D&D 5E Eberron Homebrew Thread!

[Hawk Diesel]

We have very different outlooks on both game mechanics and aspects of Eberron, @Hawk Diesel !

Also, it was an archer Paladin, not an archfey Paladin. That’s gonna benefit strongly from a purpose built subclass or some kind of variant feature.

Ugh, I read Archfey for some reason, lol. My mistake. And it does seem like we differ, but that's cool. I agree with the Seeker. I was considering mostly Emerald Claw, but you give some good examples for existing paladin oaths that could work for less indoctrinated Seekers. I also agree, when you think of things like Karrnathi Bone Knights there isn't a perfect match for what that would look like mechanically. I also don't think a paladin archer is a really good idea. At least not one that can use existing smite mechanics on ranged weapon attacks.

But as you said, we differ a bit on our outlooks. New mechanics to represent a concept is neat, but I don't find it absolutely necessary in order to enjoy the game when set in Eberron.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ugh, I read Archfey for some reason, lol. My mistake. And it does seem like we differ, but that's cool. I agree with the Seeker. I was considering mostly Emerald Claw, but you give some good examples for existing paladin oaths that could work for less indoctrinated Seekers. I also agree, when you think of things like Karrnathi Bone Knights there isn't a perfect match for what that would look like mechanically. I also don't think a paladin archer is a really good idea. At least not one that can use existing smite mechanics on ranged weapon attacks.

But as you said, we differ a bit on our outlooks. New mechanics to represent a concept is neat, but I don't find it absolutely necessary in order to enjoy the game when set in Eberron.

Oh, absolutely necessary, no. For sure. It’s just that 5e is quite easy to build stuff for, has a forgiving balance bandwidth, and I know that my buddy will have way more fun playing a gnoll Artificer with a arcane sidearm if those elements are all purpose built and he doesn’t have to find a way to pretend that it isn’t a half-orc wizard with a wand collection and lots of tools proficiencies.

WRT Seekers, Bone Knight! Thank you! I knew you’d know what I meant, but I couldn’t recall the proper term!

I do think that an alternate version of Divine Smite could work, or the subclass could get the ability to use DS on ranger attacks at level 7 instead of an aura or whatever. Maybe also introduce a couple divine flavored ranges Smite-Style spells, balanced similar to the ranger spells of that type. Hail Of Thorns works fine as is, but Ensaring Strike feels a bit too nature-based for a Thranish Paladin.

For a general classic style Sulver Flame Paladin, Vengeance, Devotion, and Crown, all work smashingly.

What about an alt Divine Smite that does less damage but works on ranged attacks?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Morgrave's Miscellany also includes the Bone Knight subclass for the Fighter. I have one of those in my games too.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Morgrave's Miscellany also includes the Bone Knight subclass for the Fighter. I have one of those in my games too.

While I appreciate Keith Baker writing the fluff for this supplement, the mechanics (which were handled by Ruty Rutenberg) leave quite a bit to be desired. Many of the mechanics, IMO, seem overpowered or broken when compared to similar core mechanics.

With regard to the Bone Knight, I like the idea of paralleling an Eldritch Knight, making the Bone Knight a divine caster. There are other elements I like, but it just goes too far. For example, a skeletal mount makes sense, but they shouldn't get a skeletal protector before a necromancer can cast animate dead. The concept of the bone armor and bone weapon are good, but once again it just seems too powerful, even before adding the additional bonus by expending a spell slot.

This has actually inspired me, and I will work on a proper bone knight that I will post in the next day or so.

Personally, I don't know that any of the rest of the crunch presented is even salvageable. An extreme explorer doesn't seem appropriate as a barbarian (rogue or ranger are the better options IMO), and none of the other stuff grabs me enough to feel like it needs to be mechanically represented.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

While I appreciate Keith Baker writing the fluff for this supplement, the mechanics (which were handled by Ruty Rutenberg) leave quite a bit to be desired. Many of the mechanics, IMO, seem overpowered or broken when compared to similar core mechanics.

With regard to the Bone Knight, I like the idea of paralleling an Eldritch Knight, making the Bone Knight a divine caster. There are other elements I like, but it just goes too far. For example, a skeletal mount makes sense, but they shouldn't get a skeletal protector before a necromancer can cast animate dead. The concept of the bone armor and bone weapon are good, but once again it just seems too powerful, even before adding the additional bonus by expending a spell slot.

This has actually inspired me, and I will work on a proper bone knight that I will post in the next day or so.

Personally, I don't know that any of the rest of the crunch presented is even salvageable. An extreme explorer doesn't seem appropriate as a barbarian (rogue or ranger are the better options IMO), and none of the other stuff grabs me enough to feel like it needs to be mechanically represented.

TheBarbarian could definitely use an explorer archetype, and the ranger and rogue already have theirs covered.

