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
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.
I think the 2E original probably went too far in accommodating base assumptions: it could have been a much better "Planetary Romance" style setting with even more restrictions.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
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.
Fair enough (and sorry about your bad DM).

I agree that settings should grow and change over time. The difference is that I don't want them to simply change the setting to accommodate new stuff, because there's new stuff. That's the way of madness, and Forgotten Realms.

(I kid, mostly, but we already have a setting for the whole generic D&D experience that eats others settings)

That's why I wrote in one of these many threads (and also, how is it that we have like five conversations going about GH when it's Eberron being released?) that for me, the main thing is to stay true to the core ideas that differentiate the setting.

For GH, that's the S&S, slightly gonzo, DIY nature of the setting. I don't care if they change or add new stuff that makes it more interesting here and there, so long as there is a good thematic reason and it's fun. I do think they should start the process with the de minimis Gygax 1983 material and add from there, if only because there was a lot of cruft and bad stuff along with the decent stuff after that.

As for "exotic" or "non-standard" races (say, Dragonborn, monstrous races) they should probably get a quick sidebar explaining that they are non-standard, but here's a few ideas as to how a DM can incorporate them into their campaign if necessary.

In the end, I just want everyone to have the opportunity to make the setting their own; whether that's Humans and Dwarves, or Tabaxi and Dragonborn. .... but I don't want the core setting to incorporate unlimited choices as a default, but instead to be a switch that a table can choose to turn on.
 

Bitbrain

Adventurer
I have the perfect setting for you: the only option for PCs are human fighter, and the only monster is orcs. Viva la creativity!
My Dark Sun-inspired homebrew setting has four PC races you can play as: elf, halfling, human, and mul.
The only class not permitted is the Warlock.

My Eberron campaign (which just started) has six common PC races: dwarf, elf, halfling, human, orc, and warforged.
Uncommon PC races include changelings, goblins, and shifters.
All classes and subclasses are permitted in this campaign.

As far as monsters are concerned, I have a collection of almost 50 distinct monsters ranging from CR-1/2 to CR-25, none of which are orcs.
 
Last edited:

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
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.
Umm...there were no Athasian paladins in 4e Dark Sun. There wasn't a single power or feat introduced in 4e Dark Sun that even used the Divine keyword. Literally the only mention of divine characters was a small sidebar saying that if you really, really wanted a divine character on Athas, you could probably come back up with a crazy backstory to do so.

If "including" something means "not forbidding in no uncertain terms", than sure, it included everything, I guess. But by the book, clerics, paladins, avengers, and invokers were NOT part of 4e Dark Sun.

I will reiterate my stance that the themes, paragon paths, and epic destinies of 4e Dark Sun captured the thematics of the setting better than the myriad of weird metaplot that made up a large portion of 2e Dark Sun. And I like most 2e settings! I've just always felt that Dark Sun was the weakest of the big 2e settings, and it was only the 4e book that made Dark Sun into something I actually wanted to run.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Umm...there were no Athasian paladins in 4e Dark Sun. There wasn't a single power or feat introduced in 4e Dark Sun that even used the Divine keyword. Literally the only mention of divine characters was a small sidebar saying that if you really, really wanted a divine character on Athas, you could probably come back up with a crazy backstory to do so.

If "including" something means "not forbidding in no uncertain terms", than sure, it included everything, I guess. But by the book, clerics, paladins, avengers, and invokers were NOT part of 4e Dark Sun.

I will reiterate my stance that the themes, paragon paths, and epic destinies of 4e Dark Sun captured the thematics of the setting better than the myriad of weird metaplot that made up a large portion of 2e Dark Sun. And I like most 2e settings! I've just always felt that Dark Sun was the weakest of the big 2e settings, and it was only the 4e book that made Dark Sun into something I actually wanted to run.
My impression is that the initial box set was amazing, but subsequent books lost the plot...
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
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.
No. What they did was use the same mechanical expression of a race, and attach those mechanics to it a similar but aesthetically unique narrative concept. You don't need new mechanical expressions for related concepts, because that's what the very concept of reskinning is for.

If you want to argue that you don't like reskinning, that's fine, but reskinning is a perfectly valid tactic to use when designing a campaign setting.
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
My impression is that the initial box set was amazing, but subsequent books lost the plot...
The 2e boxed set was good, but it always seemed to emphasize that things were super-sh***y and you were probably going to die horribly. 4e felt like things were harsh and bad, but there were still reasons to push into the deserts and maybe find some hope. It was a little more romanticized and melancholy, which I found to be a much more palatable tone. I have no problem with grim and foreboding, but I'm not a fan of bleakness to the point of apathy, which is always what 2e made me feel.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
No. What they did was use the same mechanical expression of a race, and attach those mechanics to it a similar but aesthetically unique narrative concept. You don't need new mechanical expressions for related concepts, because that's what the very concept of reskinning is for.

If you want to argue that you don't like reskinning, that's fine, but reskinning is a perfectly valid tactic to use when designing a campaign setting.
First, I’ll say that I don’t like reskinning because it is intrinsically lazy designing.

Second, calling the 4th edition Dark Sun “reskinning” of Dray and Half-Giant into Dragonborn and Goliath is a real stretch.

