could you explain how it gives a noir feel to the Dragonborn culture?

offtopic Dragonborns
[sblock]Noir In the sense that there is a feeling of disillusionment, pessimism attached the Dragonborn culture: They live in the ruins of their own crumbling empire(which at its height included the Blade Desert and the Talenta Plains during the Age of Monsters). They are race of arrgont, glory seeking warriors (originally hand picked from the legions of the Light of Siberys) but they are stuck on permanent sentry duty (since the age of Demons), guarding against an enemy (Cold Sun overlord) which they they cannot defeat (and yet his influance corrupt a presentage of each Dragonborn generation)...[/sblock]  


Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

I've been playing both 3.5 Eberron and 4e eberron with equal frequency, due to DDO. From the Loremaster threads there, online research of my own, flipping through 3.5 eberron books at my hobby shop, and playing 4e, I don't see much real difference in the cosmology.

The moons interact like they always have. The cosmology of eberron IS different from core. I honestly felt like they took a long look at eberron before they came up with the 4e cosmology. World Above, World below, etc.

Originally posted by AvonRekaes:

Personally, I'm very open when it comes to the inclusion of races or classes when I'm runing a DnD game. I know that when I'm playing a character for someone else's game, I *HATE* to hear blanket statements like "Oh, and there are no goliaths" if I really wanted to play a goliath. It's not my job as DM to limit player fun, and I like to keep the entire catalouge of options open.

Rather, I feel my job is to find that interesting way to include that race into the setting, and ground them in available lore. Goliaths in my Eberron are not just mountain folk. They mostly live in a specific range, the Byshek Mountains, and they're the ones that mine byshek and produce weapons out of it, simply because it's the most readily available workable metal to them. Then they trade these weapons and raw byshek ore to the druids of the Eldeen Reaches.

So there. Now Goliaths actually have something to do with Eberron beyond "they exist in it".

The way dragonborn were handled in the 4e setting book left much to be desired. I think they were trying TOO HARD to make them non-obtrusive. However because little was said to mitigate their prescence, it just came across as a hard fact that they were there. BAM. Dragonborn in Eberron: "they exist in it".

The above linked Dragon article did wonders for their inclusion (not to mention fleshing out Q'barra as an adventuring locale with awesome "wild west meets the rainforest" flavor). I love the fact that to humans and the rest of Khorvair, dragonborn aren't "Dragonborn", they're just another flavor of "scale", the derogatory term they have for all lizardfolk.

Now go back and read the 3.5 Eberron setting. Replace any mention of "lizardfolk" with "scale". Did you see what happened there? To the rest of Khorvare, in-character, Dragonborn are Lizardfolk. They always have been. You don't have to suddenly question where these half-dragons came from. What dragons? That's just a walking lizard-man. He breathes lightning? Crazy tribal lizard-magic. (Plus, not like Khorvaire hasn't seen it's share of fire-breathing human sorcerers).

Now Dragonborn have seemlessly been meshed with the background lore of Q'barra, as guardians of Hav.. Hata... Havatorvak? (Forget what it's called) They have a place in the lore of the Age of Monsters and their fledgling empire's fall highlights one of the fundamental dangers of the setting (Rajah influence), and their relation with modern day Khorvaire is already accounted for.

This is how I like to see it done, because this is how I run my own campaigns. I'm not going to tell a friend who I want to have fun "don't play the character you want to play because I don't like it", I'm going to say "Sure, you can play your drow assassin! BUT, Eberron drow are not like Menzoberanzan drow. You see there are three separate cultures..." etc. etc. etc.

Whether the race, class, theme, or whatever in question is in the PHB, PHB2, Heroes of the Exceptionally Exotic Extradimensional Emporium, I'm going to find a way to include it if a player wants to play it.

Originally posted by marcigny:

I understand many statements here, but for my part, I'm a traditionalist and for me, Dragonborns are not Lizardfolks.
Tieflings, no problem.... It's not as if they didn't exist before in Eberron.
Eladrin, no problem, they have a very interesting story (personnal POV), and integrate themselves in a very "fae" way.
But dragonborn.... If limited in the context of Argonessen, yes, but to put them in Q'barra, the "paradise" of my beloved lizardfolks, no way ;).
(Where I'm concerned, goliath can go to hell.) (And my players (all GMs), are a lot more "stuck up" about races than I am, so...)

For this new edition, I do hope that they won't go the way they did for the 4th about races and subtypes.
Enough races have already been implemented (even if we had to wait the publication of Dark Sun for the Thri-keen (Xendrik, mostly). I mean:
-Dwarf, Human, Eladrin, Kalashtar, Thri-keen, drow (and umbragen), elves, warforged, shifter, changeling, orcs, goblinoids, tiefling, gnome, halfling.... and many variations for each. (If I was vicious
smiley-innocent.gif
, I would put vampire and lycanthropes, trolls, oni, medusa and Illithid in the batch.)
That's a lot more than many universes propose in terms of racial types and subtypes (and I'm limiting myself to D20 games).
And that's for Eberron as a planet alone... (If we put the plans in the mix, we are overwhelmed with races and subtypes...) In this view, I don't see the need to put some more races in the mix... Bloody hell, it's not Star Wars with it's thousands of planets !

If they were to advance the timeline, well, it would have to be enough to be significant, but not so much as to destroy one of the major backbones of the setting, which is the noir, "cold war" feeling. At least, making the unrest more palpable "indoors", with each country having domestic events of significance preventing them to go all out on their neighbours (a purge in the Silver Flame, a ersatz of revolution in Breland, etc....).

And for classes, or the lack of those, well, "themes", or "lifepath", "Specialties" should be present, fleshing out the characters (and I concur with the idea of "themed" dragonmarks).
As for the artificer, a "retour aux sources" is, in my humble opinion, needed. Crafting felt bland, without flavour in 4th (in my opinion and that of my players). I don't mean that we should take a step back and keep 3.5 crafting feats, but, well... doing something about it. (A crafting system like in Ars Magica, perhaps.) 

My two cents, anyway
smile.gif

 

Originally posted by Hellcow:

It's been a crazy few months for me, hence my virtual absence from the boards. I only just noticed this thread, but obviously it's a topic I'm very interested in and I'm glad to see the old band coming back together. I'm involved in the current playtests, and so far I like what I see. However, I have no knowledge about plans for Eberron.

Regarding things like the Dragonborn and Tieflings, when it came to 4E these things weren't choices. It was a mandate that the setting provide support for the races of the Player's Handbook. One way to look at it is that for many people, 4E was their first introduction to Eberron. For people who came to the setting in 3.5 it was a "Wait, this peanut butter doesn't belong in my chocolate" scenario; the counter is that the solely 4E player would say "I don't understand - I bought this book, but what am I supposed to do with my peanut butter?"

It has always been my preference to limit the number of races in the world but add depth to each one; I've never been a fan of thirty-one flavors of elf. However, this wasn't a choice we were given: it was a mandate, so the question was how to proceed with it. What I sought to do was to limit the impact they had on the world. Looking to tiefling, dragonborn, and eladrin, while you might find one in Sharn, none of them possess true nations, dragonmarks, or a particular impact on history. And while you could find one in Sharn, you'll also find that most of the inhabitants of Sharn who encounter an eladrin are going to wonder why that elf has funny eyes; that most people don't know the difference between lizardfolk and dragonborn; and that tieflings are just bizarre, but in a world where you could potentially meet a medusa on a city street they can live with that bizarre.

The use of the feyspires gave the Eladrin a role in the world, but one that separated them from history - specifically, they've been intentionally hiding from the people of Eberron. Note that in The Fading Dream, Thorn herself doesn't initially know what Eladrin are. Tying tieflings to Ohr Kaluun seemed logical - it's a fallen empire known for its use of dark magic and traffic with fiends - and was a way to make that nation a little more relevant in the world. As for the dragonborn in Q'barra, the goal was to say "They've always been there, but humans don't really know or care." As AvonRekaes says, they're all scales to me. My intention in doing this wasn't to downplay the relevance of the lizardfolk; on the contrary, if you read "Poison Dusk, Cold Sun" (ok, "Black Sun", but it SHOULD have been "Cold Sun") the lizardfolk of the Cold Sun Federation consider the dragonborn to be just as much of a problem as the humans, for all that the dragonborn have been there longer. Q'barra is the homeland of the lizardfolk, while Argonnessen is the home of the dragonborn; it simply happens that there is an ancient outpost of dragonborn in Q'barra that provides an easy entry point for player characters, as opposed to having a PC dragonborn from Argonnessen.

Just like gnomes or elves, my goal with working these things into Eberron is to try to find an angle that holds to what they are while providing some sort of new hook for people to explore. As for the comment that one is forced to use them if they're in the core books, well, *I* don't. Case in point: Baator. It was dropped into Eberron in the ECG. And for the next year I completely ignored it. If anyone in my campaign asked, I'd have said "What's Baator? Never heard of it." And if they said "It's on page 5X of the book," I'd say "Not in MY Eberron." Then I decided to find a way to fit Baator into the world in a way that made me actually want to use it - something that felt like it belonged in Eberron and wasn't just there because it existed in another book. You'll see the result in this month's Eye On Eberron. But if you still want to ignore it? Ignore it. For me, a core principle of Eberron has always been that the books are guides - but you should make the world your own.

With that said...


Originally posted by Hellcow:

... Just as this is a time to shape the next edition of D&D, it's also the opportunity to determine the fate of Eberron. If you want to see print support for Eberron, let WotC know! And if there are specific things you want or don't want - Dragonborn? Timeline adjustment? Race-restricted dragonmarks? - tell them. Eberron lacks the novel support of Forgotten Realms, and it doesn't have a board game. There's not a lot of ways for WotC to see that there IS a market for Eberron or to judge what people want from it. So if you want to see more Eberron, get the word out!

Originally posted by VoyRager:

... Just as this is a time to shape the next edition of D&D, it's also the opportunity to determine the fate of Eberron. If you want to see print support for Eberron, let WotC know! And if there are specific things you want or don't want - Dragonborn? Timeline adjustment? Race-restricted dragonmarks? - tell them. Eberron lacks the novel support of Forgotten Realms, and it doesn't have a board game. There's not a lot of ways for WotC to see that there IS a market for Eberron or to judge what people want from it. So if you want to see more Eberron, get the word out!
Pardon me I was passing by when your posting on the forum's main sideboard caught my attention and couldn't resisted sharing the ideas and suggestions that your message quickly brought up.

To begin with:

I been enjoying the evolutionary changes happening with Athas, Faerun, Feywild and the introductions to the new dephts of the DnD World that occurred during the 4E era but sadly I feel somewhat disappointed with my favorite section of the DnD universe of Eberron's contributions to 4E.

I also feel the getting the word out would be an easier transition by sharing tales and results from the Players and DMs whom has experiment with Eberron base ideas and annouced the results for other to put add their inputs on or to or simply utilized the information with their future DnD experiences.

Like what I'm doing (or attempting) at my forum, The Players' Vault(x) (here at the WotC's Forums)using the DM's Guidebook's chapters on Houseruled and the DM's toolbox while religiously avoiding the overly homebrew overtones to created several interesting campaigns for all tiers revolving around one epic event and all unfolding (for now) in different Eberron's settings.

As for the development of the Eberron board game all I can come up with are some suggestions that I believe would escalate Eberron's settings popularity with DnD's Players and DMs' all over but as in drawning in newcomers to the market, I do understand how important the novels (graphic and paperback) are this type of expanding for the DnD marketbase. 

As for those suggestions for 5E Eberron:

1.  Theme features with powers and new class features based from Eberron past campaigns and with prerequisites of the classes in PH1, PH2, PH3 instaed of just focusing on Eberron based Classes.

2.  More uniquely focused backgrounds' bonuses and themes' features as well as feats; all based from Eberron regions, with prerequisites for races found in PH1, PH2, PH3 (as dictated by the indicated Eberron's region population's make-up) as options to choose from instead of choosing houses' or dragonmarks' feats, and general area's backgrounds bonuses.

3. Expanded class features by introducing new class features and new feats that are cannibalized, reformed and redeveloped from defeated evils means of past Eberron's campaigns or is of a displaced, transplanted and matured with an Eberron's accent from "The-meant-for-travelling-type of settings like the Planes Above and Planes Below.

4. Introduced couple of new campaigns for The Rule Of Threes series that has 5E Eberron's settings as a segment and this last suggestion I think is the best of the suggestions I just quickly came up with right now.

Thx. V. 

P.S.
One more question. If one would like to send-in feedbacks and/or to offered support for 5E Eberron workings, where or/and to whom should one send these sorts of expression of admirations and appreciations?


        

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

... Just as this is a time to shape the next edition of D&D, it's also the opportunity to determine the fate of Eberron. If you want to see print support for Eberron, let WotC know! And if there are specific things you want or don't want - Dragonborn? Timeline adjustment? Race-restricted dragonmarks? - tell them. Eberron lacks the novel support of Forgotten Realms, and it doesn't have a board game. There's not a lot of ways for WotC to see that there IS a market for Eberron or to judge what people want from it. So if you want to see more Eberron, get the word out!

I certainly want Eberron to be supported in 5E, because it is my favorite campaign setting ever for multiple reasons. The question is, how to let WoTC that many of us want that support? Creating a group in WoTC's webpage where our suggestions, preferences and ideas are shared and officially presented? I, for instance, have only played 2E, but own the ECS and have read several of the novels, so I do not have experience playing in the setting but know about its lore (and, even if I have heard that Keith prefers to play Eberron with 4E, I prefer simpler mechanics and would love to play by using the core of 5E).
On the other hand, I for one would love the setting book to stress the good things about the Church of the Silver Flame, which I love, because sadly I have the feeling that many regard all flamers as corrupt or fanatics and ignore the merciful and selfless tenets that inspire them, so while I understand that stressing how in every organization there may be people with several tendencies, it would be good to highlight how corrupt flamers are either a minority or blatantly ignore what they are supposed to live up to (theology treatises examine this).

Originally posted by Hellcow:

I certainly want Eberron to be supported in 5E, because it is my favorite campaign setting ever for multiple reasons. The question is, how to let WoTC that many of us want that support?

It's a good question. I don't have an ideal answer at the moment, but I'll look into it. 

Creating a group in WoTC's webpage where our suggestions, preferences and ideas are shared and officially presented?

It certainly couldn't hurt.

...even if I have heard that Keith prefers to play Eberron with 4E, I prefer simpler mechanics and would love to play by using the core of 5E.

Obviously it's still in its infancy, but I'll say that I like what I've see of the new edition - as long as it continues down the same road, I expect that it's what I'll use.
 
On the other hand, I for one would love the setting book to stress the good things about the Church of the Silver Flame, which I love, because sadly I have the feeling that many regard all flamers as corrupt or fanatics and ignore the merciful and selfless tenets that inspire them, so while I understand that stressing how in every organization there may be people with several tendencies, it would be good to highlight how corrupt flamers are either a minority or blatantly ignore what they are supposed to live up to (theology treatises examine this).

