D&D 5E Eberron popularity in 5E

[Bluenose]

FR has the trappings of traditional fantasy, however much it deviates from genre conventions, while Planescape or Eberron or Dark Sun have additional or different trappings. I think that's the distinction. FR may be as magocentric as anything short of Harry Potter, and that's decidedly un-traditional, but there are still rubes in armor, riding around on horseback and waving swords, as if they were in a traditional fantasy setting - there are no playable robots, insects, or devils.

I suppose it might be worth defining what comprises "traditional" fantasy in this sense; 'rubes in armour riding around on horseback and waving swords' isn't a feature I'd consider common.

FR was a setting conceived specifically for D&D, back in the AD&D era. 5e harkens back to that era.

Reputedly it was Ed Greenwood's world where he'd been writing stories since the 1960s. So not conceived with D&D in mind. And given the significant mechanical differences between the rules I'd say a world written with 5e in mind (or a world that inspired 5e design) would have some very different assumptions about how things would work than one written for 1e.

Heck, the fanbase is still revolting.... ;P

I suspect it always was, and the internet allows it to show that off easily.

 

[delericho]

Agreed, the vast majority of Eberron is the setting, which is prose and can be lifted into any campaign. As can the maps, NPC and faction relationships, etc....

This is all true, so far as it goes. But...

the only thing that is missing are the stats of monsters

Actually, it's more than that. While there are fairly few mechanical elements of Eberron that need converted, a simple conversion misses out on the full potential of using the setting in 5e. Ideally what is wanted is not just up-to-date mechanics for Warforged and Living Spells, and such things, but also expressions of the flavour of the setting in the new mechanics - Dragonmarked Scion or Extreme Adventurer backgrounds, or ways to tie the Dragonshards into the mechanics that don't just boil down to "they another form of magic item", or what have you.

Yes, at the moment it's possible to have an Eberron campaign that works. But a well done sourcebook, written by professional game designers, would hopefully give us Eberron campaigns that sing.

 

[Azurewraith]

Im planning on sending my players to Eberron in my game only run 2sessions so far when the current Dm couldn't make it. Never run Eberron before nor has anyone else in my group so i could be wrong but i feel translating the setting will be fine as well fluff is fluff and as for the crunch i think it will be fairly easy to use the 3e books and adjust them to a 5e rule set.

 

[Jester David]

If there was a decent UA article covering Eberron then I would be more inclined to see your point.

The quality of the article was a little weak but it provides a decent framework. The shifter race was decent and only requires a slight tweak to balance. Changelings need a little more but not that much. 5 minutes of work at best.
The warforged is less amazing, but Keith Baker published his own. So that's done.

...as long as you don't want to include any archetypical Eberron characters in your party. I'm sure many people have also had excellent holidays in Rome without experiencing the local food, wine, art, fashion, architecture, or history, as well.

The world is the setting, not just the races. Even if you are incapable of using the UA or Baker's content due to a crippling fear of the internet, you can run a game just as well as one in early 3e. Not every Eberron game included PCs of the local races and they all managed to still be Eberron campaigns.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I suppose it might be worth defining what comprises "traditional" fantasy in this sense; 'rubes in armour riding around on horseback and waving swords' isn't a feature I'd consider common.

So the old knight in shining armor, not 'traditional' enough for you?

Reputedly it was Ed Greenwood's world where he'd been writing stories since the 1960s.

Not a repute I'd heard, but even if that were the beginnings of it, the published setting seems pretty D&D-focused/inspired. Contrasted, say, with Tekumel, which was also a setting the writer came up with long before, and made into an RPG after encountering D&D.

And given the significant mechanical differences between the rules I'd say a world written with 5e in mind would have some very different assumptions about how things would work than one written for 1e.

What, because of the addition of Warlocks & Sorcerers?