Reskinning is when you take the same mechanics of the Dragonborn and apply them to the Dray, but keep the aesthetic of the Dray unique.

But that’s no what happened at all. In early editions, Dray were a much more skinny, skeletal race, being a little taller and spindly. Dragonborn are big and bulky.

4e said “in Dark Sun, Dray are the same as Dragonborn,” and didn’t even bother to reskin, and just slapped some gladiator clothes on Dragonborn and walked away. That’s not even reskinning, that’s just slotting the same race into a different setting (which I’ve already said is silly).

These are Dray;

1566577196716.png
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
4e said “in Dark Sun, Dray are the same as Dragonborn,” and didn’t even bother to reskin, and just slapped some gladiator clothes on Dragonborn and walked away. That’s not even reskinning, that’s just slotting the same race into a different setting (which I’ve already said is silly).
When people comment on 4e and its use of classic material, nowadays, everybody wanna talk like they got something to say. But nothing comes out when they move their lips, just a bunch of gibberish, and the grognards act like they forgot about dray.
 

Staffan

Adventurer
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.
I agree with you in principle, but monks work just fine on Athas. You can justify their semi-magic stuff as being expressions of psionic power. 2e's The Will & The Way even had a kit called the Sensei that turned psionicists into unarmed combatants (albeit via the ridiculous 2e unarmed combat rules).

And consider the real-world origins of martial arts: scarce resources and laws forbidding commoners from being armed combining to make unarmed combat training a thing. That's pretty apt for Dark Sun.

I'd say the cleric is a bigger problem than the monk. The 2e Dark Sun elemental cleric was very far away from the traditional cleric, although they did have a massive spell list at lower levels (in 5e terms, the combined cleric + druid spell list + some esoteric stuff from various sourcebooks, minus those spells that specifically belonged with another element), and figuring out how to either bend the 5e cleric into shape or make a new class would be very hard. 4e solved it by just saying that the role in question was filled by the shaman class, which I suppose worked fine.
 

DWChancellor

Kobold Enthusiast
That's odd, considering how well 4e and Eberron fit together.
That wasn't my experience. I felt that the way Keith built up things like dragonmarks through chaining feats felt very natural. I just didn't feel the mechanics and the "play" synced as well in 4E. I know for many people Eberron was a chance for a little more "gonzo" style and power (turn it up to 11! Fight on a train! Fight on a FLYING TRAIN!) I didn't quite go that route, preferring the more noire elements of Eberron's inspiration.
 

DWChancellor

Kobold Enthusiast
Wow, I see a lot of people who would be very interested in a new Dark Sun product that stayted true to the tone and feeling of what they remember!

I remember when Eberron was coming out for 4E and thinking "why do they need to jam all these 4E bits in that will weaken the flavor?" And then Keith Baker came out swinging hard with wonderful, terrible, deity-DM-level ways of jamming them in that made Eberron more Eberron.

It's all in the execution. Also hire lead writers and designers who love the product they are working on.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
That wasn't my experience. I felt that the way Keith built up things like dragonmarks through chaining feats felt very natural. I just didn't feel the mechanics and the "play" synced as well in 4E. I know for many people Eberron was a chance for a little more "gonzo" style and power (turn it up to 11! Fight on a train! Fight on a FLYING TRAIN!) I didn't quite go that route, preferring the more noire elements of Eberron's inspiration.
I mean, we played a whole noir Eberron campaign in 4e, with no problems of any kind. Skill challenges, Action Points for key scenes like chases with combat elements, only using combat when it's a big deal and making it feel like a big deal, common magic items that don't fight against the core system, PCs and NPCs using different rules, etc, etc.

But to each their own. I never, ever, felt like Eberron actually fit the system for which it was created until the 4e books for it came out.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
One person's "lazy designing" is another person's "why re-invent the wheel"?
It’s less a case of reinventing the wheel, and more that in normal conditions I use my normal tires, but when I’m driving in winter I switch to snow tires. Different conditions (and different settings) should have different tools for the driver (or player).

When people comment on 4e and its use of classic material, nowadays, everybody wanna talk like they got something to say. But nothing comes out when they move their lips, just a bunch of gibberish, and the grognards act like they forgot about dray.
Considering I’ve only ever played 5e, kind of funny people think I could be a grognard. But hey, if you want to insult and call names instead of argue civilly, suit yourself.
 

DWChancellor

Kobold Enthusiast
Skill challenges, Action Points for key scenes like chases with combat elements, only using combat when it's a big deal and making it feel like a big deal, common magic items that don't fight against the core system, PCs and NPCs using different rules, etc, etc.
You make some great points. Those are terrific for Eberron. I'd forgotten how much I like those because I still use them in 5E!
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You make some great points. Those are terrific for Eberron. I'd forgotten how much I like those because I still use them in 5E!
Yeah 5e isn't bad for Eberron, especially now that it has Common as a magic item category, and some examples of Eberron specific common magic items.

Could really use some stuff like House specific subclasses, faith specific/oriented paladin oaths and cleric domains, etc., but I'm mostly happy with 5e Eberron. Especially because we have ported over skill challenges from 4e, along with Rituals that are ritual only, expanded alchemy, expanded common magic items, and level 1 bonus feat for all PCs and most NPCs.
 

In Our Store!

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top