If you read through old threads, you'll certainly find a lot of posts by me on this very subject. There is corruption in the church - but no more than among the followers of the Sovereign Host, and far less than the Blood of Vol (Erandis herself is a corrupt figurehead abusing the faith of her followers). The point was always to say that even the followers of the Flame aren't perfect; that you can find corruption in this bastion of light. But overall, it IS a force driven by compassion, and a force that does a great deal of good in the world. The corrupt are there, but as you say they are supposed to be a minority who tarnish the reputation of the Church - not a majority who define it.

Originally posted by Hellcow:

Like what I'm doing (or attempting) at my forum, The Players' Vault(x) (here at the WotC's Forums)using the DM's Guidebook's chapters on Houseruled and the DM's toolbox while religiously avoiding the overly homebrew overtones to created several interesting campaigns for all tiers revolving around one epic event and all unfolding (for now) in different Eberron's settings.

Thanks for the link and your thoughts. As noted above, I'm not sure who one should send feedback to, but I'll see if I can find out. Creating a group specifically for this purpose couldn't hurt.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Like what I'm doing (or attempting) at my forum, The Players' Vault(x) (here at the WotC's Forums)using the DM's Guidebook's chapters on Houseruled and the DM's toolbox while religiously avoiding the overly homebrew overtones to created several interesting campaigns for all tiers revolving around one epic event and all unfolding (for now) in different Eberron's settings.

Thanks for the link and your thoughts. As noted above, I'm not sure who one should send feedback to, but I'll see if I can find out. Creating a group specifically for this purpose couldn't hurt.

(First of all, I apologize for any English mistakes I make) I don't know if this is a crazy idea or not, but would it not be good for Keith to talk to the guys at WoTC to ask them to support all of us who would like to officially playtest D&DNext in Eberron? In other words, perhaps a sub-set of playtesters (once the public playtest begins) could play (in person or online) and while testing the proposed new rules of 5E simultaneously playtest features that are unique to Eberron (e.g. dragonmarks, artificers, etc.). Wizards is certainly interested in raising support and legitimacy by means of the public playtests, and certainly they could likewise be interested in having one popular campaign as Eberron benefit from the same features. Additionally, this would speed up the process for the next campaign book/setting.

P.S. I am an international law scholar, and would like to know if Eberron is somehow inspired in the Peace of Westphalia: after the 30 years war in Europe, the treaty of Westphalia was agreed upon and paved the way for the inter-State system of international relations 

Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

If you read through old threads, you'll certainly find a lot of posts by me on this very subject. There is corruption in the church - but no more than among the followers of the Sovereign Host, and far less than the Blood of Vol (Erandis herself is a corrupt figurehead abusing the faith of her followers). The point was always to say that even the followers of the Flame aren't perfect; that you can find corruption in this bastion of light. But overall, it IS a force driven by compassion, and a force that does a great deal of good in the world. The corrupt are there, but as you say they are supposed to be a minority who tarnish the reputation of the Church - not a majority who define it.

This. I really hope that this comes across as well in the next Eberron book as it does when you talk on the forums about the Silver Flame.

Now, I really feel like the things that were added in 4e are good additions. If feel natural and right to me to have draconic humanoids running around somewhere. The Feyspires strike me as a reminder that the cosmos is vast and mysterious, and that there are perils unknown even to the great scholars.

Of course, I also always use elves and eladrin interchangeably in every elven or eladrin society. I just use them as part of the same race.

Originally posted by Hellcow:

Of course, I also always use elves and eladrin interchangeably in every elven or eladrin society. I just use them as part of the same race.

Yes, I think this is a perfectly reasonable way to handle things in an Eberron campaign where you don't want a multitude of races. I don't use devas as a race, but I've used reskinned devas in a number of cases. I played a "deva" avenger with the Shaman multiclass feat, on the basis that he was a Cyran human possessed by thousands of spirits from the Mourning. His Memories of a Thousand Lifetimes were the memories of the spirits within him; they were the source of his necrotic resistance; and his ability to conjure a spirit was essentially yanking one out of those inside him. So mechanically he was a deva with shaman abilities... but flavorwise he was just a human peasant possessed by vengeful spirits.
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by Ogiwan:

I was just thinking that inquisitives should be a background, while dragonmarks should be themes. One things that must happen is that the two must be in different places, so that dragonmarked inquisitives are possible.

Amen, brutha.

Originally posted by Elton74:

Yes, I was trying to extrapolate what can be done with Backgrounds and Themes.
smile.gif
 Thats what we have so far with the playtest.  However, as my players have me running Shadowruns, I can rest my creative muscles in this area.
smile.gif
 I can rest for a wait and see.  I've been immersing myself into the Sixth World again.

It was good to think along those lines, even though it didn't seem perfect as a theory, a failed hypothesis.  Perhaps after resting and looking at future of the playtest packet, I can get some great ideas on how to recreate Eberron on 5e.
smile.gif


Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:

Background and Themes are areas where i think Eberron and other Setting could really shine, by having all sorts of elements defined therein.

Also I hope Warforged, Artificers etc...return in a future Eberron Campaign Book....  

Originally posted by StormReaper:

Apart from improved game mechanics in 5e which could describe Eberron more in line to the vision of it's creators, I would like to see an advancement in the timeline of the setting.  

Really the 'fluff' and non-mechanical stuff is what draws you to a setting, and if nothing ('fluff') has changed, there would be little reason to buy any sourcebooks, when one can look up all the mechanical stuff in the online databases, and the setting has been descriped very well in 3.5.

So my biggest item on the 'wishlist' is that Keith et al.  update the 'story' of the setting for 5e.

Originally posted by AvonRekaes:

I was just thinking that inquisitives should be a background, while dragonmarks should be themes. One things that must happen is that the two must be in different places, so that dragonmarked inquisitives are possible.

Amen, brutha.

This. This with the fury of a thousand exploding suns.

Originally posted by Hellcow:

Apart from improved game mechanics in 5e which could describe Eberron more in line to the vision of it's creators, I would like to see an advancement in the timeline of the setting.  

Really the 'fluff' and non-mechanical stuff is what draws you to a setting, and if nothing ('fluff') has changed, there would be little reason to buy any sourcebooks, when one can look up all the mechanical stuff in the online databases, and the setting has been descriped very well in 3.5.

I'm curious to hear what people have to say about this. We originally planned a timeline advancement for 4E, but decided against it for a number of reasons. I know what *I* think on the matter, but I'd like to here what YOU think, since at the end of the day that's more important. I've started a thread on HDWT, and if people want to comment there, I'd love to get your feedback.

Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

I wouldn't mind a time advance, but only enough of one that it's still essentially europe in between the great wars. Maybe a handful of years, at most. No 50 year jump.

Originally posted by areleth:

I wouldn't mind a time advance, but only enough of one that it's still essentially europe in between the great wars. Maybe a handful of years, at most. No 50 year jump.

Since I still have all the old books, it wouldn't bother me to see it advanced a bit.

What would any of you guys want to see changed if it did get advanced? Like that Droaam/Breland war or Haruuc being killed?

I wouldn't mind Breland being at war with Droaam, since I'm always looking for an excuse to kill Sora Maenya in every game, but I like Haruuc and I'd prefer him alive.

Maybe the Inspired could be building a monolith in Q'barra, or the Valenar have moved from raiding the Talenta Plains into an open invasion in hopes of forcing Karrnath to act, or something is rumbling deep in Xen'drik that has mages across Eberron concerned, or Aurala has water accidentally splashed on her at a party and melts, throwing Aundair into its own mini-succession-crisis.

As long as the situation remains a boiling point that hasn't spilled over into a new war yet, then I think the themes of Eberron remain intact, but we'll have even more information to play around with.

Originally posted by AvonRekaes:

I agree. I think not advancing the timeline in 4e may have been... well, I don't want to call it a mistake, but maybe just misguided?

I do indeed have all the 3e material, and the 4e books. Perhaps 5e can advance the timeline some. I agree it shouldn't be much. Maybe just to the year 1000 YK and capture some of the "Millenium Fever" that we experienced during the early 2000s.  

Having no huge history of metaplot was one of the big draws of Eberron. I think we can continue this by advancing the story in discreet ways. We don't need any "Realms Shaking Events" for Eberron. We don't need a Spellplague. We certaintly don't need the Gods being banished to the material world and walking among mortals.

But I have no issue with advancing the political and social intruige a few years and seeing where things are.  

Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

I wouldn't mind a time advance, but only enough of one that it's still essentially europe in between the great wars. Maybe a handful of years, at most. No 50 year jump.

Since I still have all the old books, it wouldn't bother me to see it advanced a bit.

What would any of you guys want to see changed if it did get advanced? Like that Droaam/Breland war or Haruuc being killed?

I wouldn't mind Breland being at war with Droaam, since I'm always looking for an excuse to kill Sora Maenya in every game, but I like Haruuc and I'd prefer him alive.

Maybe the Inspired could be building a monolith in Q'barra, or the Valenar have moved from raiding the Talenta Plains into an open invasion in hopes of forcing Karrnath to act, or something is rumbling deep in Xen'drik that has mages across Eberron concerned, or Aurala has water accidentally splashed on her at a party and melts, throwing Aundair into its own mini-succession-crisis.

As long as the situation remains a boiling point that hasn't spilled over into a new war yet, then I think the themes of Eberron remain intact, but we'll have even more information to play around with.

I think most of the existing power balance should remain intact. No new outbreaks of violence or anything like that.

What I'd like to see is some new developments in Xendrik. The drow need a Carthage, IMO. They need a great center of civilization that the rest of the world is just finding out about, because of a sudden opening of trade with Stormreach.

New power struggles in Xendrik, while leaving the bulk of the continent unexplored and wild, is what I'd like.

Good aligned (or just normal shades of morality), surface dwelling, civilized drow society? Yes please.

Originally posted by Elton74:

Advancing the timeline?

As long as there is an option to continue to play after the Last War, and other Eras of Eberron's History, I have no problem with this.  Perhaps a ten to 20 year jump.  Not too much that there is a build up of weapons for a new war on the horizon, but enough to bring new players up to date.
 

Originally posted by Hellcow:

What I'd like to see is some new developments in Xendrik. The drow need a Carthage, IMO. They need a great center of civilization that the rest of the world is just finding out about, because of a sudden opening of trade with Stormreach.
Good aligned (or just normal shades of morality), surface dwelling, civilized drow society? Yes please.

The Sulatar aren't GOOD, but I don't see them as culturally evil in the same way that the Lolth-worshipping drow are. If you adjust their current isolationist beliefs so they have reason to trade or interact with other cultures, you have a surface-dwelling, sophisticated drow culture waiting to be explored. And hey, I'm sure Cannith would love to learn more about their elemental binding techniques!

Originally posted by Madfox11:

I am not a big fan of a timeline advance. A good campaign setting thrives on unresolved potential conflicts in which the PCs can have an impact. Eberron shines in this regards, especially since none of these potential conflicts are welll defined let alone guaranteed. A DM has the arguments to let one come to the fore, or die a silent death. If you advance the timeline that would mean resolving some of the current conflicts, and adding new ones. Considering the outcry of fans for FR where it happened two times, I doubt the majority of fans really want it. You could stick with little changes, but some of them can have a huge impact (e.g. replacement of the Lhesh as in the novels with a new human-friendly one means that the current potential of conflict with Darguun is lessened a lot) and if not why bother? You are just making it harder to use older material since now you have to keep a close eye on the details.

Originally posted by Ogiwan:

The drow need a Carthage, IMO.

Carthage must be destroyed!

I would prefer to have the timeline stay as it is. Now, the last chapter of the DM book, though, could have a few scenarios depecting Eberron 2, 5, 10, and 20 years into the future. Preferably with drastically different events (+2 years may feature Haruuc assassinated, whereas in +5 years, he's still alive and kicking). That way, the core of the setting is unchanged, but people who want to experiment have some foundation to work on. 

Originally posted by areleth:

Carthage must be destroyed!
Alexandria then.

I'm fine with the timeline advancing if it could mean better sales for Eberron. I buy everything that says Eberron on the cover on principle, and I'm happy with the timeline as it stands, but if it gets more exposure for Eberron then lets do it.

Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

What I'd like to see is some new developments in Xendrik. The drow need a Carthage, IMO. They need a great center of civilization that the rest of the world is just finding out about, because of a sudden opening of trade with Stormreach.
Good aligned (or just normal shades of morality), surface dwelling, civilized drow society? Yes please.

The Sulatar aren't GOOD, but I don't see them as culturally evil in the same way that the Lolth-worshipping drow are. If you adjust their current isolationist beliefs so they have reason to trade or interact with other cultures, you have a surface-dwelling, sophisticated drow culture waiting to be explored. And hey, I'm sure Cannith would love to learn more about their elemental binding techniques!

That's what I was thinking.

Originally posted by jim11735:

Collected Eberron books in 3rd but never played (pretty much always hombrews), loved the setting.  Got to play in 4e on a 10 level Paragon run, and whatever 4e changes didn't directly come out of the DMs mouth I disregarded.  TTRPGs are great that way.

Please, don't advance the timeline!  Eberron, imo, is that world at that moment.  DMs and adventure writers are free to move forward and back in time to tell their stories, but as a published campaign world I don't think the timing should change.

But feel free to change lots of the little details or big chunks as necessary.  I'd rather an overhaul of Xen'drik than an advancement of the timeline.

I agree that Eberron was 3rd edition, so many of it's ideas were mechanics and mechanics were ideas.  The translation to 4e was handled as best as it could.  Mandates, sounds pretty much how it read.  My hope would be 5th Eberron would again be written for that ruleset.  I think changes in the campaign world that highlight the new edition mechanics would make it worth buying the campaign again.  Dis/Advantage and the like.

I still think Warforged should be presented solely in the Eberron campaign.

But my guess is that 5th will be less campaign specific, compared to 4e, which will lend itself to a 5th edition of Eberron. 

I could see Eberron, purely on the Modular framework, have a distinct feel to D&D in general.  Heavier emphasis on exploration and interaction, for example.  Or subsystems that cover new ground.

Originally posted by Edymnion:

It would be nice to use the modular system to revamp the Dragonmarks into their own fully developed little side system.

Originally posted by Edymnion:

So far I'm liking what I'm seeing in the latest 5e playtest package.

There is definitely a lot of potential for setting specific alterations and refinements.  Eberron Next is looking a little brighter.

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

The latest wandering monsters article discusses some Eberron creatures, as dinosaurs and rats. This may indicate that Eberron may get at least some support in dndnext. The link is: wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand...

Originally posted by DoctorNecrotic:

The latest wandering monsters article discusses some Eberron creatures, as dinosaurs and rats. This may indicate that Eberron may get at least some support in dndnext. The link is: wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand...

I know I'm not supplying much to the conversation, but...
woot.gif
dancin.gif
soexcited.gif
HAPPY DAY!

Back on track, so far the references to Eberron in the polls have been very popular, if that brings even more hope.

Originally posted by Syltorian:

The latest wandering monsters article discusses some Eberron creatures, as dinosaurs and rats. This may indicate that Eberron may get at least some support in dndnext. The link is: wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand...

