Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eberron 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RealAlHazred" data-source="post: 6750809" data-attributes="member: 25818"><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Just like Syltorian, I hope you are correct <img src="http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Elton74:</strong></p><p></p><p>I for one, am pretty skeptical. I think Eberron would have done well as an OGL setting. But then again . . . <img src="http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>I'm waiting silently for something good to happen, though. Good for all of us. <img src="http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>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. <img src="http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree, but hope springs eternal <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p>Furthermore, the new <a href="http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130702" target="_blank">Wandering Monsters</a> 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 <em>Eberron</em> 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." </p><p></p><p>Thanks, James Wyatt! </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Silver Flame bless Mr. Wyatt!</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Terra_Phi:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>Yesterday's dndnext q&a post said this:</p><p></p><p><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em>"<img src="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/icons/1.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></em></em></em> 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?</em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></p><p></p><p><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em>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.<span style="color: #333333">”</span></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></p><p></p><p>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 <img src="http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />) 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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by CommanderCrud:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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” <em>to the core cosmology because we’ll change those settings, nyah, nyah, nyah!</em>. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Hellcow:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that's why a <em>Planes of Eberron</em> 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 <em>ECS</em> (3.5) to <em>Forge of War</em> (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 <em>ECS </em>(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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by CommanderCrud:</strong></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by CommanderCrud:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A lot. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>But I was not comparing to the real world. I was comparing to the Forgotten Realms, where the gods <em>do</em> 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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by CommanderCrud:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>If so, I agree. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Again, I agree. </p><p></p><p>When I said that "cosmology and theology are intimately tied together", I meant that each theology is based, often inseparably, on its own <em>understanding</em> of cosmology, not on the objectively existing reality. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that the actual <em>truth</em> will not matter... not on our world, not in the Great Wheel, nor on Eberron that is. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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 <em>understand</em> 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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by CommanderCrud:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Hellcow:</strong></p><p></p><p>It's basically a question of whether your campaign <em><strong>needs</strong></em> 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. </p><p></p><p>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 <strong>GODS ARE UNKNOWABLE AND NEVER MANIFEST IN THE WORLD</strong>, then your long-running Time of Troubles campaign is suddenly going to be in conflict with that core material. If it asserts that <strong>GODS ARE ACTIVELY AND DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE WORLD</strong> 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 <strong>THERE IS NO PLANE OF DREAMS</strong>, then it's going to clash with your ongoing Dreaming Dark campaign. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>the elves and dragons also need consistent logic. as does magic, and fairies, and healing potions, etc. </p><p></p><p>being a fantasy property doesn't obviate the need for internal consistency.</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>Hi everyone,</p><p>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.</p><p>On the other hand, Mike Mearls recently wrote on twitter that artificers will be a wizard sub-class in dndnext.</p><p>Both news are reassuring and may indicate that Eberron support in dndnext is possible!</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by CommanderCrud:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah!</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by hobson1975:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>Hi fellow defenders of Khorvaire,</p><p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>Thoughts?</p><p>PS check Keith Baker's great latest post on dragonmarked houses in his blog.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by StrikerGreen:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>I'm very happy with the Tiefling racial ability to resist fire and I think the Warforged racial abilities are spot on as well.</p><p>Now if we could get some more Monster entries for NEXT Dolgrim/Aberrants!!</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>I am using my speaking stone to send you all this message: in his latest post (<a href="http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131127" target="_blank">http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131127</a>), 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by StrikerGreen:</strong></p><p></p><p>I too am optimistic we will see more Eberron products in the future!</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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: <a href="https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131211" target="_blank">https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131211</a></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #404040">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.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by skrapsan:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>It just worries me for some reason.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by skrapsan:</strong></p><p></p><p>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...</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by nerraDetroK:</strong></p><p></p><p>What have people been homebrewing for Eberron 5e so far?</p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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? </p><p>I'd say go with a feat chain instead, like Arcane/Divine/Primal Initiate and Adept feat chains.