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

Staffan

Adventurer
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.)
Revised 2e psionics had some good points, such as psionicists actually getting better at their stuff at higher levels. But the psionic combat was... bad. Both concept-wise and execution-wise - concept-wise because using the same resource (PSP) for both "hit points" and to power attacks is shady in the first place, and execution-wise because in most cases the cost for using a psionic attack was higher than the damage it would deal.
 

MarkB

Hero
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.
Yeah, that was always my take on them too. I felt like I'd definitely want to get hold of the Psionics rules if I were ever going to actually run a campaign in Sarlona, but for just having some Kalashtar characters in the party, it's not needed.
 

DragonBelow

Explorer
Yeah, that was always my take on them too. I felt like I'd definitely want to get hold of the Psionics rules if I were ever going to actually run a campaign in Sarlona, but for just having some Kalashtar characters in the party, it's not needed.
All the flavor pointed at them being primarily psionic users, could you avoid that? sure, specially if you don't want psionics in D&D. I happen to like Psionics.
 

gyor

Adventurer
According to Tito Rising from the Last War is MUCH bigger then Wayfarer's Guide in both page count and average words per page count.

I might get this book after all, but no rush to decide, I want to know more.

It sounds like the first proper Setting book for 5e, what the SCAG should have been in size.
 

Parmandur

Legend
According to Tito Rising from the Last War is MUCH bigger then Wayfarer's Guide in both page count and average words per page count.

I might get this book after all, but no rush to decide, I want to know more.

It sounds like the first proper Setting book for 5e, what the SCAG should have been in size.
Well, Ravnica was very similar in style to how this is shaping up, though not quite as large: but the Guildmasters Guide does seem to be the style moving forward. A Faerun guide along these lines might happen eventually, but not likely to anytime soon, as long as we get it in pieces in Adventure books.
 

gyor

Adventurer
Well, Ravnica was very similar in style to how this is shaping up, though not quite as large: but the Guildmasters Guide does seem to be the style moving forward. A Faerun guide along these lines might happen eventually, but not likely to anytime soon, as long as we get it in pieces in Adventure books.
I think we will get something like this for Zakhara and Kara Tur in 2020, it's why they hired those cultural consultants. Faerun they seem dedicated to doing piece meal no matter how slow and annoying that is. We are getting a Baldur's Gate Gazetter in BG: DiA this year.
 

MarkB

Hero
All the flavor pointed at them being primarily psionic users, could you avoid that? sure, specially if you don't want psionics in D&D. I happen to like Psionics.
Sure, and if they're available I'm happy to use them. But if they're not, it won't break anything to have a few Kalashtar around without them.
 

Ruin Explorer

Explorer
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.
It absolutely is neophobia, or unreflected setting conservatism and I think it's easy to see that. Note that this not a political thing - this kind of conservatism is strictly small c and can be found in anyone of almost any age or background.

To demonstrate it, simply consider if Dragonborn, for example, were introduced to AD&D in 1E or 2E, would GH have found a way to incorporate them? Yes, unquestionably. GH kept integrating new elements in 1E and if it had received fair attention in 2E would have continued to do so.

GH is a huge setting with diverse and isolated nations. It would be extremely easy and not particularly disruptive to introduce more recent material, especially with a time jump. It would not change the flavour particularly either, because they would be minor new elements in a vast tapestry.

Most D&D settings are inherently kitchen sink and/or designed to incorporate new elements, and GH is no exception.

The reason people think otherwise, I would argue, is simple ossification. Because GH was barely touched even in 3E were it was nominally the default setting, people see it as a fixed, fossilised thing, not the once-growing and changing setting it was. But that does a disservice to GH, frankly. It deserves more than to be a museum piece, unchanged and forever stuck in some late 80s idyll.

In some alternate reality where GH kept strongly developing through the 90s and beyond, people are arguing the same things you are about GH, about the FR! By all means pay attention to what make GH, GH when moving it forwards, no one wants a repeat of the clumsy FR 4E situation (I say this a 4E fan generally but that was a mess), but don't put it in amber because you don't even want to consider how easily modern races and classes could fit into GH.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
In my Eberron games I specifically did not include the kalashtar as a race option because I was trying to narrow down the number of campaign-wide concepts/threats/plotlines we might be running with. There's no bigger pain than having one PC whose primary character issue is with the daelkyr, another with an Overlord, another with Lady Vol, another with the Dreaming Dark, and another with the Inspired. It just becomes too unwieldy no one gets enough time, and there's no central big bad you now have a half-dozen. So for me, holding Sarlona, the Inspired, and the kalashtar out of my current campaigns helped ease that.

That being said... had I allowed someone to play a psionic kalashtar I would have done it one of two ways-- I'd either have used the Mystic playtest rules (as I did for my last Curse of Strahd campaign that had a psionic PC), or I would have created a Psionic Origin sorcerer, and then put together a very specific spell list for them that was primarily a lot of divination, abjuration, and movement-based transmutation spells.

