5.5E Pure Speculation: Eberron Adventure Revisit in 2024?

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Alright, so call me an addict, but the discussion about the new Background Feats coming in the new Dragonlance Adventure has set me to thinking about the 2024 Classic Setting "Revisit" product of a Setting already in 5E.

Now, we know per Ray Winninger, inveterate tease that he is, that WotC are planning on revisiting a Setting in 2024, coinciding with both the 50th anniversary of the game amd the new rules revision currently being worked on. Now, the three contenders for this, as worked out in various other threads, are the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk (maybe, depending in if Ghosts of Saltmarsh counts as an initial visit), and Eberron.

Generally, speculation nuts have been dismissive of Eberron, and focused on the Forgotten Realms (which is never surprising for WotC to revisit) or Greyhawk (which would legitimately be a great 50th anniversary product), and I think those are still both highly likely to be what Winninger is teasing at.

But what if it is Eberron?

Now, another Rising from the Last War overview book doesn't seem like a good bet, given that WotC folks swear up and down that compatibility is going to be maintained with the rules revision, and most of Rising from the Last War is edition or even system proof anyways. Similarly, a Spelljammer style slipcase doesn't seem too likely.

But what about an Adventure like Shadow of the Dragon Queen that plays nice with Rising from the Last War, with a bit of Setting crunch to bring Eberron fully into line with the Monsters of the Multiverse and Tasha way of doing business?

Monsters of the Multiverse contains the Races that WotC has designated as non-Setting specific, that can fit in just about anywhere. So, no Kender there, but Kender will be in Shadow of the Dragon Queen. Shifters and Changelings are in MotM and updated for bew rules, but not the much more Setting specific Warforged and Kalashtar. Perhaps an Adventure would be a good place to re-introduce them with updated rules, and then there is the big elephant in the room.

Dragonmarks. Currently, they are using the Subrace mechanic. Subraces are on the way out, however, and Geat chains are in the way back in, which is how they were handled in 3E and 4E.

Could an Adventure set in Sarlona or Xen'drik, for example, be a good place to reintroduce Dragonmarks as Background Geats, that lead to further Feats at 4th Level? Similarly, would Background Feats and Feat chains be a good way to double down on Warforged uniquenesses, by providing specific Backgrounds and Feats designed around their one of a kind origin story? And perhaps would this make more sense than Greyhawk or the Realms, who would mostly benefit from the new Core rules updates?

I'm still pulling for Team Greyhawk, but now I'm starting to see a case here.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


delericho

Legend
Technically, I think the revisit could also be to Spelljammer or Dragonlance - although they hadn't been visited at the time he said that, I don't think he actually specified that that was the case. And Ravenloft, of course. That said, were I a betting man, my money would be on either FR or (less likely) GH.

That said, an Eberron adventure may at this stage be the one thing WotC might be able to sell me other than the new core rulebooks (and even those are doubtful), so it would be no bad thing.

(And having said that, I really don't like the idea of DL's "free feats" becoming a standard part of the game, especially at 1st level. So if that becomes the way Dragonmarks are to be handled, I would find that... unfortunate.)
 



Parmandur

Book-Friend
Technically, I think the revisit could also be to Spelljammer or Dragonlance - although they hadn't been visited at the time he said that, I don't think he actually specified that that was the case. And Ravenloft, of course. That said, were I a betting man, my money would be on either FR or (less likely) GH.
The tease was during the build up for Van Richten's Guide, so while technically possible,, I tend to doubt it. Greyhawk still feels most likely to me, as a marketing flex of "behold this classic game," but time will tell.
And having said that, I really don't like the idea of DL's "free feats" becoming a standard part of the game, especially at 1st level. So if that becomes the way Dragonmarks are to be handled, I would find that... unfortunate.
I hate Feats, having started with 3E. In fact, I would have been happy to see them cut from the PHB along with multi-classing to make room for rules I actually use. But the Background Feature extension, with clear development tress after that? I'm digging it, and I think it will be core in the future.
 
Last edited:

delericho

Legend
I hate Feats, having started with 3E.

I was surprised how much I like 5e's approach to feats - rare, pretty powerful, but above all an optional subsystem for players to buy into once they're more experienced.

