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: 6750810" data-attributes="member: 25818"><p><strong>Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:</strong></p><p></p><p>Glad to hear Eberron will be coming soon after for 5E with Keith Baker on it!</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?354286-Tyranny-of-Dragons-Panel-at-PAX-East-Today/page2&p=6287217&viewfull=1#post6287217" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?354286-Tyranny-of-Dragons-Panel-at-PAX-East-Today/page2&p=6287217&viewfull=1#post6287217</a></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:</strong></p><p></p><p>According to sources such as <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2014/04/11/secrets-from-the-tyranny-of-dragons/" target="_blank">Forbes (David M. Ewalt)</a> it was announced by Chris Perkins during one of PAX East's seminar.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:</strong></p><p></p><p>Thank goodness. Now the question. Are they going to release it BEFORE the Psionic rules drop, or AFTER?</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by skrapsan:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by AvonRekaes:</strong></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by skrapsan:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiaEZYWf7Oc" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiaEZYWf7Oc</a></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p>I'm not a native speaker, but to me it sounds like "we're on".</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>Yes, you are right... I wish he had say Eberron though <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></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Syltorian:</strong></p><p></p><p>It would be great, but I hope to hear that name pronounced more often in the future.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>I asked Mike Mearls if the warforged wave will be in the Players Handbook, and he just answered on Twitter: "<a href="https://twitter.com/NicolasCS" target="_blank"><span style="color: #66B5D2">@</span>NicolasCS</a><span style="color: #292F33"></span></p><p><span style="color: #292F33"></span><a href="https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD" target="_blank"><span style="color: #66B5D2">@</span>Wizards_DnD</a><span style="color: #292F33"> Not in PH, but in DMG".</span></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Griefswald:</strong></p><p></p><p>So a playable race is in the DMG?</p><p> </p><p>Not sure I see the rationale behingd that decision.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Beoric:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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 <em>dice</em>), and more than 120 charts in the DMG. Smaller font, but still.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by AaronOfBarbaria:</strong></p><p></p><p>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." </p><p>Thus, because Warforged (like many other races) are not something present in the majority of campaign settings they are considered optional.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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 <em>D&D</em> settings and adventures, and knew that those had to be playable as close to as-is as possible. That list included <em>Dragonlance</em>, <em>Ravenloft</em>, <em>Eberron</em>, <em>Greyhawk</em>, and of course <em>Forgotten Realms</em>." Source: <a href="http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/24/talking-dungeons-dragons-with-wizards-of-the-coasts-mike-mearls/" target="_blank">http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/24/talking-dungeons-dragons-with-wizards-of-the-coasts-mike-mearls/</a></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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: "<span style="color: #292F33">I'd suggest tying them to backgrounds, then allow feats to improve them."</span></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #404040">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?"</span></p><p>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: <a href="http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-53014-vol-the-dark-six-and-the-trouble-with-aundair/" target="_blank">http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-53014-vol-the-dark-six-and-the-trouble-with-aundair/</a>)</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Beoric:</strong></p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:</strong></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by skrapsan:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:</strong></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Cyber-Dave:</strong></p><p></p><p> </p><p>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."</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:</strong></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>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! <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules</a>.</p><p>Edited: indeed Plaguescarred, I meant race, not class, thanks for pointing this out!</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:</strong></p><p></p><p><img src="http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/confused.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> A race you mean?</p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:</strong></p><p></p><p>You're right! I corrected my mistake.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by al8b8:</strong></p><p></p><p>I think that the background rules work fine with Eberron and the dramonmarks, but only if we have several backgrounds, at least three...</p><p></p><p>1st. Dragormaked Gifted</p><p>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).</p><p>Skills Proficiencies: One from the Dragonmark Houses table.</p><p>Tools Proficiencies: Dragonmark House Relevant Tool</p><p>Equipment: Tools and 15GP</p><p>Feature: Dragonmark</p><p>You have a dragonmark. You learn two cantrips. This cantrips correspond to the table of Dragonmarks for your house.</p><p></p><p>2nd. Dragonmark House Member</p><p>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.</p><p>Skills Proficiencies: Insight, History</p><p>Tools Proficiencies: Dragonmark House Relevant Tool</p><p>Equipment: Tools and 10GP</p><p>Feature: Member of the House</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>3rd. Dragonmarked Outsider</p><p>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.</p><p>Skills Proficiencies: Deception and Survival</p><p>Tools Proficiencies: None</p><p>Equipment: 10GP</p><p>Dragonmark source:</p><p>You can choose the source of your dragonmark, or the reason why you do not belong to a dragonmark house.