Thanks! Eberron is actually mentioned, and when I voted, given as a reason why dinosaurs need to be in the game. A good omen from the Sovereigns! 

Also, the article is written by James Wyatt, someone who has put a lot of work into Eberron, and who has been able to accomodate fans by not advancing the timeline (despite his and Bassingwaithe's books, which were laying the groundwork for just that; so being able to put the fans before their own ideas takes a lot of strength). That too is a good sign.


Originally posted by IAmSylar:

I'm planning on switching to Pathfinder for all my Eberron needs. I don't think 5E will do a good job with Eberron, at least IMO. The system is just to flat and simplistic to support the setting.

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

I am actually looking forward to Eberron support in dndnext. In fact, I prefer rules light systems, as the core of dndnext will likely be. Yet, the modularity approach will likely permit adding more complexity if that is what you like. Furthermore, support in dndnext implies new products covering additional places, groups, etc.

Originally posted by Syltorian:

I'm planning on switching to Pathfinder for all my Eberron needs. I don't think 5E will do a good job with Eberron, at least IMO. The system is just to flat and simplistic to support the setting.

Still, no matter the edition, new fluff written for Eberron would be welcome. I've had and I have no interest in 4E either, but most of what came out for Eberron was worth it. I do hope WotC can be encouraged to continue support for the setting; if that means doing some additional work of converting the rules to 3.5 or PF - should I dislike 5E - I'm still going to purchase Eberron material. That is provided said fluff does not involve a changing the setting (advancing the timeline, unleashing a spell-plague, or deciding to add five more dragonmarked houses for fun - I'll trust they learned from the Forgotten Realms, which I gather lost quite a few fans with the transition to 4E).


Originally posted by Hellcow:

Furthermore, support in dndnext implies new products covering additional places, groups, etc.

Actually, this isn't necessarily true. Consider Eberron support for 4E, which primarily covers the existing places and groups, with a few new things and clarifications of old things.

Unfortunately, there's a logical foundation for this, which raises the question of what you'd like to see for the future.

An Eberron guide designed for DDN needs to, first and foremost, support DDN players. WotC presumably hopes that their market will continue to grow, which means that there will be people buying this book who have never encountered Eberron before; they can't rely on a new customer having read a 3.5 sourcebook. There's a few ways to handle this.

Retread old ground. This is what happened with 4E. The 4E ECG stands alone, bringing in a lot of little details from many different 3.5 sourcebooks. It sheds a little more light on some old subjects - more details on the Lords of Dust and House Tarkanan, more details about the impact of the Last War - and it adds a few new groups like the Mournland Magebred, the Feyspires, and the Fading Dream. But it is designed so that someone who has never heard of Eberron before can pick it up and run the setting with just this book. This is good for the new player, but means that it has relatively little to offer the player who knows the setting and owns all the previous books. A DDN ECG needs to accomplish the same purpose: to make the setting accessible to someone who knows nothing about this... which means relatively little space for new material or additional detail on old topics. A book like Planes of Eberron is a great product for people familiar with the world who want to know about this obscure element of it; it's a terrible product for people who have never even heard of the setting before.

Timeline Adjustment. The point of doing a timeline adjustment is to make the world new for the old players. By doing this, you theoretically get a product that's good for everyone. Entirely new players get a guide that provides them with everything they need to play in the setting. While old players get a lot of new material because everything has changed. So even if the book goes over the Five Nations again, they aren't the Five Nations you remember, so see what they look like now! With that said, theoretically it's a good book for everyone; in practice, there's the danger that people who liked the original setting don't want to have that original setting warped into something new. And yet, would they want to see the same old thing all over again? From a business perspective, it's not an easy question to answer.

System Neutral Support. While this doesn't seem like a route WotC would take, it's worth putting out there. In my opinion, the most likely way you'd see a book that explore things that have never been covered before while staying in 998 YK is if that book is actually setting neutral. Rather than being aimed directly at DDN players who may know nothing about Eberron, it's aimed at Eberron players regardless of what system they are playing in. In this sort of scenario, what you'd likely see is minimal system support for the setting in DDN - conversions for races, classes, dragonmarks, etc - but not a full ECG for DDN. Essentially, rather than bringing new people to the world, it would be an effort to make sure that the old players
have what they need to convert, and then create material than any existing Eberron player can use. Frankly, this seems like an unlikely scenario, but it seems like the most logical way that you would get deeper coverage of obscure elements of the existing setting.

If these are the three options, what would you prefer to see? Can you think of a different option that hasn't occured to me?

Originally posted by Syltorian:

Timeline Adjustment. The point of doing a timeline adjustment is to make the world new for the old players. By doing this, you theoretically get a product that's good for everyone. Entirely new players get a guide that provides them with everything they need to play in the setting. While old players get a lot of new material because everything has changed. So even if the book goes over the Five Nations again, they aren't the Five Nations you remember, so see what they look like now! With that said, theoretically it's a good book for everyone; in practice, there's the danger that people who liked the original setting don't want to have that original setting warped into something new. And yet, would they want to see the same old thing all over again? From a business perspective, it's not an easy question to answer.

I fall into the category of people who don’t want “the original setting warped into something new”. Strongly.

Iunderstand the business reasons for doing it, but it will make the setting a lot less attractive to me.

Even advancing it by only a few years will destroy the immediacy of the Peace Treaty and the Mourning. Nations will have recovered, and either a new war has broken out or the peace has been stabilised, and the fate of the world does not hang quite so much in the balance anymore. Unless the timeline advancement has brought with it a new war, an extended Mourning, or a spellplague, in which the world doesn't hang in the balane either, because the balance has crashed. There is no more suspense.

Cannith will either have split completely or found a new baron everyone agrees on (since, if we go by J. Wyatt’s novels, at least one of them will be out of the count!). Time heals many wounds, and it is those wounds (hurt national pride or the Mourning) which make the setting interesting.

From a far more personal point of view, it will dramatically alter a lot of the characters I have played, or wanted to play and did not get a chance yet, since many of their back-stories rely on the war just being over.

I’d put in my veto on a timeline advancement if I somehow manage to get that right in the first place.

Now, how to reconcile this with the need for something new, rather than ending up with Eberron products not selling because it’s more of the same?

First, I found the new material in the 4E ECS quite useful  - despite owning all the 3.5 Eberron books and never having been interested in 4E. Naturally, with each iteration, it will be more difficult to find new stuff, but with 4E ECS, they found the right combination - for me.

It would be possible to produce a book offering multiple timelines – though this might confuse new players, as well as authors of future support books and novels. Pre-Mourning Cyre could be shown, however, as it will aid both character backgrounds for the current timeline, as well as flashback campaigns. Say, presenting Galifar at the height of its power, or the war just before the Mourning. But as said, this will be difficult, and end up requiring more material than an introductory book can handle.

I was thinking whether we should not rethink where the focus of Eberron lies. The 4E ECS took a step in that direction by dedicating a large part of its pages to Sharn. So, perhaps, a DDN ECS could go another step further and focus exclusively on a small part of Khorvaire. You’d still get the main elements – immediate post-war uncertainty, cold war, intrigue, pulp action – and the chance to expand these so they become attractive to old players as well. In this scenario, everything outside the Five Nations would be stuff for further articles and books. Further information would then come in the form of supplements, Dragon articles, website posts, and so forth. The ECS would give the framework for a World of Intrigue and Adventure, with a few base cities (Sharn, Flamekeep, Fairhaven, New Cyre, and either Atur or Korth) and a few adventure sites (more akin to the Explorer’s Handbook), which will then be expanded upon elsewhere.

Alternatively, the book could work from the perspective that what makes Eberron so great is not Aundair and Breland, but the pulp-noir mixture. So it could focus on that. It would rehash a necessary minimum some old materials needed to get the world going, but focus on how to run intrigue campaigns (which are difficult to pull off) and pulp elements.

The first book would thus be more of an exploration of what the “spirit” of Eberron is, rather than trying to fit every thorp in. The DM could be given special methods to use gang-warfare (Dhaask vs. Boromars), covert ops (keeping covers, managing assets, industrial espionage as well as political one, etc), crime-solving adventures, a criminal underworld (reaching up into the top-levels of society), political manoeuvring (Parliamentarians against  Royalists), as well as ideas as to how magic is integrated into everday life. That would be something that’s very much communicating the Eberron-feeling, sure to attract other players without offending old fans, and will actually be useful to old fans too.

Further supplements would then flesh out the world, once that framework is set, and people can extend these principles to the druid factions of the Eldeen, to the warring tribes of Xen'drik Drow, and the underwater Empires of the Sahuagin.

System Neutral Support. While this doesn't seem like a route WotC would take, it's worth putting out there. In my opinion, the most likely way you'd see a book that explore things that have never been covered before while staying in 998 YK is if that book is actually setting neutral. Rather than being aimed directly at DDN players who may know nothing about Eberron, it's aimed at Eberron players regardless of what system they are playing in. In this sort of scenario, what you'd likely see is minimal system support for the setting in DDN - conversions for races, classes, dragonmarks, etc - but not a full ECG for DDN. Essentially, rather than bringing new people to the world, it would be an effort to make sure that the old players
have what they need to convert, and then create material than any existing Eberron player can use. Frankly, this seems like an unlikely scenario, but it seems like the most logical way that you would get deeper coverage of obscure elements of the existing setting.

That’s be my favourite. I see a glimpse of a hope in WotC’s desire not to fragment the market further. They are already republishing 3.5 material, despite the fact that they are gearing up for DDN. Separating the Settings from the Systems might work in their favour, since they could draw on the people who prefer other systems, but are drawn to Eberron as a system.

With some additional work, books could come with web-enhancements (free, payable, or through codes in the books) to get the crunch for your edition of choice. The Multi-System Support. Some companies already manage to publish their material for a few systems, so why not WotC? It might mean going electronic copy rather than printed, to save on costs as each alternative version will reach too small a market, but the overall sum of copies sold might exceed what a book focused on a single edition might achieve. Plus, they get to sell more of their newly printed old stuff, too.

A way to let this happen is to sell or lease a license. WotC would still get a piece of the income and keep the intellectual property rights; if they are afraid of companies “going rogue” and becoming a concurrence, as happened with the OGL, they probably have lawyers to figure out how to close those loopholes without eliminating the possibility that it could be subcontracted. Another way would be to put up new books on kickstarter. So, if enough people want a Planes on Eberron, they'll have at least part of their costs covered before they contract it. 

Anyway, I hope those thoughts, compiled at 2 a.m. with my body screeming to go to rest and my head yelling it still has matters to do, make sense despite the circumstances under which they were composed.


Originally posted by Hellcow:

I fall into the category of people who don’t want “the original setting warped into something new”. Strongly. I understand the business reasons for doing it, but it will make the setting a lot less attractive to me.

Same here. I'm just trying to help people see how these decisions get made. WotC is a big company that answers to an even bigger company, so they don't have the luxury of doing things just because they want to; they have to a limited number of slots and have to make a case for each product that fills one of them. A setting-neutral book has the potential to appeal to everyone who plays the game. A setting-specific book innately pushes away a segment of the audience who dislikes that setting. If it's furthermore either inaccessible to new players (because it requires advanced knowledge of the setting) or something that won't appeal to the existing fans (because it provides little that's new) that's a serious blow against it. If I had the license, I might make a Planes of Eberron book knowing it's a smaller market because it's a big enough market for me and I want to do it; WotC can't do that. So essentially, my challenge here is if you don't want to see a timeline advance and you don't want to see the same stuff all over again, come up with a product you think WotC could sell. 

Alternatively, the book could work from the perspective that what makes Eberron so great is not Aundair and Breland, but the pulp-noir mixture. So it could focus on that. It would rehash a necessary minimum some old materials needed to get the world going, but focus on how to run intrigue campaigns (which are difficult to pull off) and pulp elements.

Excellent idea. A sourcebook that focuses on the flavor of Eberron and concrete systems for running those different styles of campaigns could provide mechanical systems that could appeal to people who don't plan on using the setting, provide some interesting depth on things like the gangs, the intelligence services, etc, and provide enough hooks for a new DM to run a small-scope campaign without reprinting all the existing information on the world. If that book was successful, it would then help justify further support for the setting.

As opposed to a timeline advance, one thing I could see as a possibility would be to step BACK a few years, and focus on the Last War. As with what you describe, a focused book that doesn't encompass the entire world, but instead focuses specifically on the war and the role of adventurers in and around the war. You could bring in systems for intrigue and mass conflict, and take a deeper look at the role of magic in the war. Players could either take part in the conflict - be it in a Three Musketeers style or something more akin to 300 - or simply be going about their normal adventuring lives in the midst of it. Personally, I would be prepared to have events of the campaign contradict canon - so it remains a mystery to the players as will the Mourning happen, or is it something we can avert? If your 998 YK characters were veterans, remake them and consider this a flashback of their previous career.
The main thing here is that additional information on, say, Zil elemental weapons, the military of Droaam, the Royal Eyes, or what have you could all be adapted to a 998 YK campaign... because it's in the near past as opposed to the future, it's a matter of telling you more about things that are already there as opposed to making up new things.

What other ideas can people come up with? What's a product you'd like to have that could make sense for WotC to do?


Originally posted by Syltorian:

Same here. I'm just trying to help people see how these decisions get made.

It’s a pity this is the way things are, but regret won’t change them. Blaming WotC neither; their people have families to feed, after all, and the market is not forgiving. As said, I do believe that WotC is currently trying to re-united the market by appealing to as many parts of it as possible. Republishing older editions points into that direction.

Publishing flavor-only material might push away those who do not like Eberron, but if it is edition-neutral or multi-edition, that could be, in part or entirely, balanced out by reaching people still playing 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E, instead of creating yet another divide with DDN.

If I had the license, I might make a Planes of Eberron book knowing it's a smaller market because it's a big enough market for me and I want to do it; WotC can't do that. So essentially, my challenge here is if you don't want to see a timeline advance and you don't want to see the same stuff all over again, come up with a product you think WotC could sell. 

The challenge could also be to find a way to get Keith Baker the license/subcontract for Eberron. A subscription, kickstarter, or similar move might be a way to work this out. We just need to make sure WotC sees this as an opportunity, not a concurrence.

 As for the original challenge:

Excellent idea. A sourcebook that focuses on the flavor of Eberron and concrete systems for running those different styles of campaigns could provide mechanical systems that could appeal to people who don't plan on using the setting, provide some interesting depth on things like the gangs, the intelligence services, etc, and provide enough hooks for a new DM to run a small-scope campaign without reprinting all the existing information on the world. If that book was successful, it would then help justify further support for the setting.

Thanks! An Eberron Campaign Manual (rather than Setting) with a focus on intrigue, noir and pulp adventure would certainly appeal. Setting material would be introduced to support these rules and suggestions, so this would be a cross between Heroes of Horror (or Crime and Punishment)
and the Eberron
Campaign Setting. I believe this would be a great way to go ahead with this, appealing to both parts of the market.