In fact, I would have been happy to see them cut from the PHB along with multi-classing to make room for rules I actually use.

I agree with you on multi-classing, though. I'd like to see a few added classes to fill in some gaps, and then remove it.

But the Background Feature extension, with clear development tress after that? I'm digging it, and I think it will be core in the future.

I'm pretty sure it will be core, alas.

My problems with it are two-fold. Firstly, it makes feats non-optional, and adds an additional step to ramp-up for new players. That could be easily avoided by moving the free feat to a higher level, of course - especially if they then give a choice of free feat.

But the main thing I don't like about it is that the feat is instantly, and by far, the most desirable part of a background. In times past, we had players choosing their race for the optimum ability mods for their class, ignoring all other considerations (and we had an elf for every class, of course); now we'll have people picking their background solely for the feat. And that's a real shame - if backgrounds are fairly unimportant they players can mix-and-match combinations because they're fun, and so we wonder just how that Guild Artisan (baker) went on to become a Monk, and instead almost every Monk will be drawn from a narrow handful of backgrounds selected for the singular, over-riding benefit.

That's a real shame, IMO.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I was surprised how much I like 5e's approach to feats - rare, pretty powerful, but above all an optional subsystem for players to buy into once they're more experienced.



I agree with you on multi-classing, though. I'd like to see a few added classes to fill in some gaps, and then remove it.



I'm pretty sure it will be core, alas.

My problems with it are two-fold. Firstly, it makes feats non-optional, and adds an additional step to ramp-up for new players. That could be easily avoided by moving the free feat to a higher level, of course - especially if they then give a choice of free feat.

But the main thing I don't like about it is that the feat is instantly, and by far, the most desirable part of a background. In times past, we had players choosing their race for the optimum ability mods for their class, ignoring all other considerations (and we had an elf for every class, of course); now we'll have people picking their background solely for the feat. And that's a real shame - if backgrounds are fairly unimportant they players can mix-and-match combinations because they're fun, and so we wonder just how that Guild Artisan (baker) went on to become a Monk, and instead almost every Monk will be drawn from a narrow handful of backgrounds selected for the singular, over-riding benefit.

That's a real shame, IMO.
I get what you are saying. The Dragonlance test, though, does seem to indicate how this might be avoided: by making the Feat fungible, just as Background Features are currently. The rules might say that a Criminal Background usually gives the Dungeon Delver Feat for free...but Feats are transferrable, and maybe a player could swap out an alternate desired Feat if they have a story for it and DM approval. That would let WotC R&D have their cake and eat it, too: players are given straightforward narrative reasons to go with the flow for the normal Background and Feat for their build ("Ok, I'm a Rogue, they suggest Criminal, that gives me Dungeon Delver, that al makes sense, let's go!") while allowing for people who want to tinker and get creative without breaking anything really ( I also expect the pool of Feats in the rules revision to be more well tuned than the already pretty good 5E core Feats were).

There is a lot of potential here. It would allow for Background to essentially recreate the Prestige Class design space while avoid a lot of the flaws from the 3E implementation, and even to replace Multiclassing. instead of doing a "Fighter Dip," take the Soldier background and get a Fighting style at Level 1, and take advantage of some Level 4 Feats. The limited trees also opens up space for some more interesting Feats, within reason.

Heck, eventually I could see mid-level Themes make a comeback, and even Epic Destinies...

There is potential here.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I agree with you on multi-classing, though. I'd like to see a few added classes to fill in some gaps, and then remove it.
Our of curiosity, what if multiclassing was replaced with class-neutral subclasses that get at the point of each base class (ie a MC rogue subclass)?

and/or multiclassing feats that let you grab things like a couple sneak attack dice or a single use of action surge, that you could also take as a rogue or fighter, diving deeper into their classes thing? Basically a big expansion of the feats we already have that do this, both to cover more class features and with follow-up feat options go a little beyond the surface level?
 

delericho

Legend
Our of curiosity, what if multiclassing was replaced with class-neutral subclasses that get at the point of each base class (ie a MC rogue subclass)?