I'm a firm believer in making customized spell lists for Sorcerers in 5E so that they all fall within the parameters of the origin from which the sorcerer gets their power. That's what I did for my Aberrant Dragonmark sorcerer PC whose dragonmark was time magic. I selected spells whose abilities were easily refluffed as time manipulation and gave the players the spell list to select their time magic from. Anything normally on the sorcerer spell list that I didn't include in the time magic list because there wasn't a good refluffing available was not an option for them. And I'd do this again for other sorcerers I'd ever have in my campaigns, including any potential kalashtar who wanted to focus on psionics (at least until Dark Sun and the psionics rules get released.)
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
It absolutely is neophobia, or unreflected setting conservatism and I think it's easy to see that. Note that this not a political thing - this kind of conservatism is strictly small c and can be found in anyone of almost any age or background.

To demonstrate it, simply consider if Dragonborn, for example, were introduced to AD&D in 1E or 2E, would GH have found a way to incorporate them? Yes, unquestionably. GH kept integrating new elements in 1E and if it had received fair attention in 2E would have continued to do so.
I appreciate you forum-splaining my neophobia to me, as well as providing a helpful thought experiment!

I was just thinking to myself-

Self. Just imagine if I was running a Greyhawk Campaign in the 1980s. Weird, right? Now, what if they had put out a major rulebook AFTER they published the Greyhawk Folio and boxed set? Maybe ... something called .... Uncovered Secrets? And what if I was reading this book, and after gathering up the pages from the floor (because in my thought experiment, this book has a terrible binding) I looked at the pages and they had all of these new rules about classes, and races, and even a new ability score! I'd probably demand that they immediately incorporate everything into my Greyhawk campaign, because everything new must always be put in, right?

And then, a few years later, just imagine if they released another hardcover book about Greyhawk! We could call it, oh, Greyhawk Excursions! And that book completely ignored the earlier book. I would be angry, right? Because all new rules and races, and classes always have to be incorporated, right?


....hmmm. It seems so .... familiar, doesn't it?

I think you fundamentally miss the point being articulated by some people; that just because a change is made in editions, it doesn't mean that you automatically have to make all the changes in all the settings throughout the multiverse.

Or, put another way, does Dark Sun have to have gnomes? Gnomes have been a core part of the rules since forever, and yet they don't exist in the Dark Sun world. And that should be fine (or as I would say, MORE THAN FINE! Muahahahahaha!).


In some alternate reality where GH kept strongly developing through the 90s and beyond, people are arguing the same things you are about GH, about the FR! By all means pay attention to what make GH, GH when moving it forwards, no one wants a repeat of the clumsy FR 4E situation (I say this a 4E fan generally but that was a mess), but don't put it in amber because you don't even want to consider how easily modern races and classes could fit into GH.
But we don't live in that alternate reality. No one is saying to put it in amber; but to thoughtlessly include things just to because you happen to think that they are a "modern race[] and class[]" means that every campaign setting would be the same- boring. Not new; boring.

Some of us just are terrified of the boring. That's why Forgotten Realms frightens us.
 
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.
The problem here is that the original Dark Sun barely resembles D&D. It uses the same xp tables and thac0 systems, but it's races, classes, equipment, magic, monsters and tone are completely alien to the rest of D&D. To Whit: a Greyhawk elf, a Realms elf, an Ebberon elf, a Dargonlance elf, a Ravenloft elf, and even a Ravnica elf all have the same mechanics based on the PHB. A Dark Sun elf resembles them as much as an Keebler elf does; totally different in terms of look, tone, and mechanics.

The problem is that do to that radical shift in everything from elves to magic to dragons, there is surprisingly little that overlaps with the core rules. In 2e, where settings had tons of support, that was fine. They could make custom races, classes, spells and monsters to augment the core rules. Since 4e though, setting support is limited; a setting might at best get 1-2 books tops. So that leaves a few possible options:

1. Force the setting to accept more of the core rules to maximize the potential abilities for expansion. That means finding room for newer races and most classes and monsters, just re-themed to fit the setting

2. Accept that a setting like Dark Sun will be extremely limited; most of the gaps removed from the game for not fitting would not be filled due to time and space concerns. DS might get a psionic class, but the book can't possibly make a spell-less bard, gladiator class, and Templar class to fill the holes carved but removing bards, monks and clerics. Or that most of the MM is basically useless with only maybe a dozen new monsters to fill the void.

3. Here me out: make it a separate spinoff game that is compatible with 5e. Give it a PHB that rewrites the classes and races appropriately, has appropriate equipment section, and just reprints some of the important area of the PHB (combat and spells) with tweaks to fit. Then do a Monster Manual new creatures and updated art and lore. Then do a DMG/setting guide that covers all the DM stuff and magic/psionic items. Make it all self contained so that the core books aren't needed, but a DM can use stuff form it as they want. Want Goliath's or dragonborn? The DM can import them from the appropriate books, but if he doesn't he has enough using these three DS core rules to run for a long time.