If, in addition, WotC reprints the original 3.5 books, updated with some errata and conversion notes, their production costs would also be fairly small (most of the writing and editing being done already), and continuity would be safeguarded. It would then be possible for new people to acquire the material already on the market without going through second-hand markets or illegal downloads, and writers could focus on new elements, such as Planes of Eberron, Conspiracies of Eberron, Empires under the Waves, etc.

As said in my previous post, I could also see a very focused approach on only a few sites. An inside-out design, essentially: You get some highly developed locales – Sharn and New Cyre, for instance – to start with. Or Breland, since that’s where both of these locations are. There would be minimal details for the other nations at first.

Old players would know about these, and be able to play their Aundairian or Adaran characters without changing anything, but they’d get many more developped ideas about Breland, enticing the to buy the product. The Swords of Liberty would be developed, rules for social interaction at the Tain gala would be introduced, House Tarkanan would be gotten into into more depth (based on the Thorn of Breland novels, without necessarily adopting all the changes that happen throughout the book), and so forth.

New players would get an introduction to Eberron in an area which has regions as diverse as Sharn, Black Pit and New Cyre, with intrigue (Cannith South, Swords of Liberty, the Citadel), the lightning rail, everyday magic in the big cities of the industrial moloch that is Breland, and small tidbits about what lies beyond the frontiers.  

The disadvantage is that the travelling element, the famous red lines on the map of the Indiana Jones movies, would only be possible for veterans of the setting; but I believe that is an minor problem easily gotten around with new material and even errated/updated reprints.

As opposed to a timeline advance, one thing I could see as a possibility would be to step BACK a few years, and focus on the Last War. As with what you describe, a focused book that doesn't encompass the entire world, but instead focuses specifically on the war and the role of adventurers in and around the war. You could bring in systems for intrigue and mass conflict, and take a deeper look at the role of magic in the war. Players could either take part in the conflict - be it in a Three Musketeers style or something more akin to 300 - or simply be going about their normal adventuring lives in the midst of it. Personally, I would be prepared to have events of the campaign contradict canon - so it remains a mystery to the players as will the Mourning happen, or is it something we can avert?

I do like the idea of a timeline retreat. It risks confusing new players, though; the ones that don’t know about the Mourning because it hasn’t happened yet. Or those who wonder how peace happened, and what’s so mysterious about the King of Karrnath who has not come of age yet. Essentially, a historical campaign requires some explanation why it is historical, and thus, what will – in the absence of player interference – occur. Which again means rehashing the material. Naturally, the focus would lie elsewhere, and it would be great to know more about Cyre-as-was, something that’s sorely lacking at the moment. It would help hammer home the idea of total war, with all resources dedicated to the war effort and taken away from everday life. But this would need a lot of thought to avoid aforementioned confusion between new and old players.

There are plenty of opportunities, of course. The ability to meet Kaius I before he replaced his own great-grandson, maybe even help him stage his comeback (or prevent it), to be in Cyre on the Day of Mourning (and maybe prevent, or trigger it), and so forth are great ideas. Going back even further, the Lycanthropic Purge, the Xoriat Invasion, the Elf-Giant Wars, the Sundering of Sarlona, the Lhazaar Exodus, etc, are all great opportunities, but I do not think they work as an introduction for the setting. A Historical Campaign supplement would be great, however.

 
If your 998 YK characters were veterans, remake them and consider this a flashback of their previous career.

That’s something that would work for most of my characters. The ones I’m most attached to are:

  • A half-nymph heir of Vadalis, chosen by the Silver Flame to prevent a sneak attack from the Demon Wastes; after moving to Thrane, she got into trouble with the puritans in Thaliost (she’s actually chaotic, rather naive, and, to the extremists of the Flame, if not to the mainstream, ‘tainted’. There’s plenty of pre-998 YK things to play out, but anything that advances the timeline will severely affect many points of her background, since she'd have to grow older and lose much of her naivete.
  • A Drow scorpion-wraith out to recover some ancient artifacts removed from a temple her tribe was guarding, and needed to keep a rakshasa bound. In her case, it doesn’t matter whether it’s 998, 908, or 1008 YK, as she does not know anything about the war, anyway.
  • A Karrn boneknight who generally approves of the peace, but lost a daughter in the Rekkenmark Raid; it might be interesting to play him during the raid or in the immediate aftermath. Move things to far ahead, and he’ll be too old, but anything between the Rekkenmark Raid and 998 YK is fine.
  • A Phiarlan who turned into a Shade by using her Mark of Shadow to escape into the Plane of Shadow at the exact moment the Mourning hit; she might be interesting to use immediately after the Mourning as she gets to know her powers, and works to prevent sabotage of the Thronehold Treaty.
  • A lycanthropic Vadalis who escaped to Thelanis during the Purge, and has now returned – thanks to the time being different on Thelanis, this should work out. During the Purge, she was under the influence of the Feral Hand, but eventually broke through the hold to escape. She could return at any time.
  • A Valenar elf who decided that, rather than provoking someone into attacking Valenar so the elves can play defenders of their race, his ancestor wants him to oppose slavery, and who is know waging a terror campaign in Darguun. Obviously, Darguun needs to exist for this, so anything post rebellion is possible; not sure how the death of Lhesh Haruuc and the events of Heirs of Dhakaan would influence him.
.

What other ideas can people come up with? What's a product you'd like to have that could make sense for WotC to do?

There are some other ways to create a different focus from what has gone before.

Using not Khorvaire, but Xen’drik as a base might draw in the DDO crowd. Unfortunately, it would eliminate a lot of the elements that make Eberron what it is: everyday/industrial technology is hardly prevalent in the Xen’drik jungle, and it is different to turn this into a colonial game. The Madness of Crowds will soon put an end to any concerted colonisation effort; and building a lightning rail through the jungle whilst fighting off local tribes (or fighting off Orien’s lumberjacks who destroy your forest) might be interesting, but where is the lightning rail running to? Stormreach to Middle of Nowhere? Besides, the Traveler’s Curse will play havoc with the timetables. Still, a Xen’drik Colonisation setting might work as a start into the setting, especially if we emphasise colonial rivalries between the nations who just got out of war and are racing towards the resources of the new continent (ignoring for the moment that there’s enough place on the old one, and that of the Five Nations only Breland has the proper seaports to get to Xen’drik). Also, with Secrets of Xen’drik and City of Stormreach, rehash is inevitable.

Equally, focusing on a completely different culture would be a different game. Say, ignoring Khorvaire and Xen’drik entirely to create a campaign setting which initially focuses on the Empires beneath the Waves. Sahuagin, Aventuus, aboleths, and so forth. Occasionally, some landborn creatures sail a ship through the territory, but that’s all there is to know about the continents. Interesting, but this might as well be a different campaign setting – a connected one, but different still, unless people are familiar with what happens on dry land. As to how many people you could interested in an underwater campaign, it would probably be rather a niche audience. Great for an expansion or supplement, but not for an introduction.

Overall, I think a focus on the pulp/noir flavour or on a central, well developed and specific region like Breland are most likely to work for everyone... short of getting WotC to change the publication method from their current model to subcontracting settings to smaller groups or individuals.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

First of all, I completely agree with Syltorian's idea about the core dndnext Eberron book providing rules and role playing suggestions concerning pulp and noir games. For instance, the book could indicate how criminal investigations by inquisitives can be played, or how diplomatic intrigue can be handled, similary to how 4e Eberron books offer advice on how to include Eberron elements in other settings. That being said, the fact that dndnext follows a modular approach is perfect for this, because Eberron can offer not only a whole setting but also elements of those two factors (noir and pulp), that can become modules on its own rights. For those who think that Forgotten Realms groups offer those elements, I disagree, because they are more adventuring group oriented rather than pure espionage, diplomacy, etc.
Regarding the different possible approaches Keith suggests, in my opinion they are compatible and not exclusive. In this sense, first of all I think that edition neutral books can be released after the publication of a (in my opinion necessary for WotC) dndnext specific campaign setting Eberron book, offering rules (e.g. action points, etc.), races, monsters and classes (artificers, etc.) in a modular approach. Furthermore, it can indicate how other dndnext modules work in Eberron, as for instance mass combat and kingdom management rules, which in my opinion perfectly fit Eberron, especially concerning diplomacy and a next war that will likely take place.
That being said, I for one would not like at all that the book is set before the current timeline. This is because the mourning, the Cannith schisms, and other elements are only present now. I would actually prefer a future timeline than a past one. For instance, a possibility would be to set the book in the present timeline and offer a "draconic prophecies" chapter, indicating possible future events: e.g. Lesh Haruuc will die if PCs don't do anything, magical technology will be much more evolved in the future and fighters will usually use magical wands (as Keith suggested in an interview), etc., in the understanding that the prophecies are alive and prone to misinterpretations, as the Eberron novels suggest.
Moreover, once a core setting book is published, it is more likely that new material will be published, to justify the work and because previously covered lands, etc. will likely be sold in pdf format in dndnclassics.com. Additionally, I would love dndnext support not only to see Eberron grow, but also because I dislike 3.5's rules complexity and 4e combat heavy and miniatures requirements features, and like rules light games that the core of dndnext will support. I would be able to at last play Eberron fully 

Originally posted by Syltorian:

Regarding the different possible approaches Keith suggests, in my opinion they are compatible and not exclusive. In this sense, first of all I think that edition neutral books can be released after the publication of a (in my opinion necessary for WotC) dndnext specific campaign setting Eberron book, offering rules (e.g. action points, etc.), races, monsters and classes (artificers, etc.) in a modular approach.

I agree. The question, though, was how to convince WotC to publish that campaign setting in the first place, without making a loss as only parts of the market can be targeted. The market is divided as follows in this case:

(a) People primarily interested in D&D Next, but not interested in Eberron. 
(b) People primarily interested D&D Next, who want to have a look at Eberron.
(c) People primarily interested in Eberron, who want to move on to D&D Next.
(d) People primarily interested in Eberron, but willing to move to D&D Next.

Selling the book to Group A will be almost impossible. Anything labelled "Eberron" will push this part of the market away. Exclusive rules on how to run political, intrigue, noir and pulp campaigns might sway some of them, but they will still be unlikely to buy any subsequent support. In generally, I believe that they can be taken out of the equation for Keith's challenge.

Selling the book to Group B involves giving them at the very least the bare minimum of information necessary to run a campaign in Eberron. That is, they need setting information, along with the rules elements you suggest. They will not notice any changes to the setting, as they are new to it.

Selling the book to Group C involves what you are suggesting: a rules update to D&D Next of the important features of Eberron. They will notice changes, and might or might not accept them.

Selling the book to Group D involves giving them something new, setting-wise, which they do not already have, but which is not exclusively D&D Next. These are the problem-people for the Campaign Setting. New rules will be no incentive, and new elements have an risk of offending them. I'm afraid I am one of them - unsure about D&D Next as yet, but willing to support Eberron, and, as I made clear above, against certain changes, such as timeline advancement. Unfortunately, if including the wrong elements will lose this part of the market, not including anything new will provide equally low sales, except for those ready to buy the book merely to show support (I'd be willing to do so, but do not expect everyone else to follow suit).

This is why I am tending towards a campaign setting with an outlooked focused on a small area - Breland, most likely - as it allows to adapt the rules (pleasing Group C), gives a good sample presentation of the setting (for Group B), and enough new material (for Group D), all without requiring changes that might offend the grognards.

Furthermore, it can indicate how other dndnext modules work in Eberron, as for instance mass combat and kingdom management rules, which in my opinion perfectly fit Eberron, especially concerning diplomacy and a next war that will likely take place.

Kingdom management rules would be intriguing, but I wonder whether they work in Eberron. It's fairly unlikely that the PCs get to dethrone and usurp Boranel, and unlike the Forgotten Realms, there are not many unclaimed areas to forge out one's own Kingdom. I'd dearly like to see an adaptation of Power of Faerun to Eberron, but it's not that easy to translate to our setting. As any challenge, though, the results could be worth a lot.

That being said, I for one would not like at all that the book is set before the current timeline. This is because the mourning, the Cannith schisms, and other elements are only present now.

Agreed - except, of course, as options: I'd like to play in past epochs, but not as "Core Eberron", for reasons I outlined above and which you echo here. 

I would actually prefer a future timeline than a past one. For instance, a possibility would be to set the book in the present timeline and offer a "draconic prophecies" chapter, indicating possible future events: e.g. Lesh Haruuc will die if PCs don't do anything, magical technology will be much more evolved in the future and fighters will usually use magical wands (as Keith suggested in an interview), etc., in the understanding that the prophecies are alive and prone to misinterpretations, as the Eberron novels suggest.  

I like the idea to offer multiple possible timeline advancements and a Draconic Prophecies chapter. That way, people could chose them and ignore them at will. However, there still needs to be something everyone agrees on, a base line so future supplements and discussions on the boards do not become irrelevant. Lesh Haruuc's death in potentia is fine, but it changes the political landscape a lot. He's the hero who united the Darguuls; will they fall apart again if he disappears, as Alexander's empire did, or Attila's Huns? Also, following the events in the novels risks turning Eberron into the Forgotten Realms, if Gesh or Gaven suddenly become more important than the PCs. That too needs to be avoided: it works fine for the Forgotten Realms and is an acceptable way of playing D&D, but it's not the Eberron way.

Alternative timelines (optional, not imposed) will however draw that section of the market who want to see more radical changes, without offending those who love Eberron as it is (but who would like to see more support).

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Alternative timelines (optional, not imposed) will however draw that section of the market who want to see more radical changes, without offending those who love Eberron as it is (but who would like to see more support).
 
I agree completely. Indeed, my examples were just that. Offering alternative interesting non-inevitable future scenarios is definitely an interesting idea. It must be stressed that they are just possibilities, and that the PCs are the heroes, who will have to deal with the new scenarios and not "novels characters". In fact, it would be interesting to offer alternative future storylines not envisaged in the novels.
This may also encourage the publication of new Eberron novels, which I miss, which may address some of those potential scenarios. Being non-canon, they won't offend Eberron fans but at the same time explore interesting new intriguing plots.

Originally posted by Syltorian:

True.

Actually, given the importance of the Prophecy to Eberron, a chapter on this might also work for a Pulp-Noir-Intrigue book.

It could go into more details on how to deal with destiny and prophecy both in general and as understood by Eberron, help DMs come up with mysterious phrases and fragments of the Prophecy (there was a section in the Favored Soul description in Player's Handbook II in 3.5, but that would need to be expanded). It might also give examples of previous prophecies which already came true (the start of the Lycanthropic Outbreak, the rebellion of Kaius, Wroann and Thalin against Mishann, etc). Since not every DM has the poetic gift of Nostradamus, that might be helpful too.

It could then explain how the DM could deal with everything from the casting of a simple augury (there is always the outside chance that the PCs do something so incredibly stupid or roll so badly that the DM, who, in spite of what Mr Chick may believe, has no occult power to predict the future, is proven wrong after he told the PCs they were in no danger) to dealing with the shifting complexity of the Draconic Prophecy, and how the PCs (or NPCs) can influence it, as well as more elaboration on how the Dragonmarked Houses fit in.

Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:

Eberron was mention in this week's Legends & Lore in their approach to campaign setting for D&D Next. YAY!

Ideally, our approach allows 
Eberron, Forgotten Realms, the world of the Nentir Vale, Greyhawk, Mystara, and your own campaign setting to work with the basic assumptions we make about the planes.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Eberron was mention in this week's Legends & Lore in their approach to campaign setting for D&D Next. YAY!

Ideally, our approach allows 
Eberron, Forgotten Realms, the world of the Nentir Vale, Greyhawk, Mystara, and your own campaign setting to work with the basic assumptions we make about the planes.

Thanks for the information Plaguescarred! I am glad that Eberron is being recognized for dndnext. The only thing about that phrase I am concerned about is that it hints to the idea that the planes of Eberron may follow the general design of planes in dnd and planescape. That is problematic because in its origins in 3.5 Eberron had a unique cosmology, which explained many things about the wold (manifest zones, etc.), and some Eberron fans disliked the fact that in 4e Baator from the general 4e cosmology was shoehorned In Eberron. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Originally posted by Syltorian:

That is problematic because in its origins in 3.5 Eberron had a unique cosmology, which explained many things about the wold (manifest zones, etc.), and some Eberron fans disliked the fact that in 4e Baator from the general 4e cosmology was shoehorned In Eberron. What are your thoughts on the matter?

I share your concerns.

In some ways, Mike Mearls's suggestions work well with Eberron. The different rings of the elemental planes made me think of manifest zones: the "border plane" Mearls describes sounds like a manifest zone to Fernia, and it would be interesting to have places in Fernia which are not completely hostile - much like we know from Keith Baker's novels and other writings that Dal Quor is made up of rings, with mortal dreams at the fringes and the Dreaming Dark at the centre.

As regards virtually everything else, though, I don't think it would work for Eberron. Nor do I see why it should.

The Feywild as a border plane to the positive energy plane - that will destroy Thelanis, Lamannia and Irian, and with the latter, Aerenal and its religion. Likewise, how is the Blood of Vol going to draw on Mabar if they have to go put in a terminal change in Ravenloft first?

We already had to deal with Baator, and the destruction of the "Baker's Dozen" stystem, which is hidden but still important to Eberron, and a rather abritrary allocation if planes to Feywild, Elemental Chaos, and so forth. It will play havoc with the coterminous and remote phases of the planes, which made sure that even everyday people were influenced by the planes (rather than only high-level planewalkers) - a concept watered down into insipidity in 4E already.

A return to the Great Wheel well: great, as the default system. But for the Host's Sake, don't apply it to Eberron. Literally for the Host's Sake: what will happen to Eberron's take on religion if you cannot walk up to Aureon, but hey, you can visit Corellon Larethian and all the other gods on their planes! Sure, we could rewrite them all as actually top-ranking representatives of the Host, but why complicate things in the first place? Why does Eberron need Hades or Pandemonium? Use elements from these planes for Dollurh, for a canyon in the Demon Wastes, and so forth, sure. But the cosmology of Eberron is different for a reason.

Nothing against the Blood War, but why does every setting need it? It doesn't make sense for Eberron. Not even on Shavarath, which is all about war (and war does not necessarily mean one party has to be evil and one good). It doesn't add anything to Eberron, but takes a way a lot. The Lords of Dust would be diminished if focus turns on the Blood War.

What Mearls says about Spelljammer is quite right. I don't want Spelljammer spaceship equivalent in Eberron. But it's still a nice setting if that's your thing. I don't want the Great Wheel in Eberron, either. It's a nice setting, but it's not Eberron. It's one of the great things about Eberron that it turned away from that and made the planes unique. I believe that it should stay unique. The same goes for Planescape, incidentally: if the Great Wheel suddenly applies everywhere, that will also make that setting less unique.

Keep things unique. Let people chose. Offer options, not a one-size-fits-all concept that will mean that, eventually, it doesn't really matter which campaign setting you are playing, because they are all the same anyway.

Originally posted by Hellcow:

The only thing about that phrase I am concerned about is that it hints to the idea that the planes of Eberron may follow the general design of planes in dnd and planescape. That is problematic because in its origins in 3.5 Eberron had a unique cosmology, which explained many things about the wold (manifest zones, etc.), and some Eberron fans disliked the fact that in 4e Baator from the general 4e cosmology was shoehorned In Eberron. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about it. What I read in this is that they are trying to be considerate to the fans of as many settings as possible - not a statement that they are going to release Eberron material that is specifically tied to this new cosmology. Consider that this statement mentions Eberron, Mystara, Nentir Vale, Greyhawk, Planescape, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft. I cannot imagine that WotC itself is going to produce significant material for ALL OF THE SETTINGS in a single year. So how I read this is them saying "We've tried to come up with something that we feel could be relatively easy to adapt to any of these settings - so if you are playing in (whichever setting), you can still make use of the setting-neutral material we create."

Faced with this, I would simply create a conversion chart for Eberron: material set in the "border plane of fire" is in Fernia; depending on its flavor, the Feywild can be adapted to Lamannia or Thelanis, while material set in the Border Plane of Earth might also be Lamannia. My point is that I won't be changing Eberron to conform to their cosmology; I will change their cosmology as necessary to conform to Eberron.

The only reason this would be an issue is if they actually published something like a Planes of Eberron book that incorporates this new cosmology, and I really don't get the sense that this is what's being discussed here. This shows an awareness of the fact that there are fans of many settings and a desire to have a core component that is easily accessible to as many of them as possible - but I wouldn't take it as a promise of a Mystara campaign guide next year.

With that said, the fact that they are seeking to appeal to fans of all of these settings leads me to hope that they might be open to licensing. Again, simply because there's a limit to what WotC can produce in a year I can't see them supporting all of these settings themselves; but given that they recognize that all of these settings have followers, they might take steps to make sure those followers can get new material. So I see this as a very positive message.

Originally posted by Syltorian:

My point is that I won't be changing Eberron to conform to their cosmology; I will change their cosmology as necessary to conform to Eberron.

Well said. I hope that is the way this is going to work, and that an Eberron Campaign Setting for DDN is not going to try and force the Great Wheel on Eberron. Using the Great Weel as default is fine, but Eberron is anything but default.

This shows an awareness of the fact that there are fans of many settings and a desire to have a core component that is easily accessible to as many of them as possible - but I wouldn't take it as a promise of a Mystara campaign guide next year.

True, it's positive to see that Eberron got mentioned. And a conversion guide would be nice. Actually, many of the elements in the Planar Manuals and Fiendish Codexes of 3.5 are not too difficult to adopt to Eberron either - between the planes, Khyber, Xen'drik, Manifest Zones and the Demon Wastes, there's enough space to put in all those places.

With that said, the fact that they are seeking to appeal to fans of all of these settings leads me to hope that they might be open to licensing.

That would be great!

Incidentally, before I read Hellcow's post, I posted the following comment on the article page. I'm not sure where they will be more likely to read reactions. It's a false alarm anyway, if Hellcow's interpretations are correct.

"I concur. Eberron has a unique way of treating the planes - had, in 3.5 at any rate. The very first part of the article might work - the outer layer of the planes sounds like a manifest zone. The rest of the article would be disastrous to a large part of the setting, though:

In Eberron, planes are tied in with the ever-recurring number 13, and thus also to the Dragonmarks; this was already destroyed with the inclusion of Baator in 4E.

The planes have coterminous and remote phases, which makes them important to normal people, not just high-level Planewalkers. That's another important part of Eberron: planes may be mysterious, but they still influence the world. A plane of Irian separated from the world by the Feywild will make its manifest zones and coterminous phases, and hence Aereni culture nearly impossible.

Likewise, it is one of the important  aspect of Eberron that the gods are unknown and unknowable. It's an important aspect of the Great Wheel that the gods have domains on these planes.

Also, Eberron's unique planes do not readily fit into the Great Wheel. Okay, Fernia is the Plane of Fire. But where is Dal Quor on the Great Wheel... and yet, it's vital to Eberron's history. Where is Syrania - and if you eliminate it, Sharn will come crumbling down. Literally. Why would you need to go to so much trouble to seal of Xoriat, if it's the Far Realm, actually?

Now, this is not saying that the Great Wheel is bad. It isn't. It just doesn't work for Eberron. The article says, quite rightly, that not everyone wants Spelljammer "spaceships" in their campaign, but fails to take the next step, that not everyone wants the Great Wheel either.

Please don't try a "one size fits all" approach. Taking away from the uniqueness of settings will just mean that in the end, it doesn't matter which one you are playing anymore. Variety is the spice of life, as they say, so I hope we can get our D&D Next hot!"


Originally posted by Hellcow:

Keep things unique. Let people chose.

Personally, I think that IS what they are doing here. As I see it, what they are saying is "We want the default, setting-neutral material we create to be easy to adapt to whatever setting you happen to use" - not "We are going to create new setting-specific material that is forced to conform to our new design."

Take the mention of the Blood War. I don't feel that this is saying I have to use the Blood War in Eberron; I see it as saying "We will be making the Blood War part of our default setting, which means that if you are using a setting that incorporates the Blood War you will have new material."

So clarifying what I was saying above, I feel no need to map Fernia to any of the Elemental planes they have described. If they create an adventure that I want to use and it's set in the Border Plane of Fire, it will be up to me to decide whether when I place that adventure in Eberron if I put it in Fernia, in a manifest zone to Fernia, or in a demiplane of Khyber.

In short: I don't personally see this as a threat that there will be a new Eberron Campaign Setting book that destroys the existing cosmology; I see it as an effort to create a general cosmology for the default, setting-neutral material that is relatively easy for people to use regardless of the setting they play in. Essentially, my guess is that this will be less intrusive than adding Baator to 4E Eberron because that actually altered Eberron's personal planar map. I don't see this as being a promise of providing a new planar map for each setting; it's trying to find a single default that they hope will be easy for YOU to adapt to whatever you are using - which means the final decision as to what you do with it should stay in your hands.

Again, my main takeaway is that they are at least thinking about Eberron players and acknowledging that there are people out there who plan to continue Eberron and who they'd like to be playing D&D Next - not a threat of destroying the setting to fit this new vision... at least, that's what I HOPE they are saying.


Originally posted by Syltorian:

I hope you are correct, Hellcow!
smiley-smile.gif
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Again, my main takeaway is that they are at least thinking about Eberron players and acknowledging that there are people out there who plan to continue Eberron and who they'd like to be playing D&D Next - not a threat of destroying the setting to fit this new vision... at least, that's what I HOPE they are saying.

Just like Syltorian, I hope you are correct
smile.gif
thanks for sharing your thoughts, which are much better informed than mine. I must recognize that Mearls and co. are honestly working to please all players and make a great game and that they are quite accessible and friendly. As I've said before, I am actually liking dndnext and would prefer to play Eberron in it.


Originally posted by Elton74:

I for one, am pretty skeptical.  I think Eberron would have done well as an OGL setting.  But then again . . .  
smile.gif


I'm waiting silently for something good to happen, though.  Good for all of us.
smile.gif


In the meantime, i'm still going to run my campaign and not hold my breath for how Wizards of the Coast is going to go.  I would like to very much see Eberron supported for 5e, but Wizards does not have now the resources they once did.
smile.gif


Originally posted by Syltorian:

I for one, am pretty skeptical.  I think Eberron would have done well as an OGL setting.  But then again . . .  
smile.gif

I agree, but hope springs eternal ;)

Furthermore, the new Wandering Monsters article actually gives further reason for hope. It  not only remembers Eberron, but does so in favourable terms, and uses the setting as an argument in favour of rules for playing monstrous characters - what better way to show that the developpers care? "It's worth noting that the Eberron setting assumes the possibility of orc and goblinoid characters. These races have civilizations of their own, and there's no good reason to disallow them while allowing elves and dwarves. On top of that, the nation of Droaam is full of monsters—a great excuse for a character of any monstrous race."

Thanks, James Wyatt!


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Furthermore, the new Wandering Monsters article actually gives further reason for hope. It  not only remembers Eberron, but does so in favourable terms, and uses the setting as an argument in favour of rules for playing monstrous characters - what better way to show that the developpers care? "It's worth noting that the Eberron setting assumes the possibility of orc and goblinoid characters. These races have civilizations of their own, and there's no good reason to disallow them while allowing elves and dwarves. On top of that, the nation of Droaam is full of monsters—a great excuse for a character of any monstrous race."
Thanks, James Wyatt!

The Silver Flame bless Mr. Wyatt!

Originally posted by Terra_Phi:

Like the rest of you (I feel safe to assume) I'm running a 5e Eberron game. All of my players have managed to build superb characters. I even fluffed together a feat for the Mark of Shadow which basically cloned the 3.5 and 4 feat. It's such a simple system already it's a cinch to throw this stuff together.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see it published again for the new edition, but it's not going to stop me playing in the mean-time. 

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Yesterday's dndnext q&a post said this:

"
1.png
 Are all settings going to use the new cosmology that Mike mentioned in last week’s Legends & Lore? What about Eberron, which has always had its own take on things?


When it is fully fleshed out, the “new” cosmology will be designed to provide a seamless experience for our existing settings. So, if you’re playing a setting that uses different cosmological assumptions (like Eberron, Dark Sun, or even the world of Nerath from 4th Edition), you won’t need to make any changes. In Mike’s own words to me, “That would defeat the purpose of creating a cosmology that allows for the smoothest possible transition.

While I doubt that all settings will be extensively supported, James Wyatt's articles and comments like this give me hope that the best dnd setting (Eberron
smile.gif
) will be supported. Thoughts on the answer, which is rather confusing? I think that it says that Eberron's own cosmology will be supported and not altered but will be explaned as having either links to or things in common with that of other settings.

Originally posted by CommanderCrud:

I've never understood why people get all worked up about the various cosmology diagrams in any version of any game. When you summon up a magic portal to get from one "place" to another, it doesn't matter in the slightest what the universe design is. No PC, NPC, or even most immortals would fully understand how the universe fits together anyway. Particularly in a fantasy setting. It could be described and explained numerous ways depending on what the culture is, and could vary as the PCs travel. "The magic portal here takes you there" is all you need to know, even as DM.

Originally posted by Syltorian:

Yesterday's dndnext q&a post said this:

"
1.png
 Are all settings going to use the new cosmology that Mike mentioned in last week’s Legends & Lore? What about Eberron, which has always had its own take on things?


When it is fully fleshed out, the “new” cosmology will be designed to provide a seamless experience for our existing settings. So, if you’re playing a setting that uses different cosmological assumptions (like Eberron, Dark Sun, or even the world of Nerath from 4th Edition), you won’t need to make any changes. In Mike’s own words to me, “That would defeat the purpose of creating a cosmology that allows for the smoothest possible transition.

While I doubt that all settings will be extensively supported, James Wyatt's articles and comments like this give me hope that the best dnd setting (Eberron
smile.gif
) will be supported. Thoughts on the answer, which is rather confusing? I think that it says that Eberron's own cosmology will be supported and not altered but will be explaned as having either links to or things in common with that of other settings.

