D&D 5E Eberron versus Multiverse

[Ruin Explorer]

Rule 0 is a thing, so by your logic there, it could literally say Eberron is on the other side of Toril and it wouldn't actually impact my game at the table because I'd say "no it isn't".

You seem to think the Great Wheel and the D&D multiverse are interchangeable. Cool. 5E thinks otherwise. It specifies otherwise. It goes out of its way to do so.

Re connections, that's just a lot of pretty waffle. It is literally without meaning AFAICT so I'm not sure what response you expect. /shrug

My issue is that Eberron was specifically and intentionally created to diverge from a lot of D&D "traditions". Being in a different cosmology was part of that. A profound part of it, actually. 5E claimed to respect and allow for different cosmologies. Indeed, the DMG has a whole big bit on it. They know it matters, even if you imply it doesn't. So by changing this fundamental part of Eberron, seemingly simply to vaguely encourage cross-sales which would likely happen anyway, they're showing that was a hollow sentiment, and this recontextualisation seems significant to me (and them, I would argue - why do something like this otherwise?). Will it to everyone? No. As I said, they could literally say Eberron was on Toril and people here would be defending that and saying just rule 0 it.

 

[ChaosOS]

Side note on Ioun stones, I just rename them to Aureon stones for my games.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Re connections, that's just a lot of pretty waffle. It is literally without meaning AFAICT so I'm not sure what response you expect. /shrug

Pretty much what you responded with. X is supposed to be unique. And WotC's blowing it.

To which I respond with... nothing is unique. That doesn't exist. So your complaints about Eberron are just as much a pretty waffle and literally without meaning AFAICT as my claims are.

The only difference is that I personally don't care that nothing is unique. I don't let it bother me and I just play my game. And all I'm doing is just trying to help my siblings in D&D Multiverse free themselves from the tyranny of thinking D&D and their game/place in it needs to be "special". Because that's a tail none of us can ever catch and you just make yourself miserable when you try to.

Unlearn what you have learned. Eventually you'll thank me for it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

None of that has anything to do with what I'm saying, and all the silly stuff about "unique" and "special" shows you're not understanding the issue, rather than having the profound take you think you do. I've argued with enough LSD-wracked hippies to know when you just have to give up though. Not that you are. But your argument is identical to one. /shrug

 

[MechaTarrasque]

No, when Drizzt shows up in Eberron in D&D the movie III, then you will have grounds to complain about Eberron being destroyed, until then, don't worry about it.

 

[Umbran]

I've argued with enough LSD-wracked hippies to know when you just have to give up though. Not that you are.

Mod Note:

This is like putting a smile at the end of an insult, so you can claim, "I was joking!" That's not good enough.

Be respectful, or just walk away, please and thank you.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It's fine. It's just a way to have crossover stuff or interlopers.

I should point out this is not new. Eberron had a FR crossover years back in the MMO, where Lolth invades Xen'Drik.

 

[Parmandur]

This has happened before and much more egregiously. Planescape doubled down* on the whole "Takhisis lives in the Nine Hells, and the fact that everyone on Krynn believes that she's in the Abyss, including her own worshippers and Raistlin, a guy who actually went there and fought her, just proves they are all dumb, lol."

It wasn't till 3rd edition that Krynn was able to get a cosmology that actually matched the setting, and I'm pretty sure that will be undone if and when it appears in 5th edition.

* I know Takhisis was placed in the Nine Hells earlier, but that contradicted all the 1st edition Dragonlance material, and the Nine Hells placement was done solely because of "oh, she's Lawful Evil, plop her in the Nine Hells".

The strict identity of Takhis and Tiamat is already in the PHB and DMG, so yeah, that will be the case in any Dragonlance revival.

 

[Parmandur]

No, she's not Tiamat. She has nothing in common with Tiamat except a similar avatar. She is based on a deity from Jeff Grubb's home campaign which was based on the original "Chromatic Dragon" (long before the name Tiamat appeared in D&D) but the deity in Dragonlance has never been Tiamat.

The 5E PHB explicitly stated that Takhis is Tiamat. Doesn't have to be that way in your game, but that's the only way WotC is going to go in any Dragonlance product.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The 5E PHB explicitly stated that Takhis is Tiamat. Doesn't have to be that way in your game, but that's the only way WotC is going to go in any Dragonlance product.

I think we should take a step back from the Tiamat = Takhisis argument to get some more perspective.

There have been plenty of hints/innuendo that even when the gods appear on different worlds, they often don't manifest in the exact same ways. Meaning, a god can be worshipped on several different worlds, but because they usually aren't worshiped by the exact same type of people in the exact same way, their aspect/avatar on each world will manifest in different ways.

Meaning, practically Tiamat and Takhisis are the same god; the same way that the god in the Torah and the Bible is technically the "same god." But the worshipers don't really agree they're the same (same in real life), which is why for example they have different names, and interact with the world differently, have different goals.

For example, in Dragonlance, Takhisis' is married to the god Sargonnas, who is not mentioned in a non-Dragonlance world. Tiamat in other worlds is mentioned in a constant rivalry with Bahamat, who is not mentioned in Dragonlance.

So, is the underlying god the same, the one who dwells in the Nine Hells? Sure, I guess she can be the same. But the manifestation on each world is going to be different, so in practical terms they're not the same.

TLDR: Everyone is right, stop arguing.