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

Parmandur

Legend
That's just a list of keywords. :)

My point (as you know) is that art is a personal expression. But you know that.
Sure. But there is no necessary contradiction between figuring out what people want and executing it, and on the other hand and self-expression. Otherwise, commissions would also be anathema to art, which is not the case.
 
Last edited:

Emirikol Prime

Explorer
Sure. But there is no necessary contradiction between figuring out what people want and executing it, and on the other hand and self-expression.
My only issues psionics is that it has always been a niche system so appealing to the larger set of users is going to give you a skewed POV and in this case limit the look and feel of a great subsystem. Surely you'd agree with that.

(Also thanks for keeping this chill. I appreciate good convo when all parties are writing in good faith.) 👍🏼
 
Reading the Greyhawk debate is so weird, mostly because I actually agree with Lowkey’s underlying argument when I despise all of the logic fallacies, ridiculous comparisons, and bait.
He'd be much more persuasive if he hadn't abandoned reason for madness.

But Greyhawk shouldn’t have a bunch of races lumped in just because the PHB has them. It may largely be a “generic” setting compared to Eberron or Dark Sun, but if you try to mash everything to comply with the PHB, it becomes pretty similar to FR.
Here is my difficulty with this argument: I make an elf fighter for a campaign on Oerth and I make an elf fighter for a campaign on Faerun. What makes those two characters different? It surely something more than "one has a greater chance of meeting a dragonborn than the other", right? I'm told Greyhawk is... well, Greyer. More Sword and Sorcery than high fantasy. Less heroes, more mercenaries. Alignments are muddier, etc. Nothing, in that description, precludes honor-bound warlike dragon-humanoids and sinister, devil-touched humanoids. In fact, they are more S&S feeling that halflings or gnomes are!

Which is to my point: settings are 90% tonal, 10% map. Eberron has literally everything in D&D (its a selling point) but with a twist to make it tonally unique. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, DragonLance, etc, all have their own tones of D&D (post-apocalypse, gothic horror, and epic fantasy respectfully). Greyhawk's theme can endure dragonborn, tieflings, and a helluvalot more than we give it credit for.

And look I like FR, but Greyhawk should remain distinct. Having the same slate of races across settings is just making each setting a little more boring and less distinct from one another.
For three editions of D&D (1e, 2e, 3e) FR and Greyhawk shared the same slate of PHB races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, half-elf, gnome, half-orc). Adding two more doesn't break it. There are plenty of ways to make those two races distinct, just like there are plenty of ways to make a GH and FR elf distinct.

If Greyhawk ever gets an official book (Big if) they really should stick to what they originally had in the 1980s. That would leave plenty of room to expand lore on the various groups of humans, dwarves and elves. I’d maybe leave a small side-blurb saying tiefling and Dragonborn aren’t native to Greyhawk but that other humanoids like descendants of Iuz and half-dragons are aesthetically similar (and mechanically near identical).
The 1980s were 30 years ago. Fantasy and the game have both evolved. Honestly, I don't see why your description of dragonborn (make them come from the far west across the desert as recent travelers and mercs) and tieflings (scions of Iuz and his minions) can't just be cannon. We're not talking a dragonborn nation, but a new race that occasionally appears across the Flanaess offer their sword in exchange for coin doesn't disrupt the game any more than making orcs playable does.

Expand, grow, free your mind.

And you can of course do whatever you want in your home game. I’m running Tome of Annihilation now and have a Simic Hybrid player. As fun as that is, if someone put a Simic Hybrid in official FR content i’d be super confused.
In official products, I prefer a simple credo: give as many options as possible. For example: Ravnica (since its based on MtG lore) doesn't really have examples of every class in the PHB. Monks, bards, and warlocks in particular don't have anything directly resembling it in the card game. WotC could have been well within their right to exclude those classes for a truer feel, but they instead make them work. Not in a sidebar, but in the main text. If a setting that, up to that point shared 10% of the DNA 5e could make all the classes work, something like Greyhawk with shares 99% of the DNA of 5e can do the same.
 

Parmandur

Legend
My only issues psionics is that it has always been a niche system so appealing to the larger set of users is going to give you a skewed POV and in this case limit the look and feel of a great subsystem. Surely you'd agree with that.