I have no objection in principle. The only difficulty I see is one of balance - since different classes get their subclass features at different times, class-neutral subclasses could be tricky to implement.

and/or multiclassing feats that let you grab things like a couple sneak attack dice or a single use of action surge, that you could also take as a rogue or fighter, diving deeper into their classes thing? Basically a big expansion of the feats we already have that do this, both to cover more class features and with follow-up feat options go a little beyond the surface level?

I think these would be an even better idea. Again, there's a possible balance issue if this allows the Fighter to get an additional Action Surge or the Rogue extra Sneak Attack dice, but that can be checked in playtest.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Our of curiosity, what if multiclassing was replaced with class-neutral subclasses that get at the point of each base class (ie a MC rogue subclass)?

and/or multiclassing feats that let you grab things like a couple sneak attack dice or a single use of action surge, that you could also take as a rogue or fighter, diving deeper into their classes thing? Basically a big expansion of the feats we already have that do this, both to cover more class features and with follow-up feat options go a little beyond the surface level?
I think a Feat tree for Multivlassing would work as is, but Class agnostic archetypes would probably require a retinkering of all the Classes involved to provide compatible hooks. Thst would be awesome, though.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I have no objection in principle. The only difficulty I see is one of balance - since different classes get their subclass features at different times, class-neutral subclasses could be tricky to implement.
Yeah, I think it’s not too hard to work around, but the UA multiple class subclasses for Stryxhaven were a bit awkward. Would need iteration to know for sure if it would work.
I think these would be an even better idea. Again, there's a possible balance issue if this allows the Fighter to get an additional Action Surge or the Rogue extra Sneak Attack dice, but that can be checked in playtest.
For sure. I think 5e is a little more balanced than it even needs to be, but I know the feeling of balance is also very important.

My biggest worry would be those feats being effectively a feat tax for their parent class.

The best part would be, a group like mine that wants maximum customization could just use all three, and a group that doesn’t like peanut butter in their chocolate can use none.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I think a Feat tree for Multivlassing would work as is, but Class agnostic archetypes would probably require a retinkering of all the Classes involved to provide compatible hooks. Thst would be awesome, though.
Yeah I think you could work something out with tiers and “when your class gains it’s first subclass feature, you gain the following features”, when your class gains a subclass feature after level 4, you gain these features”, etc, but playtesting would be required to see if I’m right.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Yeah I think you could work something out with tiers and “when your class gains it’s first subclass feature, you gain the following features”, when your class gains a subclass feature after level 4, you gain these features”, etc, but playtesting would be required to see if I’m right.
It's definitely doable, but it would take some design work and iteration.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It's definitely doable, but it would take some design work and iteration.
Yeah absolutely. If I wasn’t building a whole game, I might undertake it myself!

But tbh new classes are easier. I still need to finish my half dozen alternate/additional classes that help flesh out the setting I keep in mind while building.
 

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
Sorry, late to the discussion hear.

I'll be honest, my gut says "no." And the primary reason is simply that I think Keith Baker is making plenty of Eberron content on his own.

It just feels like a revisit that doesn't need to happen, as KB Presents is quite happy to keep publishing Eberron content from the mind of it's creator. I feel like the D&D Team likes to create content they haven't done before, or stretches boundaries in some way, and an Eberron revisit seems antithetical to that approach.

That said, I haven't thought about the "setting revisit" in a long time so don't know who is the best target. Probably FR, to my chagrin.
 
Last edited:


Parmandur

Book-Friend
Sorry, late to the discussion hear.

I'll be honest, my gut says "no." And the primary reason is simply that I don't think Keith Baker is making plenty of Eberron content on his own.

It just feels like a revisit that doesn't need to happen, as KB Presents is quite happy to keep publishing Eberron content from the mind of it's creator. I feel like the D&D Team likes to create content they haven't done before, or stretches boundaries in some way, and an Eberron revisit seems antithetical to that approach.

That said, I haven't thought about the "setting revisit" in a long time so don't know who is the best target. Probably FR, to my chagrin.
Oke of the main reasons it occur3d to me was that the Eberron Rave options not touched in Monsters of the Multiverse actually account for over half of the remaining 5E published Rave options. Updating the Warforged, the Kalashtsr, and the 12 Drgonmarked options to fit current design paradigms seems worth a revisit, and an Adventure in a Gonazo Pulp area of Eberron would allow them to do something a little different than somewhere else without retreading Korvaire.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top