</p><p> </p><p>Would you do Dragonmarks as granting access to specific spells iconic to that House, and a skill bonus or other feature?</p><p>Medani could be: Detect Magic, 2x per day and Add proficiency bonus to Insight or Perception checks.</p><p>Deneith could be: Hunter's Mark, 2x per day or Shield of Faith 2x per day, plus ???</p><p>Hunter's Mark seems to go hand-in-hand with Sentinel Marshals as a bonus feature.</p><p> </p><p>Any other suggestions?</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by KhanSemus:</strong></p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p>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 <em>Skein of Shadows</em>, 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 <em>Lady Ruin </em>(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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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: <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140219#DnDComments2988" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140219#DnDComments2988</a></p><p>lLet's tell him how glad we are that Eberron is discussed!</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:</strong></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>Then have the actual products call out the 3.X books on DnD classics site so people can get the fluff.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RealAlHazred, post: 6750809, member: 25818"] [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] Just like Syltorian, I hope you are correct [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG] 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. [b]Originally posted by Elton74:[/b] I for one, am pretty skeptical. I think Eberron would have done well as an OGL setting. But then again . . . [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG] I'm waiting silently for something good to happen, though. Good for all of us. [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG] 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. [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG] [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] I agree, but hope springs eternal ;) Furthermore, the new [URL=http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20130702]Wandering Monsters[/URL] 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 [i]Eberron[/i] 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! [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] The Silver Flame bless Mr. Wyatt! [b]Originally posted by Terra_Phi:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] Yesterday's dndnext q&a post said this: [i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i]"[IMG]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4new/icons/1.png[/IMG][/i][/i][/i] 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?[/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i] [i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i][i]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.[COLOR=#333333]”[/COLOR][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i] 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 [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG]) 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. [b]Originally posted by CommanderCrud:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] 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” [i]to the core cosmology because we’ll change those settings, nyah, nyah, nyah![/i]. ;) 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. 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. [b]Originally posted by Hellcow:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] And that's why a [i]Planes of Eberron[/i] 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 [i]ECS[/i] (3.5) to [i]Forge of War[/i] (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 [i]ECS [/i](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. [b]Originally posted by CommanderCrud:[/b] 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! [b]Originally posted by CommanderCrud:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] 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. 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 [i]do[/i] 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. [b]Originally posted by CommanderCrud:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] 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. 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 [i]understanding[/i] 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. I agree that the actual [i]truth[/i] 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 [i]understand[/i] 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. 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. [b]Originally posted by CommanderCrud:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] 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). [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Hellcow:[/b] It's basically a question of whether your campaign [i][b]needs[/b][/i] 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 [b]GODS ARE UNKNOWABLE AND NEVER MANIFEST IN THE WORLD[/b], then your long-running Time of Troubles campaign is suddenly going to be in conflict with that core material. If it asserts that [b]GODS ARE ACTIVELY AND DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE WORLD[/b] 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 [b]THERE IS NO PLANE OF DREAMS[/b], 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. [b]Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by DoctorBadWolf:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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! [b]Originally posted by CommanderCrud:[/b] Yeah! [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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! [b]Originally posted by hobson1975:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by StrikerGreen:[/b] 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!! [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] I am using my speaking stone to send you all this message: in his latest post ([url]http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131127[/url]), 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. [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] 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! [b]Originally posted by StrikerGreen:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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: [url]https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131211[/url] [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] [COLOR=#404040]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.[/COLOR] [b]Originally posted by skrapsan:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by skrapsan:[/b] 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... [b]Originally posted by nerraDetroK:[/b] 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? [b]Originally posted by KhanSemus:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] 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 [i]Skein of Shadows[/i], 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 [i]Lady Ruin [/i](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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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: [url]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140219#DnDComments2988[/url] lLet's tell him how glad we are that Eberron is discussed! [b]Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:[/b] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eberron 5e
Top