Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana is Here - and it's all about EBERRON!

Pretty awesome that this series has started

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron

Will Greyhawk or Dragonlance be next??

Probably Dragonlance. Does Greyhawk have any particular crunchy player bits that aren't covered by the PHB already?

 

[Sadrik]

Thank pelor, the artificer as a wizard means likely psion as a sorcerer.

 

[Astrosicebear]

1. Plating won't work in 5e. The 3.5 notion was the warforged just enchanted themselves. Considering how magic items creation works in 5e (IE it doesn't unless the DM wants it to) that wouldn't work. Furthermore: there seemed to be a LOT of warforged running around covered in adamantine and or mithral (I did a story about a serial killer targeting WF; he was an artificer who was stealing their expensive armor) I don't mind warforged wearing armor (or bonding to it) since it really is a simpler way to go.

1b. On that note, I don't mind WF being heal-able. 3.5 WF broke so many rules and required so much rules patching as to be a bother. I much prefer WF be close to normal, even if it doesn't make total sense.

2. Agreed on artificer. The subclass seems fine if you were looking for an artificer on faerun, but not Eberron.

3. Disagreed. Backgrounds would work if and only lf you want Dragonmarks to never grant spells again. Who wouldn't trade in something like "criminal contacts" or "research" for "cast identify 1/day"? Feats are the only place such a power-boost makes sense.

Though the more I look back on it; the more I realize Eberron is mired in 3.5ism. Artificers depend on the 3.5 method of cooking items. Cheap magic for sale. Warforged rely on all manner of feats and prestige classes to work. One whole race doesn't work due to lack of psionics. Deathless, double scimitars, etc. While this hack is good, it lacks what made Eberron unique, and unfortunately, what made it unique was how it took 3.5's assumptions to its natural conclusion; something 5e often-times contradicts.

I'm not sure anything can really recapture those assumptions without MASSIVE additions and changes to 5e.

1. Plating would work fine in 5e. As beings made for war they were crafted to be instruments of destruction. Remember the time of their creation during a world war. So yes it makes sense there were plenty of walking suits of armor, they were the army for a nation. I love the idea of a thief stealing their bodies, thats a plot goldmine right there.

Adamantine plating simply becomes "Heavy Plating" and grants a static AC, no dex bonus, treated as heavy armor and maybe DR 2.

2. Puss case. Id have to really think on that one, but with 5e's lack of crafting, it kinds throws it for a loop. I think it would make an excellent class by itself.

3. Background would grant House Membership. As part of the background an option allows a character to forgo any 1 ability score increase to gain a Least Mark. This can occur then for any character at 1st level and beyond. Marks can be increased by continuing to forgo an ability score increase. Feats are available for this choice as well, with added benefit. Level caps ensure that marks are only acquired at appropriate levels.

So at 1st level I normally get +2 dex and +1 to str or con, lets say. I forgo the Con and take a least mark. At 4th I get +1 to 2 or +2 to one. I take +1 con to offset and forgo another +1 con and move to a lesser mark.

 

[Parmandur]

Mearls has clarified on Twitter that the Changling has no stat ot HP change from changing form, just sensual mimicry.

 

[Zaran]

1. Plating won't work in 5e. The 3.5 notion was the warforged just enchanted themselves. Considering how magic items creation works in 5e (IE it doesn't unless the DM wants it to) that wouldn't work. Furthermore: there seemed to be a LOT of warforged running around covered in adamantine and or mithral (I did a story about a serial killer targeting WF; he was an artificer who was stealing their expensive armor) I don't mind warforged wearing armor (or bonding to it) since it really is a simpler way to go.

1b. On that note, I don't mind WF being heal-able. 3.5 WF broke so many rules and required so much rules patching as to be a bother. I much prefer WF be close to normal, even if it doesn't make total sense.

2. Agreed on artificer. The subclass seems fine if you were looking for an artificer on faerun, but not Eberron.

3. Disagreed. Backgrounds would work if and only lf you want Dragonmarks to never grant spells again. Who wouldn't trade in something like "criminal contacts" or "research" for "cast identify 1/day"? Feats are the only place such a power-boost makes sense.

Though the more I look back on it; the more I realize Eberron is mired in 3.5ism. Artificers depend on the 3.5 method of cooking items. Cheap magic for sale. Warforged rely on all manner of feats and prestige classes to work. One whole race doesn't work due to lack of psionics. Deathless, double scimitars, etc. While this hack is good, it lacks what made Eberron unique, and unfortunately, what made it unique was how it took 3.5's assumptions to its natural conclusion; something 5e often-times contradicts.