James Wyatt’s articles give me more hope than this reply, as far as continued Eberron support is concerned. This answer would also apply to homebrew settings, and after all, the question was specifically mentioning Eberron. So this leaves me feeling neutral. It’s not a rejection, either. Wyatt, on the other hand, has been deeply involved in the creation of Eberron and put a lot of effort in the world. I doubt he’d let it go.

As far as not altering the Eberron cosmology goes,  as I read it, Q&A supports Keith’s interpretation, in that “you won’t need to make any changes” to “the settings that use different cosmological assumptions”. The “seamless experience” also worries me somewhat; but if interpreted in the way that the core cosmology will be so basic that it can be adapted to anything, as Keith has said all along, it’s fine. It could be somewhat like they did with monsters, if you read the ettercap description in Mearl’s latest article, which contains enough fluff to make the creature interesting but does not invalidate its use in other settings –I don’t think it will be possible to read this as “you won’t need to make any changes” to the core cosmology because we’ll change those settings, nyah, nyah, nyah!. ;) 

Naturally, to take the Traveller’s Side (was that coined by Bassingswaithe?) the definition of the “smoothest possible transition” hinges very much on what one considers possible.

I've never understood why people get all worked up about the various cosmology diagrams in any version of any game. When you summon up a magic portal to get from one "place" to another, it doesn't matter in the slightest what the universe design is. No PC, NPC, or even most immortals would fully understand how the universe fits together anyway. Particularly in a fantasy setting. It could be described and explained numerous ways depending on what the culture is, and could vary as the PCs travel. "The magic portal here takes you there" is all you need to know, even as DM.

It depends on whether you start with the assumption that all settings exist in the same universe or not. True, magic can easily be invoked to take you to a different universe altogether, where the planes are different, but then again, people are not complaining so much about a Spelljammer Ship arriving in the Frostfell or someone Gating into Sharn from Waterdeep, or even using the Serpent Inn to travel from location to location. As you say, there are plenty of ways to explain why planes are different in the world you have just arrived.

It becomes a problem once the designers decide to ‘simplify’ matters by making all the settings the same. If that happens, you force people who knew the old Eberron cosmology to use the radically different Great Wheel, with all the implications which were mentioned above (access to the gods, influence on the history and everyday life of Eberron, including the growing season and the very existence of Sharn, etc), or become schismatics. And a schism amongst supporters is never a good thing for a cause (and in this case, a setting).

Now, if you meant by your post that you’ve never understood why the designers tried to change the cosmology of Eberron in 4E, I don’t understand that either, as it would have been easy enough to take elements from the core cosmology and adapt it to Eberron rather than force it on the setting. Baator does not belong there – Keith’s article does excellent damage control, but I’d still prefer if that hadn’t been necessary.


Originally posted by Hellcow:

I don't think the diagram is what's bothering people, CommanderCrud. Cosmology affects a setting in a variety of ways. What are the origins and motivations of celestials and fiends? What's the difference and relationship between devils and demons? What happens when you die? Can you visit a god? When you dream, do you go to another plane, or is it all in your mind? Do the planes have any physical influence on the world inhabited by the PCs? If you're just taking a portal to "the plane of fire" it doesn't really matter if it's Fernia or some other fire plane. But knowing whether your dreams are yours alone or home to hostile spirits may make a difference.

With that said, I read the statement as meaning that whatever the universal cosmology is, it won't interfere with core assumptions of settings... So it will be up to the DM to decide if dreams are in Dal Quor or just in your mind... Not something enforced by the cosmology. 

Originally posted by Syltorian:

I don't think the diagram is what's bothering people, CommanderCrud. Cosmology affects a setting in a variety of ways. What are the origins and motivations of celestials and fiends? What's the difference and relationship between devils and demons? What happens when you die? Can you visit a god? When you dream, do you go to another plane, or is it all in your mind? Do the planes have any physical influence on the world inhabited by the PCs? If you're just taking a portal to "the plane of fire" it doesn't really matter if it's Fernia or some other fire plane. But knowing whether your dreams are yours alone or home to hostile spirits may make a difference.

And that's why a Planes of Eberron book would have been so welcome, not only for those travelling those planes, but to explain their relationship to the setting as a whole. Individual books - from the ECS (3.5) to Forge of War (with discussions on Savarath and its manifest zones) do this, but it seems to have slipped the mind of the people who did the planar section of the ECS (4E), unless the choice was imposed on them. To me, it's a great idea to make the planes more immediately important to the people of the setting as a whole. Farmer Joe will never visit the planes (unless he strolls into Thelanis by accident), but Lamannia influences his crops, and he'll need to check the Almanac to know when to really stock up the firewood because Risia will come coterminous.

It also creates a great theological background, in that it is not possible to visit the abode of the gods (making atheism and agnosticism a viable choice, which would get you doomed in Faerun after your death, and considered insane in the Great Wheel worlds), and the whole matter of not knowing what the afterlife has in store for you - bliss at the table of the Sovereigns or eternally wasting away in Dollurh? Or returning to Thelanis, if you're a Drow, perhaps as a side effect of the giants experiments, or due to a stronger connection to their fey ancestors than the regular elves do? - also makes the setting much more interesting. Essentially, where the Realms have divine alliances and wars which influence the world, Eberron leaves this to the mortal races. Both are interesting choices, and both should be possible.


Originally posted by CommanderCrud:

I meant that the D&D designers shouldn't put so much effort into the cosmology, nor should it matter that much to the players if it changes slightly to align the multitude of settings. But also, and more importantly, once a cosmology is in place, the D&D designers should leave it the hell alone. Who cares if the Eberron cosmology fits in with the Dark Sun one? Sure, you might care if you're on a Spelljammer ship, but still, does it really matter? So what if they're in the same universe or not. It's a multiverse. Going from one to another and you'll expect reality shifts. That can explain edition rules differences even. Done. Easy. I don't see how it matters to a PC, the demons, or anything else. We're talking about elves and dragons and tons of unrealistic stuff, but no, the physics of the universe need consistent logic!

Originally posted by CommanderCrud:

It also creates a great theological background...

I disagree. In real world Earth, how much does the understanding of the cosmology matter to any theology that has ever existed? A rich world does not depend on understanding its reality.

Originally posted by Syltorian:

Who cares if the Eberron cosmology fits in with the Dark Sun one?

Overall I completely and utterly agree with you, but unfortunately, there is an answer to this: The people who want to sell their generic "Manual of the Planes" to as many people as possible. After all, WotC has to survive in the real world. From the economical perspective, they need to find a way to get a majority of people to be interested in their supplements. 4E tried to do this by forcing elements of core into Eberron - not to mention Forgotten Realms, which was hit even more severely. Fortunately, they seem to have realised that this alienated many of the fans.

I disagree. In real world Earth, how much does the understanding of the cosmology matter to any theology that has ever existed? A rich world does not depend on understanding its reality.

A lot.

Fear of hell led to buying pardons, which led to protestantism, which let to a church schism, and this in turn led to some of the most cruel and bloody wars of history. Establish that there is no Hell, and you have a problem. Especially since Christian theology - expressed in the infamous Malleus Maleficiarum, for instance, claimed that disbelieving in Hell also meant disbelieving in Heaven.

And then there is the Ptolemean theory of the spheres. The Copernican and Gallilean changes let to a lot of trouble with the Church, until it finally accepted that the cosmology is not geocentric, nor even heliocentric.  

Why did people begin to celebrate Halloween? Because that's when the frontier between this world and the other is thinnest. This is something we celebrate today for fun, but which people still believed in not so long ago. And the belief of another world in the shadow of this one still goes strong in some places.

The Vikings had to die in battle to get a place in the afterlife (unless you wanted to go to the realm of Hel), and took great care of their toenails, because the evil forces were building ships from them to invade the world. Besides, you really want to make sure Yggdrasil stays up, and the theology of the Asen gods is quite tied up with Asgard, the rainbow guarded by Heimdal, and the dragon chewing away at the roots of the Tree.

The Aztecs believed that some of their gods had realms - Tlaloc's realm of Rain, Tlalocan, for instance, and happily killed people to send them there. And for all we know, many victims gladly let themselves be killed.

There's dozens and scores such references. The interesting thing about Earth is that we do not know much, and are still learning. We got many beliefs, beliefs which are important to people, which influence their daily lives, and which some are ready to die for, whilst others scoff at them. Cosmology and theology are intimately tied together. 

But I was not comparing to the real world. I was comparing to the Forgotten Realms, where the gods do come down to tell you you've got it wrong and where you end up in some kind of wall of souls if you die without having been a faithful of one of the gods. Eberron, by contrast, allows you to have the earth-like problems without god showing up in the middle of the Council of Nicea to tell people the one Truth.

Originally posted by CommanderCrud:

I guess I'm not explaining myself clearly. Whether not there is a hell, to follow your example, has no bearing on religions saying there is. Just because "gods" or whatever exist and interfere in the game world doesn't change that. What the Vikings or Aztecs, or anyone else, believed doesn't matter. Look at the Cthulhu Mythos. You can say they're gods or just super powerful aliens, but either way the universe is not understood, and whatever the true reality is, it's irrelevant to a PC or GM, and it's awesome anyway. Most campaigns none of this will ever matter. That said, I do own the Manual of the Planes, Astral Sea, and all the other cosmology books. I frequently use multi-dimensional travel, etc. I've even played with the Immortals boxed set of BECMI. NPC explanations vary wildly. The PCs will never learn the "truth" and so, as DM, I don't need to worry about it. To say that "Cosmology and theology are intimately tied together" is a perception a PC (and apparently some real people) may have, but they are not, and I think it's better if we decouple them in game design. I get that others care a great deal. I don't. In any case, I think it's weird and dumb for the designers to change an established cosmology.

Originally posted by Syltorian:

Whether not there is a hell, to follow your example, has no bearing on religions saying there is.

Do you mean that a religion which posits the existence of Hell is going to do so regardless of its actual existence or non-existence?

If so, I agree.

Just because "gods" or whatever exist and interfere in the game world doesn't change that. What the Vikings or Aztecs, or anyone else, believed doesn't matter. Look at the Cthulhu Mythos. You can say they're gods or just super powerful aliens, but either way the universe is not understood, and whatever the true reality is, it's irrelevant to a PC or GM, and it's awesome anyway.

If I understand you correctly, you say that theological belief is separate from actual cosmological reality, and will persevere in believing no matter what objective reality is, rejecting or explaining away proofs.

Again, I agree.

When I said that "cosmology and theology are intimately tied together", I meant that each theology is based, often inseparably, on its own understanding of cosmology, not on the objectively existing reality.

For Eberron, this means that there is an established fact (crops grow better when Lamannia comes closer), but the Church of the Sovereign Host, the Druidic Faiths, and other religions will interpret this differently. Similarly, there is a difference between Mabar and Irian as such, and their perception by the Aereni elves and the Blood of Vol.

Most campaigns none of this will ever matter.

I agree that the actual truth will not matter... not on our world, not in the Great Wheel, nor on Eberron that is.

I believe that in the Forgotten Realms it does matter, since you get trapped in the Wall of the Faithless whatever your personal opinion is, but that's the Forgotten Realms.

That makes for a different take on religion in the game than if you can argue that the gods are simply jumped up beings (as the Athar faction of Planescape does), or if you can decide to ignore the fact alltogether (as you certainly can in Eberron). And that makes Eberron so interesting: the truth will not be known, so you can get all those factions fighting each other without anyone ever being able to get absolute proof.

Still, I believe that the way the different religions and different cultures see the world and its cosmology is important: it's part of why the Undying Court and the Blood of Vol are at odds. It allows for the Children of Winter to still be druids. The players will (in most campaigns) never find out whether creating undead really saps life from the world (unless the campaign revolves around it), as the Undying Court claims and the Blood of Vol denies. But both claims could be integral to PC and NPC backgrounds and explain their actions.

On the other hand, there are elements that do matter: as I indicated earlier, Lamannia influences the growth of crops and births of animals (and, probably, other natural creatures too). Risian winters are colder, Fernian summers hotter than normal ones: it doesn't matter whether the Sulatar are right or wrong about opening the Gates of Fire, the planes are going to influence the weather: intense heat waves and cold periods can be deadly, so knowing which plane is going to draw near becomes vital for everyday life. I agree that people may not understand what is happening, and that it is likely even the sages of Arcanix know less than they'd care to admit. The normal person in Sharn will know to prepare for a hot summer because his almanac tells him to, and he may throw in something about the "Sea of Fire", without knowing anything more than that it's "sorta like that gambling den in Hareth's Folly", but it will still influence his life. Now, where I agree is that it doesn't really matter what else is going on with Fernia unless your campaign specifically involves the place. 

To say that "Cosmology and theology are intimately tied together" is a perception a PC (and apparently some real people) may have, but they are not, and I think it's better if we decouple them in game design.

Again, I may have chosen that phrase a bit carelessly. Let me ammend it that to this: "Theology is intimately tied to its own peculiar view of cosmology, regardless of actual, objective reality". But I remain interested in the possibility of these different world views clashing, and influencing the lives of people. 


Originally posted by CommanderCrud:

With your last clarification I do think we agree completely. I also agree that the clash is interesting, and is a point I often bring up in my games. The last one I recall that I loved was a demon coming into the world and wreaking havoc, claming to be the "devil" and the people in the world, including the PCs, believed he was. For all purposes, he was, even though he wasn't. A later campaign though may prove that wrong and blow the people's minds. In fact, that may come up sooner rather than later now that I'm thinking about it.


Originally posted by Syltorian:

I'm glad we could resolve this in such an agreeable fashion. Thanks for a thougthtful and polite discussion, Commander. They are often rare on the internet.

Your campaign sounds very interesting. Could you PM me some of the details (I say PM, lest we derail the thread)? I'd be interested in hearing how the PCs reacted and what consequences the apparent appearance of the Devil had on the world. It does sound like this could work very well with the Traveler in Eberron, too - the only God rumoured to actually walk the earth, unless it's an imposter (or a series of them).

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Great discussion Syltorian and acommander! The only thing I would like to add, although it was better said by you in other words, is that any of those accounts or none of them may be the actual truth, which is a constant in Eberron in other non-religious aspects (e.g. The cause of the Mourning). That is why just as atheism or agnosticism are valid in Eberron, maybe the Silver Flame tenets or those of the Host followers are right and may be actually truly describing things as they are. To my mind. This adds a mysterious and intriguing dimension to games, permitting true differences between Faiths to make sense in D&D. Still, some planes have a direct tangible intact, as in manifest zones as Sharn.

Originally posted by Hellcow:

It's basically a question of whether your campaign needs a particular element to be concretely defined for the purposes of the story you want to tell, or if the story is actually strengthened by mystery. In the case of Lovecraft, the mysterious and ultimately unknowable nature of the Old Ones is part of the flavor of the setting; knowing the truth about the Old Ones would drive you mad, which leaves the investigators doing their best to piece things together on the fringes and to combat threats they don't truly understand. On the other hand, if your campaign is directly founded on the Blood War, the Time of Troubles, or the machinations of the Dreaming Dark, you want to have that particular aspect well defined. If you're playing a kalashtar, your race is defined by the civil war in Dal Quor, and you yourself may be personally threatened by it.

