D&D 5E Exploring Eberron: Now Available!

Eberron creator Keith Baker’s Exploring Eberron, with new races, subclasses, monsters, and tons of setting information is now available in PDF format!

Also, Keith will be on the Morrus’ Unofficial Tabletop RPG Talk podcast in a couple of weeks with a great competition to give away three hardcovers! Be sure to brush up on your Eberron lore!

Discover Uncharted Depths

Join Eberron setting creator Keith Baker in this tour through the lands, oceans, and planes of Eberron. Exploring Eberron presents Keith's vision of Eberron like never before, with fresh lore and rich illustrations to bring the setting to life.

In this book, Keith takes players and Dungeon masters on a thrilling dive into Eberron and its thirteen planes. Encounter the monstrous folk of Droaam, the goblinoid Heirs of Dhakaan, the Mror dwarves and their Realm Below, and the sahuagin and merfolk dwelling beneath the waves. Embrace faiths of altruism, pragmatism, and darkness. Browse Dolurrh's Vault of Memories, seek the Amaranthine Cities of Irian and Mabar, meditate with the Gith monks of Kythri, and much more.

The adventure won't be easy! Mighty friends and foes await - from legendary archfey and proud sahuagin to nightmarish quori and alien daelkyr. Eberron is a world in need of heroes, but take heart: between these pages lie a host of player options for would-be heroes to enjoy. You'll discover new archetypes for the artificer, cleric, druid, monk, and bard. Play unique Eberron races and subraces including gnolls, Dhakaani goblinoids, aasimar of diverse faiths, and ruinbound dwarves. Uncover a wealth of magic items from around the world, bear symbionts that bond with your very flesh, wield dragonmark focus items - perhaps even manifest a Siberys dragonmark of immense power.

FAQ
New FAQ by Keith on his blog

Q: What is Exploring Eberron?

A: Exploring Eberron (ExE) is a 248 page book written by Keith Baker stuffed with new lore, giving depth to topics such as the dwarves of the Mror Holds and the 13 planes.

Production
Q: Where will ExE be sold? What formats? When will it be available?

A: ExE is available exclusively on the dmsguild in hardcover and pdf

Q: Will ExE be available on DnDBeyond?

A: Without the intervention of Wizards of the Coast, the dmsguild has the sole licensing rights to third party Eberron content. If you're upset about this, tweet at them

Q: Did I miss out on a kickstarter or something? Are there preorders?

A: The dmsguild does not allow kickstarted products nor does it have the infrastructure for preorders.

Q: Didn't I hear about this book months ago? What happened?

A: Uh, life happened. Exploring Eberron ran into a variety of production issues, as detailed here and here. A combination of personal issues in Keith's life, prioritizing more urgent projects like the Adventure Zone card game, and COVID have delayed the book significantly.

Content
Q: What's in the book?

A: You can check out the table of contents, a scroll-through preview by Sly Flourish, and a variety of previews from the book's production. The first 200 pages are dedicated almost exclusively to new lore, then chapters 6, 7, and 8 provide new mechanical content for both players and DMs.

Q: There's mechanical content? Is it balanced?

A: The production team has had an extensive team of playtesters review the material on a variety of metrics, including balance.

If you want to know more about Eberron, please check out /r/Eberron, the discord, Keith's blog, and the Manifest Zone podcast. There's even a brand new episode dedicated to the book!

Reviews

Sly Flourish
Todd Talks
Merric's Musings: Part 1
All Things Lich
Dungeon Mapster of None
The Mania
411 Mania
The Tome Show
Total Party Thrill

 

[Hellcow]

So, does this mean we shouldn't expect to see a true "Planes of Eberron" or "Dhakaani Goblins" book?

I could easily imagine a deeper Planes of Eberron book with more concrete details, creatures, locations, etc. It’s a question of whether there’s interest out there. The success of and reaction to Exploring Eberron will be crucial in determining what I do next.

 

[dave2008]

But techincally Fernia and Risia are safer than going underwater too. Just because it’s the plane of Death doesn’t mean it has to kill you within minutes. Why can’t it kill you within days instead? That way you allow for counterplay from the players. Maybe they find something to protect them, or even that they get to rest and prepare protection magic.

