• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

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

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Folks can be critical of Eberron, or whatever gaming material.

Ascribing personal flaws to designers is not valid criticism of the product, though.
Designers often seem to enjoy ruining other people's sandbox.

If most of them were that good at designing they would have their own settings that are popular yes?
Look at all the damage inflicted on the TSR settings once the original designers moved on or were forced out.

They literally blew up every setting. Some was just because they let freelancers do whatever they wanted (surfing Druids on Athas). Other times new designers thought their take was better. Most of the time it's not.

See it a lot in movies and videogames as well. Newer is better mentality. There's a reason sequels are usually inferior to the originals.

If you want to do something new or drastic make something new and if it's that good the market will love it.
 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Designers often seem to enjoy ruining other people's sandbox.
Oh, give me a break, will you?

As if, they are off, in their design caves, wringing their hands and twirling their mustaches, going "Bwahahaha! Excellent! We have ruined yet another setting!" and they have dance parties every time another player decides they don't like the new products.

No, they don't enjoy ruining things.

If most of them were that good at designing they would have their own settings that are popular yes?
Of course not. The business doesn't work like that, at all. For all that we crow that gaming is seeing a new golden age, the market for settings is still small, and easily floods - and in the past it was notably smaller, and flooded even more easily. No matter how good the content is, we will buy only so much of it.

If you want to do something new or drastic make something new and if it's that good the market will love it.
That brings up an interesting point that shows, again, a lack of understanding. Except in small, indie shops, the designer does not decide what gets made. The choice of whether they do something new, or revisit something older is made by product and brand managers and the like, not the designers.
 
Designers often seem to enjoy ruining other people's sandbox.

If most of them were that good at designing they would have their own settings that are popular yes?
Look at all the damage inflicted on the TSR settings once the original designers moved on or were forced out.

They literally blew up every setting. Some was just because they let freelancers do whatever they wanted (surfing Druids on Athas). Other times new designers thought their take was better. Most of the time it's not.

See it a lot in movies and videogames as well. Newer is better mentality. There's a reason sequels are usually inferior to the originals.

If you want to do something new or drastic make something new and if it's that good the market will love it.
This is tinfoil hat level thinking. Nobody went into a setting with the expressed decision to ruin it for others. You may not agree with their choice, but professing bad faith on their motives and No True Scotsman judgement on those changes shows a level of closed-mindedness that borders on paranoia.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
This is tinfoil hat level thinking. Nobody went into a setting with the expressed decision to ruin it for others. You may not agree with their choice, but professing bad faith on their motives and No True Scotsman judgement on those changes shows a level of closed-mindedness that borders on paranoia.
I may have phrased it bluntly but think about the TSR settings or the inter edition changes to FR?

Look at the reaction to the spell plague. That was purely predictable and one wonders if the ever took a step back and think "is this a good idea". The second cataclysm in Krynn is another example.

Umbra s mustache twirling thing is funny but it makes me wonder. In a few cases I know it was incompetence at TSR. They farmed out work to freelancers who didn't really know the world's and there was no quality control.

4E would be another example it seemed to have got hijacked by 3 designers who thought their solutions were a good idea. All lost their jobs. 4E FR also comes to mind.

Some of this stuff should have been immediately apparent beforevpen got committed to paper. Some settings like Paizos Golarion and Kobolds Press do not do this and it seems the original creators are still around caring about what they created.
 

Urriak Uruk

Explorer
As is insulting people. Which is what folks take from statements like "Such and such is lazy design." The person is ascribing negative beliefs onto a designer they do not know and for which they have no knowledge of, all because they don't like the results of said design. They are calling the designer lazy just because they don't like the result. And yes, when someone does that, others will come out and say "Hey, you know you can just state you don't like something without insulting the designer and make it sound like they are less-than-competent".

Now, you may feel that reaction from people is "bad form" for conversation... but you'll probably find that not insulting people is the "bad form" of conversation that will actually keep you from being tossed out of threads or given vacations from the EN World boards. I mean, you can try it the other way and see if you get away with it... but insulting other posters and people in the industry from my experience does not tend to succeed. ;)
Oh come on. If I can't say that reskinning is lazy design, which is literally taking mechanics already designed from one thing and slapping it on something else, then I can't say that ANYTHING is lazy design.