I’m probably going to buy it soon and check it out. I don’t love that they used such different mechanics, and honestly I just...really strongly prefer more thoroughly playtested content.

Not sure about the idea of making a Bone Knight a fighter, tbh. It feels like an especially magical knight, rather than a knight that should get even less spellcasting than a Paladin.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Eh... overpowered or underpowered mechanics never bother me. I always tell my players to take things based upon character flavor and I'll adjust the mechanics if they aren't working out. And I find Morgrave to just be oozing with Eberronian flavor across the board. Give me flavor and characterization benefits that makes sense, and I'll just compare their balance against others in the party and adjust as needed-- and not against fictional other characters that don't exist. A Bone Knight getting a skeletal warhorse and skeleton minion before a necromancer can cast Animate Dead would only matter to me if the party also actually had a necromancer in it. And truth be told if we have a Bone Knight in the party it's probably there because the player who would have played a necromancer wanted a bit more Eberron-induced flavor to their necro option and went with the Bone Knight instead.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

The Barbarian could definitely use an explorer archetype, and the ranger and rogue already have theirs covered.

The extreme explorer doesn't assist with exploring so much as it does just completely change how rage works. It... it's bad. Besides, I don't know that the extreme explorer would fit much in 5e, since their whole schtick was having new ways to use action points.

Not sure about the idea of making a Bone Knight a fighter, tbh. It feels like an especially magical knight, rather than a knight that should get even less spellcasting than a Paladin.

I don't know. There's nothing in my recollection in the description of the Bone Knight that screams paladin. In fact, the more I think about it, I don't think I will make a Bone Knight archetype. When I run in Eberron, I don't want my players thinking that in order to be a Bone Knight they have to take a certain class. A Bone Knight was a military designation, and I'm sure it consisted of individuals with many different kinds of classes. What seems to have set them apart was their use of bone armor (which anyone with armor proficiency could benefit from), and ability to command the undead within their ranks (which could have been through the use of a magical item rather than a class ability). Now the Bone Knights probably recruited those with more competency with necromancy (Fighter/Necromancy multiclass, Death and Grave Domain Clerics, Circle of Spores Druids, Oathbreaker Paladins, ect), but I don't think they need to all be the same class to be a Bone Knight.

This might be one of those rare situations where a 5e prestige class would be appropriate (though hopefully better executed than that Runesmith thing).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The extreme explorer doesn't assist with exploring so much as it does just completely change how rage works. It... it's bad. Besides, I don't know that the extreme explorer would fit much in 5e, since their whole schtick was having new ways to use action points.



I don't know. There's nothing in my recollection in the description of the Bone Knight that screams paladin. In fact, the more I think about it, I don't think I will make a Bone Knight archetype. When I run in Eberron, I don't want my players thinking that in order to be a Bone Knight they have to take a certain class. A Bone Knight was a military designation, and I'm sure it consisted of individuals with many different kinds of classes. What seems to have set them apart was their use of bone armor (which anyone with armor proficiency could benefit from), and ability to command the undead within their ranks (which could have been through the use of a magical item rather than a class ability). Now the Bone Knights probably recruited those with more competency with necromancy (Fighter/Necromancy multiclass, Death and Grave Domain Clerics, Circle of Spores Druids, Oathbreaker Paladins, ect), but I don't think they need to all be the same class to be a Bone Knight.

This might be one of those rare situations where a 5e prestige class would be appropriate (though hopefully better executed than that Runesmith thing).

It’s possible I am misremembering, but I seem to recall from a discussion, article, or Twitter reply, by Keith Baker, that Bone Knights we’re primarily drawn from the ranks of Karrnath’s chivalric orders, which I would imagine is mostly going to be Paladins and Fighters in the PC end of things.

OTOH, I could certainly see using a feat to represent the idea. Gate it behind level 8, and it can have a little extra juice.

But mechanically I think it would work best as a Paladin, and thematically I think Paladin is a better religious Knight particularly. In Keith’s Eberron, IIRC, the Ebon Skull knights (Onyx Skull in my games bc I like it better as a name) were the first Bone Knights, and began the tradition of knights commanding the undead in battle.

 

[collin]

Homebrew to my current Eberron adventure includes doing dragonmarks differently than in the Wayfinder's Guide (too different from 3.5 and complex they way they wrote them in the WGE) and I created my own version of the magewright NPC.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Homebrew to my current Eberron adventure includes doing dragonmarks differently than in the Wayfinder's Guide (too different from 3.5 and complex they way they wrote them in the WGE) and I created my own version of the magewright NPC.

I actually really like the idea of dragonmarks being subraces. It fits the idea that a non-aberrant dragonmark should probably manifest before a character gets of age that they would be adventuring. It also allows for dragonmarked characters in games that do not use feats.