 

[Otterscrubber]

My 5e campaign is in Eberron, but I have made a lot of changes. Namely I do not like allowing non-core races and whatnot. So none of my characters can be warforged for example. They exist in the game world, but are not an option in my campaign as quite simply I find that a lot of races/class combos created for certain settings and in many splatbooks ruined a lot of 3e and 4e games for me. In fact I made shardminds out to be the great evil in the universe and rewarded my players for killing them on sight whenever possible It was my rebellion against what I considered to be corporate splooging when it came to making splatbooks just to make a few bucks more. I really disliked almost all the class/races presented in splatbooks or as part of specialized settings as they often seemed like munchkin fan-boi creations that were merely hooks to get folks to by extra books. They were almost always unbalanced in one form or another. This was true in campaign settings books as well as PHB2 and PHB3 in 4e. Also, they presented problems when editions change. This may not sound like a considerations many DMs have to worry about, but I've been playing for over 30 years now and with the same group of people believe it or not. We do carry things over from 30 years ago, so I actually try to make sure that my campaigns are not too defined by the mechanics. Ignoring many of the splatbook classes/races makes this much easier.

This may not sit well with many people and be viewed as narrow minded, but the benefit to this is it is much easier for me to lift settings like Eberron into 5e as I do not have to worry about the mechanical specifics of all these new races/classes getting migrated to a new edition and keeping their balance (cough....splutter....cough...cough) intact haha. I can still leverage the sizeable content in the form of the political settings, dragnonmarked houses, maps and all the information on various overt and covert factions in the campaign. To me, THAT is the campaign, not whether this player gets a +2 to their Con when rolling up for the first time. When I did have a player who honestly felt they needed a class like artificer, that they just had to have, I tried to get them to find a similar class like wizards and actually try to ROLEPLAY that character rather then have to define their character with mechanics. It has worked well and I am fortunate to have a group of players who are open minded enough to give this a go. It has worked very very well for us.

 

[Bluenose]

So the old knight in shining armor, not 'traditional' enough for you?

It's not something I'd associate particularly with Traditional Fantasy. In fact my first thought when a knight in shining armour comes along with no context is historical fiction, followed by romance fiction, and only then fantasy, and I wouldn't think of any particular type of fantasy even if in some cases the Knight in Armour is more likely a deconstruction or even parody.

Not a repute I'd heard, but even if that were the beginnings of it, the published setting seems pretty D&D-focused/inspired. Contrasted, say, with Tekumel, which was also a setting the writer came up with long before, and made into an RPG after encountering D&D.

Yes, and Glorantha is another of similar age with a very different style.

What, because of the addition of Warlocks & Sorcerers?

No, though they're a symptom. Excessive amounts of magic, magic doing far more than it could in the oldest editions, magic being far more likely to work at high levels when directed at enemies, a marked expansion in the variety of magic items, more codification of skills (compared to 1e and BECM certainly). It's not a new version of 3e but that's the direction it's facing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not something I'd associate particularly with Traditional Fantasy. In fact my first thought when a knight in shining armour comes along with no context is historical fiction, followed by romance fiction, and only then fantasy, and I wouldn't think of any particular type of fantasy even if in some cases the Knight in Armour is more likely a deconstruction or even parody.

Well, if that's how you feel. How do you limit your conception of 'traditional fantasy' to avoid such bits as armor-wearing, sword-wielding, and horse-riding medieval heroes?

Yes, and Glorantha is another of similar age with a very different style.

Though, like FR or Greyhawk, it's hard to tease out what's the setting influencing the system and what's the setting conforming to the system, since Glorantha and RQ (& White Wolf/Red Moon) were linked from the beginning. Whereas with Tekumel you can clearly see the setting taking precedence over the adapted-from-D&D system.

No, though they're a symptom. Excessive amounts of magic, magic doing far more than it could in the oldest editions, magic being far more likely to work at high levels when directed at enemies, a marked expansion in the variety of magic items

The marked expansion in magic items was already happening in 1e, and was just crazy by late 2e, 'excessive amounts of magic' were an issue that EGG warned us about in an early Dragon article, and magic 'doing far more' started with Eldritch Wizardry.

I'll concede that magic has worked much more dependably vs high-level targets starting with 3e, though, and that's one notable thing that 5e hasn't reversed.