I'm not sure anything can really recapture those assumptions without MASSIVE additions and changes to 5e.

The thing is Eberron is all about creating magical items. It should definitely be a HIGH magic setting and there should be a rules module to take care of that sort of thing. 5e was supposed to be about modules and being able to recreate any setting you want and not force everything into the standard ruleset. That is why no one liked the 4e Forgotten Realms. At first I thought they were not going to make that mistake again but then they started bringing Tiamat and Elemental Evil into the Realms.

 

[callinostros]

I liked the article. A lot of stuff I can use.
Major complaints I've seen are...
"I want my free game material to have pictures and look like a paid-for product."
"I wouldn't have done it that way"...and with 5E you can do it your own way. However, for those of us who never got into Eberron and just want new crunch this is an excellent article.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"I want my free game material to have pictures and look like a paid-for product."

I think this isn't as ridiculous as you're suggesting, because with 4E, that was how articles looked, for the most part. The same with print-based Dungeon/Dragons, too. So it's not like it's some sort of wild and crazy "IM SO ENTITLED!" demand. It's more like, there was an expectation of how these things looked, and that expectation was not met.

It's also particularly odd because it seems like WotC have a massive back-catalog of Eberron images, so surely could have used those, even without commissioning new art? Does that cost them anything beyond time for the layout guy? I honestly don't know. I suppose it depends on the terms they negotiated with the artists when the art was originally commissioned.

That said, I also liked the article. It's a good first "moar rules" article for 5E in two regards:

1) The rules fit well with the existing 5E rules-style. There's nothing here that feels "at odds" with how 5E does things. This is not something that was true of some early 4E and 3E stuff (though we shall see if future UA articles are as on-point).

2) The rules seem, well, largely good. One can certainly say "I wouldn't have done it that way...", but I don't think there's anything that stood out as obviously bad/stupid/lazy.

So I think it's reasonable to query the lack of art, but I also think it's a pretty good start. Hopefully future rules are at least as solid as this (the only one I'd instinctively want to change would be the L14 Artificer one, as I think "a month of rest" is hella dull, and I'd prefer that to just be a month in which that ability cannot be used).

 

[DMZ2112]

Full details on the Eberron setting are available in several PDF products available through
dndclassics.com.

Yes! YES! It is happening!

New Wizard Tradition: Artificer

YES!

I think this isn't as ridiculous as you're suggesting, because with 4E, that was how articles looked, for the most part. The same with print-based Dungeon/Dragons, too. So it's not like it's some sort of wild and crazy "IM SO ENTITLED!" demand. It's more like, there was an expectation of how these things looked, and that expectation was not met.

I will admit some disappointment that the text is not more attractive or better formatted, but I do not miss the images. This will be so much more neat and uniform when I print it in cost-effective black and white and put it in a binder.

Yesss... bindersss....

 

[Dausuul]

I really like this. Lots of material here that could easily be ported out of Eberron and adapted to a homebrew world. The artificer would fit just fine into most any setting (though I would have to take a careful look at that Master Artificer ability, that could be troublesome for the kind of low-magic world I like). The dragonmark feat can either be used as is, divorced of its setting connections, or used as a template for other "You gain access to spells X, Y, and Z" feats. Action points, of course, would work anywhere.

The Eberron races are pretty setting-specific, but they do offer some more models for homebrewing.

One thing I wonder: If a feat gives you the ability to cast a spell innately, can you also cast it with spell slots? Based on the innate spellcasting section in the DM's Basic Rules, I think the answer is no; but if it were yes, the dragonmark feats would be huge for spellcasters. Warlocks and sorcerers in particular would benefit immensely from being able to expand their limited spell lists.

 

[Bolares]

I'm going to start DMing in the Eberron Setting and for the problem of Dragonmarks only apearing on the 4th level, what do you think about giving non human races the option of having a feat on the first level, exclusivelly for dragonmarks, as long as they get -1 on two atributes or -2 in one?

ps: sorry for any grammar error, not my native language

 

[Voort]

I'm going to start DMing in the Eberron Setting and for the problem of Dragonmarks only apearing on the 4th level, what do you think about giving non human races the option of having a feat on the first level, exclusivelly for dragonmarks, as long as they get -1 on two atributes or -2 in one?

ps: sorry for any grammar error, not my native language

No worries on the grammar, welcome to the Boards!

As for taking a stat penalty to get the dragonmark feat early, it shouldn't be too disruptive. I'd attach a higher cost if they want an aberrant mark, since it gives more choices on spells.