Eberron: Rising from the Last War Coming For D&D In November

A new D&D camapign setting has appeared on Amazon -- Eberron: Rising from the Last War. It's slated for November 19th, at $49.99.

Screenshot 2019-08-19 at 10.28.34.png

Explore the lands of Eberron in this campaign sourcebook for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.

This book provides everything players and Dungeon Masters need to play Dungeons & Dragons in Eberron—a war-torn world filled with magic-fueled technology, airships and lightning trains, where noir-inspired mystery meets swashbuckling adventure. Will Eberron enter a prosperous new age or will the shadow of war descend once again?

• Dive straight into your pulp adventures with easy-to-use locations, complete with maps of floating castles, skyscrapers, and more.

• Explore Sharn, a city of skyscrapers, airships, and noirish intrigue and a crossroads for the world’s war-ravaged peoples.

• Include a campaign for characters venturing into the Mournland, a mist-cloaked, corpse-littered land twisted by magic.

• Meld magic and invention to craft objects of wonder as an artificer—the first official class to be released for fifth edition D&D since the Player’s Handbook.

• Flesh out your characters with a new D&D game element called a group patron—a background for your whole party.

• Explore 16 new race/subrace options including dragonmarks, which magically transform certain members of the races in the Player’s Handbook.

• Confront horrific monsters born from the world’s devastating wars.

There is an alternate cover for game stores:

ECWHqFcU4AAvUYP.jpg

WotC's Jeremy Crawford confirmed that "The book incorporates the material in "Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron" and adds a whole lot more."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comments

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
To my mind, the question is this: For older settings, especially ones designed to more generic, is adding newer elements in violation of the overall setting premise? The earlier poster seemed to be saying that Greyhawk "has a place for everything." So does that mean everything circa 1983, or everything circa 2019? Or is Greyhawk actually a more customized setting, a la Dark Sun?

My impressions of Greyhawk are that it was meant to be a kitchen-sink setting for generic D&Disms, much like Forgotten Realms. But maybe it would be better off as a natural preserve for older generation aesthetics, with nothing added to it from after the 80s? As specific in its intent, and defined as much by what it excludes as what it includes, as Dark Sun is?
We have this conversation going on in the other thread re: GH. To quote the folio: “Humankind is fragmented into isolationist realms, indifferent nations, evil lands, and states striving for good...Nomads, bandits, and barbarians raid southwards every spring and summer. Humanoid enclaves are strongly established and scattered throughout the continent, and wicked insanity rules in the Great Kingdom.”

And as @Ralif Redhammer noted, this website has a great breakdown of GH demographics:

The ethos we see in KoTB is carried through onto a world write large; more Mad Max or Conan than FR or a generic setting.
 

Parmandur

Legend
We have this conversation going on in the other thread re: GH. To quote the folio: “Humankind is fragmented into isolationist realms, indifferent nations, evil lands, and states striving for good...Nomads, bandits, and barbarians raid southwards every spring and summer. Humanoid enclaves are strongly established and scattered throughout the continent, and wicked insanity rules in the Great Kingdom.”

And as @Ralif Redhammer noted, this website has a great breakdown of GH demographics:

The ethos we see in KoTB is carried through onto a world write large; more Mad Max or Conan than FR or a generic setting.
What could be more Mad Max than a Blue Dragonborn Samurai journeying with a Tiefling Lore Bard and a Gnome Paladin?
 

Ruin Explorer

Explorer
If the ethos we see in KoTB is carried through onto a world write large; more Mad Max or Conan than FR or a generic setting.
A revisionist GH like that, which really went hell for leather for this empty, terrifying world could be amazing, but it's disingenuous to suggest GH wasn't generic fantasy. The standard MO for generic fantasy settings in the 1980s and 1970s was exactly isolated nations with few or no cultural relationships, and limited history, all plonked next to each other. The FR was interesting because it was slightly more interconnected and lived-in feeling than contemporaries, though it is the height of modern generic.

The world has moved on though, and yes, with some revisionism (which shouldn't be a dirty word in this context) GH could seem a lot less generic.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
A revisionist GH like that, which really went hell for leather for this empty, terrifying world could be amazing, but it's disingenuous to suggest GH wasn't generic fantasy. The standard MO for generic fantasy settings in the 1980s and 1970s was exactly isolated nations with few or no cultural relationships, and limited history, all plonked next to each other. The FR was interesting because it was slightly more interconnected and lived-in feeling than contemporaries, though it is the height of modern generic.

The world has moved on though, and yes, with some revisionism (which shouldn't be a dirty word in this context) GH could seem a lot less generic.
Interestingly, what may have been generic then is, apparently, exotic now. To the point where people are up in arms with the suggestion that it is humanocentric and there aren't dragonborn.

Who knew?
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
Interestingly, what may have been generic then is, apparently, exotic now. To the point where people are up in arms with the suggestion that it is humanocentric and there aren't dragonborn.

Who knew?
To my mind, a definition of Greyhawk that includes humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings but no dragonborn or tieflings isn't humanocentric, it's neophobic. Which is fine, but one should be upfront that their motivation is to keep the setting the same way that it played in the '80s.
 

darjr

I crit!
True, but I rather give my money to a party interested in keeping my hobby alive and tries hard to do that than a mega Corp who could care less.
I wish people knew their history better. The hobby is THRIVING in large part BECAUSE of WotC. Especially the D&D part of it. And it was due to the passion of the people at and in charge of WotC.


Edit to add: mea culpa. I myself like to purchase from my FLGS.
 