You could also bring up at-will magic or the impossibility of interrupting spell-casting, or the profound flexibility of the neo-Vancian magic system.

There had been a long-term trend throughout D&D's history to make casting easier, more plentiful, and more dependable, while bringing down it's outright power slightly in (mostly inadequate) compensation. 5e continued that trend, except that instead of inadequately ratcheting down raw power in a token attempt to balance the increased availability/ease/flexibility of casting, it dialed it right back back up again.

more codification of skills (compared to 1e and BECM certainly).

Codification of more skills, anyway, since that started with the Thief in Greyhawk, and expanded greatly with the 1e Survival Guides and 2e - but it peaked in 3.x/PF, and 5e has fairly mushy skills that don't make a huge impact relative to what untrained characters can do, unless a class feature like Expertise comes into it. Which really gets pretty close in feel to later AD&D.

It's not a new version of 3e but that's the direction it's facing.

Only because it's on the way to AD&D. ;P

I really disliked almost all the class/races presented in splatbooks or as part of specialized settings as they often seemed like munchkin fan-boi creations that were merely hooks to get folks to by extra books. They were almost always unbalanced in one form or another.

Or the combos of disparate ones could be broken. Take a race from one setting and a class from another and some spells & feats from a few splatbooks and you might come up with something game-breaking in 3.5, for instance - but then, CoDzilla straight outta the PH could break the game, too.

This was true in campaign settings books as well as PHB2 and PHB3 in 4e.

Book-selling hooks? Sure, people were clamoring for some of the traditional races/classes in PH2 and classes in PH3. Balance issues? Not really, not that balance issues in 4e are comparable in magnitude (or duration, thanks to rapid errata updates) to those of other editions.

Also, they presented problems when editions change.

"The Gnome Effect." Sure.

This may not sit well with many people and be viewed as narrow minded

It does seem the very definition of narrow-minded, OneTrueWayism, yes. But, it's easy enough to ignore such material if you want, so not a big deal.

but the benefit to this is it is much easier for me to lift settings like Eberron into 5e as I do not have to worry about the mechanical specifics of all these new races/classes getting migrated to a new edition and keeping their balance (cough....splutter....cough...cough) intact haha.

Balance is not an issue in 5e, certainly - it's on the DM's shoulders, regardless of how much or little of the available options he decides to allow. But, while it may be 'easier' to adapt a setting if you toss all the unique mechanical elements of it out, are you really adapting the setting, or are you just running a generic setting with different proper nouns?

 

[Bluenose]

Well, if that's how you feel. How do you limit your conception of 'traditional fantasy' to avoid such bits as armor-wearing, sword-wielding, and horse-riding medieval heroes?

I'm obviously not explaining myself well. I'm differentiating between types of fantasy through the things that are notably different, that appear a lot more in one type than another. Thus, magical engineer types are something you see a lot more in steampunk fantasy than in other sorts, bumbling wizards are a common comic fantasy trope. The knight isn't like that, it doesn't appear particularly more often in Traditional Fantasy than it does in other sorts. At least not in my estimation, I admit my definition of Trad Fantasy may differ from other peoples'.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm differentiating between types of fantasy through the things that are notably different, that appear a lot more in one type than another. Thus, magical engineer types are something you see a lot more in steampunk fantasy than in other sorts, bumbling wizards are a common comic fantasy trope.

Ah. I see. Of course, other, less-traditional fantasies are going to borrow at least some bits from traditional fantasy, making /nothing/ that defines traditional fantasy defining, to that standard.

The point I was making is that you can deviate from traditional fantasy tropes without adding new elements. Your example of comic-fantasy doesn't add anything that's not already present in traditional fantasy, it just takes a traditional fantasy bit, the wizard, and parodies it for laughs. In contrast, your example of a 'magical engineer' making clockwork golems or lightning trains or whatever, is adding something very different from the traditional wizard. FR deviates from traditional fantasy only in the former sense: all the traditional elements are there, but they've been taken in less-traditional directions.