And you are really twisting my belief here on what I think of designers. I'm not calling the designers lazy, I'm calling the tactic of reskinning lazy. People, and designers, are complicated and I understand that; I have no ill-will to a designer based on the tactic of reskinning. I'm not insulting the designer, I'm insulting the tactic of reskinning.

I mean seriously, you're really trying to make it look like I'm parading around this thread, insulting designers and posters? If you look at my posts I've been nothing but civil. Sure I'm probably stepping on some toes by saying that I think that 4e took a ham-fisted approach to adapting Dark Sun, but I'm complaining about the design choices, not the individuals behind them or the people who disagree with me.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Oh come on. If I can't say that reskinning is lazy design, which is literally taking mechanics already designed from one thing and slapping it on something else, then I can't say that ANYTHING is lazy design.

And you are really twisting my belief here on what I think of designers. I'm not calling the designers lazy, I'm calling the tactic of reskinning lazy. People, and designers, are complicated and I understand that; I have no ill-will to a designer based on the tactic of reskinning. I'm not insulting the designer, I'm insulting the tactic of reskinning.

I mean seriously, you're really trying to make it look like I'm parading around this thread, insulting designers and posters? If you look at my posts I've been nothing but civil. Sure I'm probably stepping on some toes by saying that I think that 4e took a ham-fisted approach to adapting Dark Sun, but I'm complaining about the design choices, not the individuals behind them or the people who disagree with me.
You seem to have missed the fundamental point that people are objecting to calling anything lazy design, so yes, please don't "say that ANYTHING is lazy design."
 

Urriak Uruk

Explorer
You seem to have missed the fundamental point that people are objecting to calling anything lazy design, so yes, please don't "say that ANYTHING is lazy design."
Considering reskinning isn't designing anything new and is just re-using already made mechanics, I feel like the label is appropriate. But if people are truly this offended I'll let the matter rest.
 

MarkB

Hero
Considering reskinning isn't designing anything new and is just re-using already made mechanics, I feel like the label is appropriate. But if people are truly this offended I'll let the matter rest.
If the existing game mechanics fits and is playtested, then adding something new just because you don't want to be seen as re-using something existing is basically just bloating the system for no good reason.

So, in many cases, reskinning is quite simply expedient design.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
Considering reskinning isn't designing anything new and is just re-using already made mechanics, I feel like the label is appropriate. But if people are truly this offended I'll let the matter rest.
If you say "lazy", it implies it was done that way because the person responsible did it that way because they where too busy eating pizza, drinking beer and generally slacking off to do it any other way. Do you believe that to be the case?

An alternative interpretation is "efficient".
 

Ruin Explorer

Explorer
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!).
You're very effectively proving my point! :)

Dark Sun took a considered decision on what races to include, and how, and so on.

You proposed not including more recent D&D material in GH on the basis it wasn't there already. That would be equivalent to DS including Gnomes because they're a default.

So, um, thanks for illustrating that. I agree that mindlessly shoving in every element without consideration is silly, but so is a dismissive "no need!" or worse a generalised "it'll ruin GH to add stuff!" attitude. Most modern D&D stuff would fit well into the kitchen sink of GH, without causing dissonance. So it's all worth considering seriously, not dismissing. If something can't fit, don't add it, if it can, do.

As an aside I think gnomes have always been the most problematic race to place in D&D, because they sort of exist in a weird place in-between elves, dwarves and halflings, and have had some trouble fixing an identity (Svirfneblin worked at least). Dark Sun took races and made them into surprising versions of themselves, or new spins (a half dwarf in addition to the old half elf, cannibal halflings, beardless dwarves, etc.) and I suspect that they couldn't come up with anything for gnomes that really worked because what even were 2E gnomes?

I say this with love, note, and post-Fey wild etc. gnomes have more of a place and an identity.

Anyway I think Dragonborn and Tieflings and Aasimar are good fits for GH, the former as some sort of LG or LN martial kingdom and the latter two as appearing in the population.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
You're very effectively proving my point! :)
So, I assume you realize how annoying that is? You know, when someone has written a lot of stuff, and you clip just a bit, and you know that they disagree with you, and you write, "Hey man, thanks for totally proving what I was saying!"