Honestly, 3 makes the most sense if you are keeping true to 2es tone and deviations. 1 is basically 4e's version redux, and 2 is the worst of both worlds but is the only way to keep the original feel in a 1 book supplement. The choice comes down to what is most important.
 

Parmandur

Legend
The problem here is that the original Dark Sun barely resembles D&D. It uses the same xp tables and thac0 systems, but it's races, classes, equipment, magic, monsters and tone are completely alien to the rest of D&D. To Whit: a Greyhawk elf, a Realms elf, an Ebberon elf, a Dargonlance elf, a Ravenloft elf, and even a Ravnica elf all have the same mechanics based on the PHB. A Dark Sun elf resembles them as much as an Keebler elf does; totally different in terms of look, tone, and mechanics.

The problem is that do to that radical shift in everything from elves to magic to dragons, there is surprisingly little that overlaps with the core rules. In 2e, where settings had tons of support, that was fine. They could make custom races, classes, spells and monsters to augment the core rules. Since 4e though, setting support is limited; a setting might at best get 1-2 books tops. So that leaves a few possible options:

1. Force the setting to accept more of the core rules to maximize the potential abilities for expansion. That means finding room for newer races and most classes and monsters, just re-themed to fit the setting

2. Accept that a setting like Dark Sun will be extremely limited; most of the gaps removed from the game for not fitting would not be filled due to time and space concerns. DS might get a psionic class, but the book can't possibly make a spell-less bard, gladiator class, and Templar class to fill the holes carved but removing bards, monks and clerics. Or that most of the MM is basically useless with only maybe a dozen new monsters to fill the void.

3. Here me out: make it a separate spinoff game that is compatible with 5e. Give it a PHB that rewrites the classes and races appropriately, has appropriate equipment section, and just reprints some of the important area of the PHB (combat and spells) with tweaks to fit. Then do a Monster Manual new creatures and updated art and lore. Then do a DMG/setting guide that covers all the DM stuff and magic/psionic items. Make it all self contained so that the core books aren't needed, but a DM can use stuff form it as they want. Want Goliath's or dragonborn? The DM can import them from the appropriate books, but if he doesn't he has enough using these three DS core rules to run for a long time.

Honestly, 3 makes the most sense if you are keeping true to 2es tone and deviations. 1 is basically 4e's version redux, and 2 is the worst of both worlds but is the only way to keep the original feel in a 1 book supplement. The choice comes down to what is most important.
From what they have said, a Dark Sun book will be #2.
 
From what they have said, a Dark Sun book will be #2.
That's a shame. It will be a setting that at most has 9 races, 7 classes (with 1-2 subs each), and 100 monsters. It might align with what was in 2e's vision of the setting, but it will be more limited than Ravnica.
 

Parmandur

Legend
That's a shame. It will be a setting that at most has 9 races, 7 classes (with 1-2 subs each), and 100 monsters. It might align with what was in 2e's vision of the setting, but it will be more limited than Ravnica.
Limitations can be good. Mearls went into detail on the Happy Fun Hour one week as to what would be in Dark Sun in terms of Race & Class, saying they might have a sidebar telling people they can bring in other stuff if they want, but Dark Sun is a limited and focused Setting and genre.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
That's a shame. It will be a setting that at most has 9 races, 7 classes (with 1-2 subs each), and 100 monsters. It might align with what was in 2e's vision of the setting, but it will be more limited than Ravnica.
I mean this in all seriousness ... do you play Dark Sun? Are you a fan of the setting?

Same with Greyhawk. Are these settings that you have played before and love?
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Which would be perfectly fine with me.
Yep. I am reminded of a middle school English teacher I had, who taught me the most useful definition of an adjective that I ever learned.

An adjective is a word that limits a noun.

A house can be any kind of house, but once you begin to put on adjectives, you limit the kind of house it is. A red house is only a red house, not a green house. A tall house cannot be a short house, and so on.

Specificity is the soul of narrative, and adjectives are the lubricant of specificity. Far from being the bane of creativity, limits are the very building blocks of beauty.
 
I mean this in all seriousness ... do you play Dark Sun? Are you a fan of the setting?

Same with Greyhawk. Are these settings that you have played before and love?
Dark Sun: played yes; fan no. My perception might be skewed by the DM I had, who ran the setting as an exercise in sadomasochism. I like pulpy "Conan the barbarian" type media, but the 2e version didn't click. It felt it was trying too hard to not be D&D, like it was ashamed to be called that. Ironically, I liked the 4e presentation a lot, but I didn't like 4e enough to play it.

As for Greyhawk, yes played; fan Neutral. I came into the setting at the end of 2e, so my exposure is "The Adventure Begins"/Living Greyhawk Gazetteer stuff. I played many of the classic modules (in 2e) and 2e Return to modules, and the later Vecna Trilogy, as well as ran Return to Temple of Elemental Evil. That said, while I have nothing against the setting, it doesn't reach my top 3 (Eberron, Planescape, Ravenloft), I liked the setting well enough based on what I've experienced.

That said, I still think there is room in both settings to grow.
 

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top