(Also thanks for keeping this chill. I appreciate good convo when all parties are writing in good faith.) 👍🏼
I can see your point of view: but Psychics are a popular trope, and I think they can get something that appeals to the broader base while serving the archetype for the more focused fans..
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I had a hard time with Eberron in 4E. Dark Sun felt much better. Keith wrapped so much goodness in the 3/3.5E crunch that it was hard for me to see Eberron in a 4E setting. Very curious to see how it looks in 5E.
That's odd, considering how well 4e and Eberron fit together.
 

Urriak Uruk

Explorer
He'd be much more persuasive if he hadn't abandoned reason for madness.



Here is my difficulty with this argument: I make an elf fighter for a campaign on Oerth and I make an elf fighter for a campaign on Faerun. What makes those two characters different? It surely something more than "one has a greater chance of meeting a dragonborn than the other", right? I'm told Greyhawk is... well, Greyer. More Sword and Sorcery than high fantasy. Less heroes, more mercenaries. Alignments are muddier, etc. Nothing, in that description, precludes honor-bound warlike dragon-humanoids and sinister, devil-touched humanoids. In fact, they are more S&S feeling that halflings or gnomes are!

Which is to my point: settings are 90% tonal, 10% map. Eberron has literally everything in D&D (its a selling point) but with a twist to make it tonally unique. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, DragonLance, etc, all have their own tones of D&D (post-apocalypse, gothic horror, and epic fantasy respectfully). Greyhawk's theme can endure dragonborn, tieflings, and a helluvalot more than we give it credit for.



For three editions of D&D (1e, 2e, 3e) FR and Greyhawk shared the same slate of PHB races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, half-elf, gnome, half-orc). Adding two more doesn't break it. There are plenty of ways to make those two races distinct, just like there are plenty of ways to make a GH and FR elf distinct.



The 1980s were 30 years ago. Fantasy and the game have both evolved. Honestly, I don't see why your description of dragonborn (make them come from the far west across the desert as recent travelers and mercs) and tieflings (scions of Iuz and his minions) can't just be cannon. We're not talking a dragonborn nation, but a new race that occasionally appears across the Flanaess offer their sword in exchange for coin doesn't disrupt the game any more than making orcs playable does.

Expand, grow, free your mind.



In official products, I prefer a simple credo: give as many options as possible. For example: Ravnica (since its based on MtG lore) doesn't really have examples of every class in the PHB. Monks, bards, and warlocks in particular don't have anything directly resembling it in the card game. WotC could have been well within their right to exclude those classes for a truer feel, but they instead make them work. Not in a sidebar, but in the main text. If a setting that, up to that point shared 10% of the DNA 5e could make all the classes work, something like Greyhawk with shares 99% of the DNA of 5e can do the same.
I can see your point of view, but your argument overall appears to be “Greyhawk is perfectly capable of not breaking if they add gnomes, Dragonborn and tieflings.” And to be clear, I don’t think adding them will “break” what Greyhawk is.

My point is largely that although Greyhawk is capable of adding these races, it shouldn’t. Having a diverse range of races that don’t perfectly align with each setting is part of what makes each unique. For example, with Dark Sun, they decided in 4e to make the Dray into Dragonborn and half-giants into Goliath, stripping that setting parts that made it distinct.

IMO, that same standard applies to Greyhawk, in that I’d the writers need to make up flimsy reasons for why all PHB races are all existing in that setting, you’re weakening the setting’s basis solely to fit the same slate of races. And why? So that players feel justified playing a tiefling in Greyhawk? They don’t need one, every table can make up whatever they want to make it work.

And I’ll add I’m not afraid of change. If the writers are willing to add say tieflings, but make them aesthetically and mechanically different than FR tieflings, and give them a pretty good fluff reason for existing (a strong connection to Iuz is a good reason) I can get behind that.

But smooshing all the races into the setting solely to comply with the PHB is honestly lazy writing and adds nothing valuable to players or the setting itself.
 

DragonBelow

Explorer
I meant the revised psionics rules from the later Dark Sun product and the one in Skills and Powers were the same system.
Yeah, I don't know which one was published first, but for example, The Will and the Way which was a Darksun product, used the same rules that Skills and Powers used. I think that makes perfect sense. It would've been weird to keep two systems.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
My point is largely that although Greyhawk is capable of adding these races, it shouldn’t. Having a diverse range of races that don’t perfectly align with each setting is part of what makes each unique. For example, with Dark Sun, they decided in 4e to make the Dray into Dragonborn and half-giants into Goliath, stripping that setting parts that made it distinct.
But dray and half-giants were already part of Dark Sun. All they did was leverage pre-existing mechanics to fill those already extant roles. If your argument is that Dark Sun would have been better served creating unique race mechanics to fill that role, I don't believe that's true.
 