Yeah, no.

So to the extent you wish to have a continued pleasant conversation about this, I would ask that you consider what my position is and engage with it.

Bye!
 

Urriak Uruk

Explorer
Dark Sun took a considered decision on what races to include, and how, and so on.

You proposed not including more recent D&D material in GH on the basis it wasn't there already. That would be equivalent to DS including Gnomes because they're a default.
I've read this like five times and I still have no idea what this means. Lowkey said adding gnomes to Dark Sun wouldn't work because they weren't there before. How does that mean adding Dragonborn to Greyhawk makes sense?

Anyway I think Dragonborn and Tieflings and Aasimar are good fits for GH, the former as some sort of LG or LN martial kingdom and the latter two as appearing in the population.
Stylistically there's not really a problem. GoS kind of showed this by adding a tiefling, it doesn't really break the immersion. But adding a full Dragonborn kingdom is a big no-no.

I'm cool adding a text-block saying something like "Dragonborn and Aasimar are almost unheard of in the Flaeness region and would be treated by locals with a mixture of fascination and fear. Whether these races originate from far-off continents, or from entire different worlds, is up to you the Dungeon Master to decide."

Tieflings are pretty much confirmed now as existing in Iuz's empire (though again are extremely rare outside of it) so no problem there.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Tieflings are pretty much confirmed now as existing in Iuz's empire (though again are extremely rare outside of it) so no problem there.
I think that Tieflings, like Drow and Valley Elves, have to be carefully considered. In other words, so long as there is appropriate language regarding the likely reactions in various places in GH, there isn't a real issue.
 

Urriak Uruk

Explorer
I think that Tieflings, like Drow and Valley Elves, have to be carefully considered. In other words, so long as there is appropriate language regarding the likely reactions in various places in GH, there isn't a real issue.
Completely agree. I know little on Valley Elves, but I know Drow are arguably even more evil-aligned in Greyhawk than they are in FR, as there is no Drizzt character running around. If both tieflings and drow are both presented similarly to how goblins/orcs/kobolds are in FR (being almost always bad), it'd be more appropriate.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Eh, if I wanna play a world like Dark Sun I’ll use different rules, or I’ll change the rules of dnd a hell of a lot more than the setting rules ever have.

If I want to play a broken dying dnd world, it’s gonna have all the phb races and some that aren’t in the phb.

Also, the gnome thing isn’t a considered decision about what races to include. It was “lol I hate gnomes so I’m gonna have one of the Sorcerer kings genocide them for literally no discernible reason so they aren’t in the world”. Including them doesn’t change the setting’s nature, it just reveals an additional option, depending on how you decide to present them.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Completely agree. I know little on Valley Elves, but I know Drow are arguably even more evil-aligned in Greyhawk than they are in FR, as there is no Drizzt character running around. If both tieflings and drow are both presented similarly to how goblins/orcs/kobolds are in FR (being almost always bad), it'd be more appropriate.
Drow are definitely more evil-aligned, and, traditionally, less well-known. The general reaction would either be confusion and fear or (in a place like Celene or Highfolk) "kill it on sight."

The Valley Elf is a bit more ... confuddled. They just keep to themselves, and you'd need a bit more of an explanation as to why they are oot and aboot. That said, it wouldn't cause issues other than w/r/t other elves.

....but yeah, if you're running, say, a Pomarj campaign, knock yourself out with kobolds and drow and tieflings, oh my. :)
 

MarkB

Hero
As an aside I think gnomes have always been the most problematic race to place in D&D, because they sort of exist in a weird place in-between elves, dwarves and halflings, and have had some trouble fixing an identity (Svirfneblin worked at least). Dark Sun took races and made them into surprising versions of themselves, or new spins (a half dwarf in addition to the old half elf, cannibal halflings, beardless dwarves, etc.) and I suspect that they couldn't come up with anything for gnomes that really worked because what even were 2E gnomes?
I think Eberron has been the most successful at this. Zilargo, with its casual surveillance society, secret police, and ingrained sense of intrigue, feels like a much more unique take on gnomes than I've seen elsewhere, while really playing to their game-mechanical strengths.
 

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top