I would give the players permanent and non-spell underwater survival if they went deep down underwater. And/or there should be a safe haven in the destination where they can survive without protection.

I get it that it sounds logical that the planar manifestation of Death should kill living creatures, but I just don’t think the rules in the book create a fun play experience at the table.

Edit: I would use something like the published Mabar traits in a specifically deadly location within the plane, rather than having them dominate most of it.

Hmm, it just seems like you are coming up with excuses. Why shouldn't the deadliest place in existence be, well, deadly? If you want adventurers to go their there are multiple ways to make it happen. It even has a built in safe-haven. But it should not be generally welcoming to mortals.

Personally, I find this kind of challenge and tension creates some of the best play experiences. I've never taken my players to Mabar, but I've achieved a similar threat of constant death in underwater adventures before. It is even better when the PCs have a method they think makes them safe, and then you show them how wrong they are!!!

 

[dave2008]

I could easily imagine a deeper Planes of Eberron book with more concrete details, creatures, locations, etc. It’s a question of whether there’s interest out there. The success of and reaction to Exploring Eberron will be crucial in determining what I do next.

Well I hope it is successful and we see more of your work soon. We don't play in Eberron, but I find the story and lore of the setting interesting and well done. I will be using some of the ideas in my own campaigns. I think a deeper dive into the planes with a significant monster / NPC section would be very useful beyond Eberron as well.

PS I have the PDF in my cart, just waiting to see how the month shakes out before I purchase.

 

[Teemu]

Hmm, it just seems like you are coming up with excuses. Why shouldn't the deadliest place in existence be, well, deadly? If you want adventurers to go their there are multiple ways to make it happen. It even has a built in safe-haven. But it should not be generally welcoming to mortals.

Personally, I find this kind of challenge and tension creates some of the best play experiences. I've never taken my players to Mabar, but I've achieved a similar threat of constant death in underwater adventures before. It is even better when the PCs have a method they think makes them safe, and then you show them how wrong they are!!!

I was commenting on the logic that because Mabar is the plane of Death it should be more dangerous than just going underwater. In that case shouldn’t the plane of fire be more dangerous than going below the waves when it is not?

I liked the idea of the Irian vessel that protects the party. The rules as presented in the book are a little too deadly and binary, and if the occasion to head to Mabar comes up in the game, I’ll probably restrict similar deadly effects to certain regions of the plane.

Something like the Irian vessel for Mabar and an underwater elemental vessel are more fun in play because they allow for degrees of tension. What if the vessel takes damage? Or it attracts unwanted attention? Or you need to maintain it? Having to resort to, say, rings of necrotic resistance removes all tension—if you can simply ignore the deadliest trait of Mabar in order to even go there, it’s actually not deadly at all once you adventure there. How is it dangerous when you’re immune to the main source of danger? That’s why the Irian vessel concept, or something along those lines, is cool because it could actually allow for the risk of failure. Ultimately I’d go for something less deadly so that the characters could actually have to interact with the threat in a meaningful way (instead of just becoming immune).

 

[Marandahir]

Nevertheless, my statement stands.

I think @Marandahir 's point is that WotC concept of Eberron and KB concept of Eberron (as expressed in this book) don't 100% align. As he already noted they have two different versions of the same elf. So you may believe that KB's version is the official one, but the "offical" owner of D&D doesn't agree. Personally, I'm with you and take the author's version before the corporation's version. Though I will freely mix and match if I want.

For what it's worth, I agree with both of you. I was being a bit of a pedant.

What I love about this new model is that WotC doesn't have to spend any more time on Eberron - Keith and the Guild will churn out the content for them, and they still get a cut. Keith gets to write what he wants to write about Eberron, WotC gets to profit, and we all get more Eberron goodness without WotC cutting time away from devving content for other settings/mechanics.

 

[dave2008]

I was commenting on the logic that because Mabar is the plane of Death it should be more dangerous than just going underwater. In that case shouldn’t the plane of fire be more dangerous than going below the waves when it is not?

Of course it doesn't need to follow your logic - it is fantasy after all.

I liked the idea of the Irian vessel that protects the party. The rules as presented in the book are a little too deadly and binary, and if the occasion to head to Mabar comes up in the game, I’ll probably restrict similar deadly effects to certain regions of the plane.

