D&D 5E Eberron: Rising from the Last War Coming For D&D In November

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

​

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:

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

 

[Parmandur]

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.

 

[Emirikol Prime]

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.)

 

[Remathilis]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Plamodu978]

What happen to warforged on the cover?
He looks like Karn(mtg),and why he wield a razor?
what the Xucking happen to warforged??

 

[Staffan]

Why are there 13 of you?

It's an Eberron thread. One of them is gone.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Paul Farquhar]

“Greyhawk is perfectly capable of not breaking if they add gnomes,

Has Greyhawk ever not had gnomes? I mean, they where a player race in the 1st edition PHB, at the time when every published module was located in Greyhawk.

Mystara may have not had gnomes at some point.