This is only a problem if core material makes a concrete assertion that directly contradicts the basic assumptions you're working with. If the core states GODS ARE UNKNOWABLE AND NEVER MANIFEST IN THE WORLD, then your long-running Time of Troubles campaign is suddenly going to be in conflict with that core material. If it asserts that GODS ARE ACTIVELY AND DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE WORLD and new core material relies on this as concrete fact, core materials may clash with your ongoing Eberron story. If it makes it a concrete fact that THERE IS NO PLANE OF DREAMS, then it's going to clash with your ongoing Dreaming Dark campaign.

Even if this is the case, you can always choose to ignore these assertions. 4E blended the traditional cosmology of Eberron with their new map of the planes... but frankly, I ignored it completely and just continued running things the way I always had, even though I was using 4E mechanics. It's only an issue if you want to use core material directly tied to the new core cosmology and it fundamentally contradicts part of your campaign - IE, there's an adventure path that concretely states THERE IS NO DREAMWORLD and your party is entirely made up of kalashtar atavists.

What I take from the message is that the new cosmology will provide a broad base for understanding things, but that it's going to be inclusive rather than exclusive. So it will work with the Blood War, but it won't FORCE you to use the Blood War if it doesn't fit your setting.

Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

I've never understood why people get all worked up about the various cosmology diagrams in any version of any game. When you summon up a magic portal to get from one "place" to another, it doesn't matter in the slightest what the universe design is. No PC, NPC, or even most immortals would fully understand how the universe fits together anyway. Particularly in a fantasy setting. It could be described and explained numerous ways depending on what the culture is, and could vary as the PCs travel. "The magic portal here takes you there" is all you need to know, even as DM.

The cosmology is like the universe in a a sci fi property. It needs to have a pattern of some kind, because people study it. There's no reason to assume that no " PC, NPC, or even most immortals would fully understand how the universe fits together". In fact, I find that idea rather silly.

Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:

I meant that the D&D designers shouldn't put so much effort into the cosmology, nor should it matter that much to the players if it changes slightly to align the multitude of settings. But also, and more importantly, once a cosmology is in place, the D&D designers should leave it the hell alone. Who cares if the Eberron cosmology fits in with the Dark Sun one? Sure, you might care if you're on a Spelljammer ship, but still, does it really matter? So what if they're in the same universe or not. It's a multiverse. Going from one to another and you'll expect reality shifts. That can explain edition rules differences even. Done. Easy. I don't see how it matters to a PC, the demons, or anything else. We're talking about elves and dragons and tons of unrealistic stuff, but no, the physics of the universe need consistent logic!

the elves and dragons also need consistent logic. as does magic, and fairies, and healing potions, etc.

being a fantasy property doesn't obviate the need for internal consistency.

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Hi everyone,
I just wanted to mention that I read in forums that the next dndnext playtest packet to come out in September will include the warforged race, and that this was announced at Gen Con, during which it was said that the five most popular dnd campaign settings may have some modular support in 5e.
On the other hand, Mike Mearls recently wrote on twitter that artificers will be a wizard sub-class in dndnext.
Both news are reassuring and may indicate that Eberron support in dndnext is possible!

Originally posted by CommanderCrud:

Hi everyone,
I just wanted to mention that I read in forums that the next dndnext playtest packet to come out in September will include the warforged class, and that this was announced at Gen Con, during which it was said that the five most popular dnd campaign settings may have some modular support in 5e.
On the other hand, Mike Mearls recently wrote on twitter that artificers will be a wizard sub-class in dndnext.
Both news are reassuring and may indicate that Eberron support in dndnext is possible! 
Yeah!

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

I asked Mike Mearls on twitter if Eberron has chances of being one of the campaign settings supported in dndnext, and he just answered "t has a very good chance". Great news!

Originally posted by hobson1975:

I really hope we see Eberron support in DDN as well.  You know though there's so much material out there, I don't think I'll have any problem adapting it to Next.  I basically did that when my original 4E campaign started.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Hi fellow defenders of Khorvaire,
As was promised, the warforged was included as a character race and Eberron was expressly mentioned as its setting in the last packet! This is good news because it shows that Eberron is regarded as important and can be supported (the only other campaign specific that had a unique race in the packet was Dragonlance and its kender).
I am only concerned because in twitter Mearls said that they can't say yet how non-FR settings may be supported and that the support of some settings may differ from what has been done in past editions.
Thoughts?
PS check Keith Baker's great latest post on dragonmarked houses in his blog.


Originally posted by StrikerGreen:

I'm SUPER stoked that both Warforged and Tiefling are now supported in NEXT. I have been searching for a way to convert my long running campaign to a system other than 4E.
We just had our 2nd NEXT game last night, all the characters are 11th level, and everyone is really enjoying it. Even the player who's bread & butter is 4E is enjoying the change of pace.
I'm very happy with the Tiefling racial ability to resist fire and I think the Warforged racial abilities are spot on as well.
Now if we could get some more Monster entries for NEXT Dolgrim/Aberrants!!


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

I am using my speaking stone to send you all this message: in his latest post (http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131127), James Wyatt mentions the importance of the continuity of elements as the races of campaign settings, expressly including Eberron and later mentioning Argonnessen. Is this a sign that Eberron will be somehow supported? I seriously hope so.


Originally posted by Syltorian:

It does sound promising. The introduction of dragonborn into Eberron with 4E still sits ill with me, but the main point is that the setting seems to be still important enough to mention. It's also promising that they want continuity, not major changes. There's hope, it seems!


Originally posted by StrikerGreen:

I too am optimistic we will see more Eberron products in the future!
 
From what I understand, James Wyatt was very central to Eberron development (especially the Talenta Halfling dinos!) and I'm sure there is a special place in his heart for the setting.
 
On a personal note, I really enjoyed the introduction of Dragonborn into the history of Eberron; they are great for Q'barra's History, espcially in counterpoint to Lizardfolk and they do make a lot of sense for Argonesson, though I'll always have a special place in my heart for the Human Barbarians which protect the shores of the isle of Dragons.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

In his last article, James Wyatt mentioned Eberron again when discussing aspects of Khorvaire and the mourning, being it the only setting besides the Forgotten Realms to be mentioned! Link: https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131211


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Good news. It seems likely that Eberron will receive some support. In his last article on the WotC site, James Wyatt (who helped to create Eberron) says: "the core rules for D&D Next had to acknowledge the existence of all the worlds of D&D—not just the Forgotten Realms we’ve been talking a lot about, but also Greyhawk, Eberron, Krynn, Athas, Mystara, Ravenloft [...] Some worlds feature races unknown in other worlds, such as Eberron’s warforged, soldiers created and imbued with life to fight in the Last War [...] Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or one that he or she created." Moreover, in his previous post on maps in D&D, apart from the Forgotten Realms the only setting Wyatt mentions is Eberron, even referring to the mourning.


Originally posted by skrapsan:

I am hopefull. All I really need is for some way to handle shifter, warforged, changeling, kalashtar and the dragonmarked. The rest to me is mostly fluff and reskinning.
But I still get the feeling that the "anything can be included" attitude is pressent... and that worries me. Especially when it commes to the gods. Actually, extremely when it commes to the gods.
I have no good reason for this, since me and my party is totaly fine with the gods being distant things and prefer that outlook, even in our homebrew. So limiting it is no problem.
It just worries me for some reason.
 
But I am still hopefull, and if it crashes totaly, well I can say that 3.5 eberron is the one that counts lorewise and move on.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Concerning rules, I think that in addition to dragonmarks and races, it is also essential to have rules on the artificer class, in order to be able to properly play a full Eberron campaign.


Originally posted by skrapsan:

That I agree on, but it should not be to hard. It would even make sense in other worlds as well. If not as the backbone of a technical world, but perhaps as strange wanderers and crazy science guys. They fill out the mad professor trope quite well. But I don't feel they fitt as a wizards subclass. Well actually I would prefer they were their own class, and they could mix in the mystic therugist as well...


Originally posted by nerraDetroK:

What have people been homebrewing for Eberron 5e so far?
I'm sure the obvious Valenar Elf subrace has been done:  Model it after the Wood elf, but replace the Elf Weapon Proficiency with Valenar Weapon Prioficiency (and create a pair of new weapons.  I'd also change "Mask of the Wild" to something else, bu I'm not sure what.  Probably something to do with either mounts or mobility.  alternately, trade "Fleet of Foot and Mask of the Wild" traits and replace it with the "Mobility" feat.
With Valenar Weapon Proficiency, I'd change the damage die of the Scimitar to d8, Create a Falchion which would be d10 Slashing, Heavy and finesse.  Double-Scimitar would be d8/d8, finesse, light on the 2nd hand and Heavy as well. 
 
How are people handling Dragonmarks?  If Marks are something that levels up, should they be feats?  I was thinking of having them separate, but then players who don't want a Dragonmark or play a race that wouldn't get them, would need something to compensate.  Probably a free feat at level 1?  
I'd say go with a feat chain instead, like Arcane/Divine/Primal Initiate and Adept feat chains.
 
Would you do Dragonmarks as granting access to specific spells iconic to that House, and a skill bonus or other feature?
Medani could be: Detect Magic, 2x per day and Add proficiency bonus to Insight or Perception checks.
Deneith could be: Hunter's Mark, 2x per day or Shield of Faith 2x per day, plus ???
Hunter's Mark seems to go hand-in-hand with Sentinel Marshals as a bonus feature.
 
Any other suggestions?


Originally posted by KhanSemus:

nerraDetroK wrote: I'd say go with a feat chain instead, like Arcane/Divine/Primal Initiate and Adept feat chains.
 
Would you do Dragonmarks as granting access to specific spells iconic to that House, and a skill bonus or other feature?
Medani could be: Detect Magic, 2x per day and Add proficiency bonus to Insight or Perception checks.
Deneith could be: Hunter's Mark, 2x per day or Shield of Faith 2x per day, plus ???
Hunter's Mark seems to go hand-in-hand with Sentinel Marshals as a bonus feature.
 
Any other suggestions?
 
I'm a fan of the feat chain. The Initiate/Adept chain is already designed in a similar manner. Replace the cantrips with a skill bonus and leave the spell at once per day. I had debated a system similar to Bard spells (know one or two spells, given a number of slots based on your ability bonus - i.e. Deneith knows both Hunter's Mark and Shield of Faith, can choose to cast each one once a day or one of them twice a day) but gave it up as too complicated.


Originally posted by Syltorian:

Not quite D&DNext, but Eberron's future in general: Does anyone know whether there are going to be any more Eberron novels (and what we have to do to make the answer be "yes")? The last one seems to have been Skein of Shadows, by Marsheila Rockwell, and that was published in July 2012. It also ends with some cliffhangers. I'd like to see that resolved. Even worse, cliffhanger wise, was Lady Ruin (Tim Waggoner), published in 2010 - most major plotlines and character fates are nowhere near resolved, and they are quite interesting. And, that being said, the fate of Dane, Lei and Pierce is also still a story to be told... It would be nice if they could give us some novels, since they don't have to be tied to any edition, so there's no reason to go on hiatus until they've published D&D Next.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Just to let you know, James Wyatt posted a very interesting article on religion approaches in dungeons and dragons today, which expressly and in detail deals with religions in Eberron and why they are unique. It is found here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140219#DnDComments2988
lLet's tell him how glad we are that Eberron is discussed!


Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:

Off to bat what I want from DDN version of Eberron is a retread. I know that sounds lame, but a redo of the core book with some conversion notes in the end of the book. What they don't need is yet another 5 Nations, etc. As long as the mechanical elements of Psionics, Dreaming Dark, Artificers, Dragon Marks, Warforged, etc are updated to Next terms I can then pick up the pdfs (from DnDClassics!) of the setting fluff and build my games from there!
 
Now for NEW material? After doing a setting core book with rules updates and the concise setting details for new players an adventure book, maybe highlighting the 5 nations and the poltical action that happens there would be best. Something to showcase the way Eberron's pulpy gooness feels.
 
Then have the actual products call out the 3.X books on DnD classics site so people can get the fluff.
 
Down the line? I'd love some fleshing out of setting, but maybe some updates and a History of book detailing different eras of play and how it changes the setting. L5R's take on a timeline neutral line of books and the Imperial Histories 1 & 2 seemed a great way to allow new and old players get the most out of your products.
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:

Ugh. Just had a thought. I hope we don't have to wait 2+ years for Psionic rules in Next. The earlier I get back into Eberron the better.


Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:

Glad to hear Eberron will be coming soon after for 5E with Keith Baker on it!
 
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?354286-Tyranny-of-Dragons-Panel-at-PAX-East-Today/page2&p=6287217&viewfull=1#post6287217


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

That's great news! Thanks for sharing them Plaguescarred! Was this confirmation of Eberron in 5e mentioned by Perkins or has it been confirmed by Keith Baker?


Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:

According to sources such as  Forbes (David M. Ewalt) it was announced by Chris Perkins during one of PAX East's seminar.
 

”The Forgotten Realms is our flagship setting for the new edition, however we are supporting, or will support, all of our key settings in the future.” That includes Ebberon, says Perkins, and “you are going to see more Ravenloft stuff very soon.”

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Thanks again Plaguescarred! I hope we hear some news from the great Keith Baker soon. This news certainly makes me happy, since I really like the approach of 5e and consider Eberron the best setting.


Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:

Thank goodness. Now the question. Are they going to release it BEFORE the Psionic rules drop, or AFTER?


Originally posted by skrapsan:

Eberron is a setting who was built around the psionic rules much like I understand dark sun was. So it would make sense to release them around the same time.


Originally posted by AvonRekaes:

That is exceptional news! For a while I was pretty worried about Eberron being in 5e, and I couldn't really let myself be excited for the new edition. But now I am starting to look forward to it!


Originally posted by skrapsan:

I do look forward to the DnD next. Most of what I have tried of the rules agrees with my style of play, and DMing.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

I really like dndnext too. In fact, I think that it is my favorite edition, not being rules heavy and favoring certain game elements I like, while not being clunky. Still, no additional news apart from what Perkins allegedly said at Pax have been released, and so I hope that Eberron support for dndnext is confirmed soon -and that Keith Baker works on it, which would be awesome.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Hi everyone, regarding Eberron support in 5E I would like to ask you the following concerning a possible unintended revelation made by Mike Mearls. I was watching the Youtube video of the live Q&A that took place some days ago, and I am almost sure that in the first four seconds Mearls says "Eberron" and then realizes what he was saying and becomes silent. Can a native English speaker confirm this? Are my mind and desire to see Eberron supported deceiving me? Thanks! The video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiaEZYWf7Oc


Originally posted by Syltorian:

I'm not a native speaker, but to me it sounds like "we're on".


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Yes, you are right... I wish he had say Eberron though
smile.gif



Originally posted by Syltorian:

It would be great, but I hope to hear that name pronounced more often in the future.
 