As do I. That is essential what I did with my underwater adventure. But it works because what is outside is absolutely deadly. I think that is why the deadliness is great too. Also, you seem to continue to ignore that there is a part that is not deadly. Why do the hinterlands never figure in your responses. You as for a less deadly place and it is given, but you continue to ignore it.

It is fine to like what you like and if this was an official WotC supplement I bet they would make it less deadly. But I am glad it is not. I am glad I have it from the author of the setting that this is the amount of deadliness that he intends for this plane. If I as a DM want to change that or find a path around it - great. But I am interested in what the author intended and now we have it. What you or I think is kinda irrelevant IMO. We can always do what we want in our own games, but for a published product I want it to be faithful to what the author wants, not what I want.

 

[Weiley31]

I really like the Forge Adept. Especially incorporating the lore of it for my Fighter Battle Master. I'm pretty much jacking all the Dakhanni lore for my non-Eberron games I now want to do a Forge Adept character whose main motivator is seeking out "somebody" that would be "worthy" to inherit the greatest Ghaal'Shaarat the Forge Adept has ever created.

 

[Marandahir]

I too like the Forge Adept, but for a different reason: it essentially confirms that the Artificer killed the Swordmage and took its stuff.

I say, good! This is the most elegant and natural way to build an arcane halfcaster warrior. Every take I've ever seen on Swordmage/Battlemage/Bladesinger/Spellsword/Eldritch Knight as a full 5e class have felt like the lore couldn't justify why this wasn't a Fighter, a Wizard, or even a Ranger, Warlock, or Paladin. Furthermore, the arcane gish concept has struggled with name and concept for ever. If it's a Swordmage, why can I use an axe or lance just as well to do my stuff? If I can't, why the restriction to swords, narratively speaking? Is it just to satisfy a fun name?

This backdoor way of getting to Arcane Gish through Artificer justifies the all important why and how questions. They're arcane gish because they make and enchant their own weapons and armor. They can use wizard-like spells because they're magical inventors, battles tacticians, magitech engineers.

I can totally see future weapons-oriented Artificer subclasses exploring other aspects of the Swordmage concept, such as the magical aegis. This definitely captures the "enchanting weapon" and "magic channelling" concepts, though!

Meanwhile, the Maverick is an ingenious take on the Bard's typical territory - the jack of all trades, master of none, but instead of being the musical theatre student who can't pick a lane, they're the math & science student who can't seem to specialize. Brilliant! Might even pull me from the Bard class for the first time to play an Artificer instead for my favourite character concept.

 

[MarkB]

Just skimming the book so far. I like the Circle of the Forged - looking forward to playing a warforged who can transform into a robot dinosaur.

 

[Weiley31]

I too like the Forge Adept, but for a different reason: it essentially confirms that the Artificer killed the Swordmage and took its stuff.

I say, good! This is the most elegant and natural way to build an arcane halfcaster warrior. Every take I've ever seen on Swordmage/Battlemage/Bladesinger/Spellsword/Eldritch Knight as a full 5e class have felt like the lore couldn't justify why this wasn't a Fighter, a Wizard, or even a Ranger, Warlock, or Paladin. Furthermore, the arcane gish concept has struggled with name and concept for ever. If it's a Swordmage, why can I use an axe or lance just as well to do my stuff? If I can't, why the restriction to swords, narratively speaking? Is it just to satisfy a fun name?

This backdoor way of getting to Arcane Gish through Artificer justifies the all important why and how questions. They're arcane gish because they make and enchant their own weapons and armor. They can use wizard-like spells because they're magical inventors, battles tacticians, magitech engineers.

I can totally see future weapons-oriented Artificer subclasses exploring other aspects of the Swordmage concept, such as the magical aegis. This definitely captures the "enchanting weapon" and "magic channelling" concepts, though!

Meanwhile, the Maverick is an ingenious take on the Bard's typical territory - the jack of all trades, master of none, but instead of being the musical theatre student who can't pick a lane, they're the math & science student who can't seem to specialize. Brilliant! Might even pull me from the Bard class for the first time to play an Artificer instead for my favourite character concept.

That's a very interesting way of viewing it. For some reason, I like the Forge Adept bonus spells being used for the Battlesmith as well. But really that's a very interesting point about the Gish.