Last edited:

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
To my mind, a definition of Greyhawk that includes humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings but no dragonborn or tieflings isn't humanocentric, it's neophobic. Which is fine, but one should be upfront that their motivation is to keep the setting the same way that it played in the '80s.
There's so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to start?

I mean, it's easy enough to state that anyone who accuses me of wanting to grandfather in gnomes is clearly making an epic mistake, somewhat like accusing Michael Bay of hating explosions.

But it's more than that.

Humano-centric means exactly what it says. Centered on humans. It's almost, like, in the words or something. You see the constant references by Gygax (the creator of Greyhawk) in both the GH materials and the other materials he wrote; simply put, this isn't some bizarre construction, but a natural reading of what the setting is, further supported by the demographics and the countries involved.

Which leads to the observation that playing non-humans is a carefully-considered choice. Elves, for example, or gnomes will probably be more welcome in certain areas than others; there would certainly be no issue with a mixed party starting out in Highfolk. It gets problematic when designing adventures for Dragonborn, however, especially given the nature of the setting unless you want to retcon it extensively.

It's not a fear of the new; it's simply- why bother? There are tons of settings that you can use, so if you're looking to run (or, ruin) a setting, why not just do it to FR? I mean, that's what traditionally happens.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
Humano-centric means exactly what it says. Centered on humans. It's almost, like, in the words or something. You see the constant references by Gygax (the creator of Greyhawk) in both the GH materials and the other materials he wrote; simply put, this isn't some bizarre construction, but a natural reading of what the setting is, further supported by the demographics and the countries involved.

Which leads to the observation that playing non-humans is a carefully-considered choice. Elves, for example, or gnomes will probably be more welcome in certain areas than others; there would certainly be no issue with a mixed party starting out in Highfolk. It gets problematic when designing adventures for Dragonborn, however, especially given the nature of the setting unless you want to retcon it extensively.
If humanocentric means "humans plus a handful of rare exceptions", then the definition of those rare exceptions really shouldn't matter. Therefore, there's a different property to the setting that is also trying to be preserved which isn't related to humanocentrism. And that property is "containing the handful of races that were part of generic D&D during the OD&D/1E era."

It's not a fear of the new; it's simply- why bother? There are tons of settings that you can use, so if you're looking to run (or, ruin) a setting, why not just do it to FR? I mean, that's what traditionally happens.
If you're happy that your preferred races are still included in the setting, and you simply feel indifferent to the inclusion of new things, than I wouldn't call that attitude neophobic. If you feel that adding any new material will dilute and damage the overall feeling of the setting, I would call that attitude neophobic.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
If humanocentric means "humans plus a handful of rare exceptions", then the definition of those rare exceptions really shouldn't matter. Therefore, there's a different property to the setting that is also trying to be preserved which isn't related to humanocentrism. And that property is "containing the handful of races that were part of generic D&D during the OD&D/1E era."
That's .... completely wrong. You can't say, "If you allow any exceptions, then you must allow all of them, because the quality and nature of the exception doesn't matter." Here, let's try it out!

"Hey, dude, you said I could borrow your car one time to get to the hospital. So, since there is now an exception to driving the car that you own, you can't refuse when I ask to take your car for the summer to drive to South America, amirite?"

In the instant example, allowing a few does not mean allowing everything. If your campaign, for example, has you primarily in human outposts (or the City of Greyhawk) then Dragonborn (or Drow) would not be appropriate; heck, there's a lot you'd have to figure out even if you want to have a Valley Elf in your campaign.

Again, this is assuming you are running a campaign where basic things like interactions with NPCs matter; if all you care about it min/maxing and charops, then knock yourself out- but why not do that in the Forgotten Realms?

Was it Ed Greenwood or Hasan I Sabah who said, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."

If you're happy that your preferred races are still included in the setting, and you simply feel indifferent to the inclusion of new things, than I wouldn't call that attitude neophobic. If you feel that adding any new material will dilute and damage the overall feeling of the setting, I would call that attitude neophobic.
So, this isn't just 100% wrong. This is "I just learned that Carrot Top has been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar" wrong.

I can incorporate all sorts of new material into my Greyhawk Campaign (rules, spells, items, classes and so on) while excluding material that I believe would destroy the feeling of the campaign. Or, more importantly, I could choose to include or exclude such material on a case-by-case basis. Choosing to not have things just so that I can "check off boxes" isn't a fear of the new; it's part of good design.

And to me, good design is almost as much about the ability to not include things as it is to include them.

Shorter version- cool story, brah, but I'll incorporate things that work, and exclude things that don't. And you can run your "Everybody Loves Each Other With Infinite Water" Dark Sun campaign. :)
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but at The official versions of several playable races appear in “Eberron: Rising from the Last War”:, Jeremy Crawford said:

The official versions of several playable races appear in "Eberron: Rising from the Last War":

Warforged
Changelings
Kalashtar
Shifters

The book also contains playable goblins, bugbears, hobgoblins, and orcs.
The playable orcs from Volo's Guide were commonly criticized, so they may get redemption here. Hopefully this means kobolds will also get a new set of stats in some later book.
 

Bitbrain

Adventurer
This is awesome!

My Eberron campaign just started last week and I’m planning to send the PCs into the Mournland sometime next year.
 
That was my guess too. I mean, remember that this is a leak, not the official announcement. Temp art wouldn't be that surprising.
Not a leak. Press release was from PR agency yesterday. The two covers are official. That being said, I am hopeful that they see the feedback and tweak the cover. If they were trying to go with a Dragon Heist style cover, this is a miss.
 

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top