</p><p>Criminal Past</p><p>Banned family</p><p>Hate for the house</p><p>Bastard conception</p><p>Aberrant dragonmark</p><p>Feature: Uncommon Dragonmark</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by The_Lone_Cleric:</strong></p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by King_Kaius:</strong></p><p></p><p>Hi guys and girls!!! <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>Eberron is kinda...my faith so, I'm just waiting to get the full PHB to start a brand new Eberron Campagin in 5e! <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>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? </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>It's not a technical question, obviously just a...hook for speculation. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Cheers,</p><p>M.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Rhone1:</strong></p><p></p><p>I think the absolute bare minimum we'll see is a campaign book and player's guide, which is what they had for 4e.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Ogiwan:</strong></p><p></p><p>Honestly, D&DN reminds me so much of 3e that I cannot forsee many barriers in updating (not even converting) the 3e ECS.</p><p> </p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see Eberron coming to D&DN. In fact, its one of the <em>very</em> few things that makes me interested in D&DN. </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by Elton74:</strong></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p><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>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. </p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RealAlHazred, post: 6750810, member: 25818"] [b]Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:[/b] Glad to hear Eberron will be coming soon after for 5E with Keith Baker on it! [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?354286-Tyranny-of-Dragons-Panel-at-PAX-East-Today/page2&p=6287217&viewfull=1#post6287217]http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?354286-Tyranny-of-Dragons-Panel-at-PAX-East-Today/page2&p=6287217&viewfull=1#post6287217[/URL] [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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? [b]Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:[/b] According to sources such as [URL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2014/04/11/secrets-from-the-tyranny-of-dragons/]Forbes (David M. Ewalt)[/URL] it was announced by Chris Perkins during one of PAX East's seminar. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by TheLoneCleric:[/b] Thank goodness. Now the question. Are they going to release it BEFORE the Psionic rules drop, or AFTER? [b]Originally posted by skrapsan:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by AvonRekaes:[/b] 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! [b]Originally posted by skrapsan:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiaEZYWf7Oc[/url] [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] I'm not a native speaker, but to me it sounds like "we're on". [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] Yes, you are right... I wish he had say Eberron though [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG] [b]Originally posted by Syltorian:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] I asked Mike Mearls if the warforged wave will be in the Players Handbook, and he just answered on Twitter: "[URL=https://twitter.com/NicolasCS][COLOR=#66B5D2]@[/COLOR]NicolasCS[/URL][COLOR=#292F33] [/COLOR][URL=https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD][COLOR=#66B5D2]@[/COLOR]Wizards_DnD[/URL][COLOR=#292F33] Not in PH, but in DMG".[/COLOR] [b]Originally posted by Griefswald:[/b] So a playable race is in the DMG? Not sure I see the rationale behingd that decision. [b]Originally posted by Beoric:[/b] 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 [i]dice[/i]), and more than 120 charts in the DMG. Smaller font, but still. [b]Originally posted by AaronOfBarbaria:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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 [i]D&D[/i] settings and adventures, and knew that those had to be playable as close to as-is as possible. That list included [i]Dragonlance[/i], [i]Ravenloft[/i], [i]Eberron[/i], [i]Greyhawk[/i], and of course [i]Forgotten Realms[/i]." Source: [url]http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/24/talking-dungeons-dragons-with-wizards-of-the-coasts-mike-mearls/[/url] [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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: "[COLOR=#292F33]I'd suggest tying them to backgrounds, then allow feats to improve them."[/COLOR] 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). [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] [COLOR=#404040]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?"[/COLOR] 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: [url]http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-53014-vol-the-dark-six-and-the-trouble-with-aundair/[/url]) [b]Originally posted by Beoric:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by skrapsan:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Cyber-Dave:[/b] 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." [b]Originally posted by QuantumHarmonix:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] 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! [url]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules[/url]. Edited: indeed Plaguescarred, I meant race, not class, thanks for pointing this out! [b]Originally posted by Plaguescarred1:[/b] [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/confused.gif[/IMG] A race you mean? [b]Originally posted by PaladinNicolas:[/b] You're right! I corrected my mistake. [b]Originally posted by al8b8:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by The_Lone_Cleric:[/b] 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.) [b]Originally posted by King_Kaius:[/b] Hi guys and girls!!! [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG] Eberron is kinda...my faith so, I'm just waiting to get the full PHB to start a brand new Eberron Campagin in 5e! [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG] 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. [b]Originally posted by Rhone1:[/b] 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. [b]Originally posted by Ogiwan:[/b] 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 [i]very[/i] few things that makes me interested in D&DN. [b]Originally posted by Elton74:[/b] 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. [IMG]http://community.wizards.com/sites/all/modules/custom/forest_site/smileys/wizards/smile.gif[/IMG] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eberron 5e
Top