I just hope they don't change too much to the setting (Baator, I'm looking at you!) or advance the date (as it's very important to me that people have not become used to the Peace of Thronehold yet; besides, some of the events in the novels on which such a change might be based are fairly radical and would destroy some of my chars). But so far, Eberron has good track record in this domain and I've confidence in Keith Baker and James Wyatt to care for the setting.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

I agree with you completely. Still, having some ideas on possible future situations or events in the book would be nice (in a 'draconic prophecies' chapter, as I said months ago, for instance). In fact, in that Q&A video Mearls seems to endorse such a possibility. Regarding 5E Eberron support, I only wish it was confirmed, since Chris Perkins's comment was not recorded but only described by some who attended his seminar, and no further mention has been made on that support.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

I asked Mike Mearls if the warforged wave will be in the Players Handbook, and he just answered on Twitter: "@NicolasCS
@Wizards_DnD Not in PH, but in DMG".


Originally posted by Griefswald:

So a playable race is in the DMG?
 
Not sure I see the rationale behingd that decision.


Originally posted by Beoric:

That way it is clearer that their inclusion in a campaign is a DM decision, and not automatically a player option.  Be happy they aren't holding out for a subsequent sourcebook.
 
And they have room.  I note each of the PH and the DMG for this streamlined, stripped-down version are supposed to have 320 pages.  I just looked at my AD&D books:  the PH has 126 pages, including the charts in the back, and the DMG has 240 including 16 appendixes.  Also including Gary Gygax's prose in both books (he spends a full page talking about dice), and more than 120 charts in the DMG.  Smaller font, but still.


Originally posted by AaronOfBarbaria:

Griefswald wrote:So a playable race is in the DMG?
 
Not sure I see the rationale behingd that decision.
From the product descriptions, it appears that the rationale is that the PHB will contain all of the rules that WotC considers to be the "standard rules" and that the DMG will contain all of the rules that WotC considers to be "optional rules." 
Thus, because Warforged (like many other races) are not something present in the majority of campaign settings they are considered optional.
I actually expect that if you look at the final playtest packet you will see an accurate represeentation of the split between what goes in the PHB and what goes in the DMG where races are concerned: everything in the "unusual races" section being in the DMG, with only the 4 races that have always existed in D&D (and appear in every setting I know of) in the PHB.


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Regarding the possible support of different campaign settings in 5e, including Eberron, it is interesting to note that when asked about inspirational reading material, Mike Mearls recently said the following: "We really started with the most popular D&D settings and adventures, and knew that those had to be playable as close to as-is as possible. That list included DragonlanceRavenloftEberronGreyhawk, and of course Forgotten Realms." Source: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05...agons-with-wizards-of-the-coasts-mike-mearls/


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Mike Mearls just gave his opinion on Twitter on how dragonmarks could be used in 5e. I asked him if, since feats are available from level 4, for a new character to have a dragonmark one of his abilities should be decreased for him to get the mark. Mike Mearls answered: "I'd suggest tying them to backgrounds, then allow feats to improve them."
About this approach, I like roleplaying opportunities: a character begins by having ties to a dragonmarked family, and the as he gets stronger he has an experience that makes his dragonmark manifest (when he gets the feat at level 4; in level 1 he has ties to a family and contacts and help, per the background).


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Keith Baker just posted another amazing entry in his blog... and this is his answer to an interesting question: Q: "Chris Perkins said that Eberron will have 5e/DNDnext support and your input. Is this true?"
A: "Yes. It’s far too early to talk about details as to what form support will take, how extensive it will be, or anything like that, but I have been talking with Mike Mearls and Chris Perkins about Eberron in D&D Next, and I will be working with WotC on future Eberron support. More details to follow in days to come." (source: http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-53014-vol-the-dark-six-and-the-trouble-with-aundair/)

Originally posted by Beoric:

PaladinNicolas wrote:Mike Mearls just gave his opinion on Twitter on how dragonmarks could be used in 5e. I asked him if, since feats are available from level 4, for a new character to have a dragonmark one of his abilities should be decreased for him to get the mark. Mike Mearls answered: "I'd suggest tying them to backgrounds, then allow feats to improve them."
 
That is certainly better than blowing a feat that may not be of any use to your character's build mechanically, but which you want for roleplaying reasons.


Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:

I've never liked dragonmarks taking up feats. Now, with the meatier feats, I like it even less. My concern with tying them to backgrounds would be what background would you use? I assume there will be backgrounds for the houses, but that ignores those who get marks without being part of a house and those with aberrant marks. I think the new magic item rules might make the better option. Since magic items are now supposed to be more meaningful and flavorful, I could see treating it as a magic tattoo. You could then use the attunement rules for magic items to represent the mark growing. I think this also works well with the new philosophy of magic items not being assumed. Now as the DM if a player expresses a desire for a dragonmark, I can just decide to give them one instead of the two or three magic items I would have given them otherwise. 


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

QuantumHarmonix wrote:I've never liked dragonmarks taking up feats. Now, with the meatier feats, I like it even less. My concern with tying them to backgrounds would be what background would you use? I assume there will be backgrounds for the houses, but that ignores those who get marks without being part of a house and those with aberrant marks. I think the new magic item rules might make the better option. Since magic items are now supposed to be more meaningful and flavorful, I could see treating it as a magic tattoo. You could then use the attunement rules for magic items to represent the mark growing. I think this also works well with the new philosophy of magic items not being assumed. Now as the DM if a player expresses a desire for a dragonmark, I can just decide to give them one instead of the two or three magic items I would have given them otherwise. 
 
I agree with your concern, and there are examples of people with dragonmarks who were not raised as belonging to a house, e.g. Ashi in the Legacy of Dhakaan novels. However, I think that the proposed system still works quite well and can be fun: for instance, those who have had a background in a dragonmarked house can get the background, which will give them contacts and some resources related to that fact. However, characters will not begin with a dragonmark, since the test of Syberis and dragonmark manifestation will take place during game, when a feat is obtained. Hence, someone can have a non-dragonmarked house background and, suddenly, in a stressful situation calling for a power, manifest his dragonmark, which will surprise him/her. This can be lots of fun and provide surprise and roleplaying opportunities. Of course, this is just my opinion and I may be wrong, but it's nice thinking about this.


Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:

I honestly have problems seeing them work as just a background. At the very least they would have to use feats to improve, like the casting feats to give non casters limited access to arcane or divine magic. I just think that method is unnecessarily limiting, and would use up to many of their limited feats. I suppose that ultimately my issue is due to the draconic prophesy, which I see as the domain of the DM.  Because dragonmarks are associated with the prophesy, I see them as also the domain of the DM. If a player wants to have a dragonmark I need to think what that means for my campaign, which makes them different from most other player choices. That is why I don’t like players spending their resources on getting/improving them. I’d rather them tell me they want one, and I work it in the same way I would if they expressed interest in any other item.
 
For example part of my current campaign involves aberrant marks, and I want to have one of the characters develop one as part of the story. I don’t think they should have to use up a feat or their background, because I decided they should get a dragonmark. What I’d decided to do was make the mark obvious, that way the stigma associated with aberrant marks balances the free feat. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work if I wanted to do something similar with a true mark. With a true mark I would feel compelled to give something else to the rest of the party to balance the mark I gave one character. An extra feat or background seems like a bit much, but with the new attitude towards magic items they seem like the perfect choice.
 
This is why I’d like to see them modeled as a magic item. Since magic items aren’t assumed, they are something I can give out at any rate at which I’m comfortable. Plus they act like magic items already, so it seems like they would be fairly easy to balance with the other items I could give to the rest of the party.  Another benefit of this method is that one background, let’s call it Dragonmark Scion, can represent both the members of the house that have a mark and those that don’t.  And if someone wants to start with a mark, they can pick any background that fits their character, some might want the Dragonmark Scion background others might want Guild Thief. Their mark might then come out of their starting gold, or you might just increase the starting gold by a certain amount for everyone else. 


Originally posted by skrapsan:

I think a base dragonmark as a background works best. So you have this mark, it grants you a small bonus to something the house does. A check bonus on certain things like finding the way, tell if people are lying etc. Something of equal "powerlevel" to the traits of Pathfinder and 4th. I remember Keith Baker mentioning that what makes the dragonmarked stand out is that their marks gives them that edge when doing their kind of thing when aplying their trade. House Medani would be granted an innsight bonus to deduce what people were thinking. Cannith to rolls made to craft stuff etc etc.
 
Then if you wanted a more powerfull mark, then you could start spending feats on them. Then the feats could be made beefier and bulkier and more powerfull. Because not everyone in the world with a mark has super powers connected to that mark.


Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:

I realized something the other day that might be applicable to the current issue. Since feats are now supposed to be equivalent to a +2 to your ability scores, it might now be possible to equate a feat with a +2 magic item. So I might be able to use the rules for giving out magic items to give out feats. If this is the case I would say that dragonmarks should be developed as feats, with instructions for treating them as magic items. 


Originally posted by Cyber-Dave:

QuantumHarmonix wrote:I realized something the other day that might be applicable to the current issue. Since feats are now supposed to be equivalent to a +2 to your ability scores, it might now be possible to equate a feat with a +2 magic item. So I might be able to use the rules for giving out magic items to give out feats. If this is the case I would say that dragonmarks should be developed as feats, with instructions for treating them as magic items. 
 
It strikes me that being a member of a house should be a background, and the dragonmark magical powers are easily modeled via feats such as "Magic Initiate."


Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:

Cyber-Dave wrote: 
QuantumHarmonix wrote:I realized something the other day that might be applicable to the current issue. Since feats are now supposed to be equivalent to a +2 to your ability scores, it might now be possible to equate a feat with a +2 magic item. So I might be able to use the rules for giving out magic items to give out feats. If this is the case I would say that dragonmarks should be developed as feats, with instructions for treating them as magic items. 
 
 
It strikes me that being a member of a house should be a background, and the dragonmark magical powers are easily modeled via feats such as "Magic Initiate."
That's the conclusion I've reached as well. I just want some guidelines for giving out extra feats, and how that changes game balance. 


Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

Dearl all, the Basic 5e D&D rules are here, and Eberron is mentioned in the PDF! It is mentioned as one of the D&D worlds (and not all campaign settings are found there), warforged are described as being a race unique to Eberron, and Boldrei is found as an example of a deity with the life domain! This is just basic guys, so I hope more will come! http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules.
Edited: indeed Plaguescarred, I meant race, not class, thanks for pointing this out!


Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:

PaladinNicolas wrote:warforged are described as being a class unique to Eberron, 
confused.gif
A race you mean?

Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:

You're right! I corrected my mistake.


Originally posted by al8b8:

I think that the background rules work fine with Eberron and the dramonmarks, but only if we have several backgrounds, at least three...

1st. Dragormaked Gifted
This background would be the main one to use for dragonmarked characters, this would grant them a dragon mark that will allow them the use of cantrips. This magical abilities will eventually be able to be expanded or improved by the use of feats or magic item (dragonshard).
Skills Proficiencies: One from the Dragonmark Houses table.
Tools Proficiencies: Dragonmark House Relevant Tool
Equipment: Tools and 15GP
Feature: Dragonmark
You have a dragonmark. You learn two cantrips. This cantrips correspond to the table of Dragonmarks for your house.

2nd. Dragonmark House Member
This background would be the representative of all Dragonmark House member that contribute and work for the house but do not have a dragonmark of their own.
Skills Proficiencies: Insight, History
Tools Proficiencies: Dragonmark House Relevant Tool
Equipment: Tools and 10GP
Feature: Member of the House
You have contacts inside your dragonmark house, that come from closely working alongside for some time, whenever you show up on an office or installation belonging to a dragonmark house, you may get a discount or even free services for yourself alone.

3rd. Dragonmarked Outsider
For aberrant dragonmarks and dragonmarked character that do not have a relation to a particular dragormark house, this backgroud would be the one to choose.
Skills Proficiencies: Deception and Survival
Tools Proficiencies: None
Equipment: 10GP
Dragonmark source:
You can choose the source of your dragonmark, or the reason why you do not belong to a dragonmark house.
Criminal Past
Banned family
Hate for the house
Bastard conception
Aberrant dragonmark
Feature: Uncommon Dragonmark
You have a dragonmark. You learn two cantrips. This cantrips correspond to the table of Dragonmarks for your house if you are and offspring from that house but not recognized, or, if you choose and aberrant dragonmark you can freely choose from any house.

After a player chooses one of this backgrounds, he or she could be able to upgrade their dragonmark magical abilities by the use of feats much like magic adept or so, but these feats would have to take into consideration the fact that the dragonmark only grants cantrips, and no level 1 spell like Arcane Initiate, thus the dragonmark feats will have to advance again with the firs feat from choosing maybe an additional cantrip and a 1st level spell.


Originally posted by The_Lone_Cleric:

Still curious about the Psionic coverage for Eberron. (That and DarkSun, my #1 and #2 of D&D love.) I wonder if we are going to get an adventure series like the FR books are is that limited to just that line? Eberron really could use a heavy revamp of it's material.(Mostly for rules updates and clarification for new players.)


Originally posted by King_Kaius:

Hi guys and girls!!!
smile.gif


Eberron is kinda...my faith so, I'm just waiting to get the full PHB to start a brand new Eberron Campagin in 5e!
smile.gif

I've read all the "news" about our favoured setting (there will be support, dragonmarks as backgrounds, etc.)...but, do you have any idea on what will we actually get for Eberron? I mean...we know that FR will be the default setting and we know that we'll move in a multiverse...What do you think will we have for other settings? Full books?  Web resources? Convertion articles? 

I guess all of the old books will be usable, that's not my concern...I'm just tryin' to figure out HOW they'll handle the multiverse...Split books? Thematic Chapters in the DMG?

It's not a technical question, obviously just a...hook for speculation. ;)

Cheers,
M.


Originally posted by Rhone1:

I think the absolute bare minimum we'll see is a campaign book and player's guide, which is what they had for 4e.
 
I'm hoping for a lot more though.  Would love to see a DM screen, a book on Xen'drik and another on the Five Nations...heck, it would be fantastic to see each of the five nations to have their own book!  Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.  Either way, I'm really glad Eberron is making a come back.


Originally posted by Ogiwan:

Honestly, D&DN reminds me so much of 3e that I cannot forsee many barriers in updating (not even converting) the 3e ECS.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see Eberron coming to D&DN. In fact, its one of the very few things that makes me interested in D&DN. 


Originally posted by Elton74:

I did a loose and fast conversion ideas on a thread, so you can get the most out of the ECS or the Eberron Player's Guide from 4e while we wait. 
 
I'm really excited about 5e, so excited that I just outlined on 3 ideas where I'd take a loose and fast conversion based on what I know about 5e so far, and where to look for your Shifter and your Artificer.  I didn't try to look into anything else.  All I did was point you in a direction of where to start.
smile.gif
 
 
End, don't worry about the Dragonborn or the Artificer.  The best thing is, you can put in a detailed item creation rule set and you can take out the Dragonborn.  For me, though, after building Phaeselis with the inclusion of an Alchemist, I feel that the Pathfinder Alchemist should be the base class, and that the Artificer should be a theme for the Alchemist.  
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top