Kobold Avenger

Adventurer
The Archivist Artificer in the UA article, has a subclass ability that resembles the cantrip boosted by spell slots system that's been proposed for Psionics.

But I never felt that having psionic rules were ever necessary for the Kalashtar in Eberron, they were simply presented as the most likely option and source for Psionics if one decided to use it.
 

Urriak Uruk

Explorer
But dray and half-giants were already part of Dark Sun. All they did was leverage pre-existing mechanics to fill those already extant roles. If your argument is that Dark Sun would have been better served creating unique race mechanics to fill that role, I don't believe that's true.
In 4e Dark Sun, the writers essentially took the Dray (which as you say were already in the setting) and said “these are now the same as Dragonborn,” and did the same with half-giants into Goliath.

What they should have done is this; released both the Dray and half-giants as subraces of Dragonborn and Goliath respectively, keeping both of those races aesthetically distinct and unique to Dark Sun while also giving players new options.

If your a player who wants to be a Dragonborn in every setting, fine go for it (it’s your table, do what you want). But I don’t think we should settle for every PHB race smooshed into every official setting (the 4e approach) when we should instead be asking for new and unique options that fit with each new setting.
 

Parmandur

Legend
In 4e Dark Sun, the writers essentially took the Dray (which as you say were already in the setting) and said “these are now the same as Dragonborn,” and did the same with half-giants into Goliath.

What they should have done is this; released both the Dray and half-giants as subraces of Dragonborn and Goliath respectively, keeping both of those races aesthetically distinct and unique to Dark Sun while also giving players new options.

If your a player who wants to be a Dragonborn in every setting, fine go for it (it’s your table, do what you want). But I don’t think we should settle for every PHB race smooshed into every official setting (the 4e approach) when we should instead be asking for new and unique options that fit with each new setting.
Based on the Eberron design, and what Mearls has said about Dark Sun, I expect every PHB Race will get "Athasian" Subraces for Wild Talents and such.
 

Aaron L

Adventurer
Yeah, I don't know which one was published first, but for example, The Will and the Way which was a Darksun product, used the same rules that Skills and Powers used. I think that makes perfect sense. It would've been weird to keep two systems.
Nope, sorry, it did not. I just ran a Dark Sun game a few weeks ago. The Will and the Way, published in 1994, used the core Complete Psionics Handbook psionics rules that were used in the original boxed set. However, the Dark Sun Monstrous Manual expansion books that were published after the Revised boxed set included psionics stats for both the original and S&P systems. So they did continue using both systems.

(Because it was a bad new system and a lot of people hated it.)

I was appalled at the version of "Dark Sun" that they released for 4th Edition. Athasian Paladins? Seriously? Ugh. (Although the idea of making Templars a type of Warlock actually was pretty inspired.) Shoehorning all of the 4E classes and races into Athas really defiled (pun totally intended) the setting, to the point where they didn't seem to understand the world, or more likely they just didn't care and were only using the "Dark Sun" visuals as a cosmetic gloss. There are plenty of settings where Dragonborn and Tieflings just do not fit, and trying to cram them in just because someone made the bad decision to include them as default races in the PHB is not a good idea.

(And as an aside, neither did I care at all for the awful Revised Dark Sun Boxed Set. A completely new sub-par psionics system shoe-horned in? Re-written ability score tables that totally redefined the ability scores... but only for Athasin characters? 22 Strength on Athas equates to just 18/00 on any other world? Give me a break.)
 

Bitbrain

Adventurer
Based on the Eberron design, and what Mearls has said about Dark Sun, I expect every PHB Race will get "Athasian" Subraces for Wild Talents and such.
Makes sense. The tarek are basically orc stand-ins already.

Gnomes are the biggest issue, being technically extinct in Dark Sun.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Makes sense. The tarek are basically orc stand-ins already.

Gnomes are the biggest issue, being technically extinct in Dark Sun.
When Mearls went into what he would do for Dark Sun in detail, he emphasized limiting PC options for the default to what is appropriate to the setting: only Preserver/Defiler Wizard Traditions, no Gnomes, etc.
 

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top