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?

 

[hbarsquared]

Initial thoughts:

Although I like the consideration - nothing really I haven't done already myself. My own personal versions of shifter, warforged, and dragonmarks are pretty close. I'll agree when it comes to ability bonuses for the races: not on par with PHB races.

And Dragonmarks as Feats: I'm totally fine. Eberron strikes me as a setting where one could/should give everyone an extra, free feat at 1st-level. How 'bout that? Not incredibly unbalancing, flavorful for an action-packed, pulp noir setting, and gives players a choice of a dragonmark at character creation - or not!

 

[Goemoe]

Thanks to Wotc!

Unearthed Arcana is a great way to do the trick. Even if this means, we won't get a real book for Eberron Not so good for people new to this setting, but good enough for fans.

- The races are a good start. I still miss my flying shifter, but this will be easy to houserule. Good job. 8/10
- The artificer look meh... skipping a spell slot for crafting a potion? really, how many potions would exist this way? Infusing anything for a spell slot? Where is the winning part of this subclass? This artificer won't get into my campaign for sure. 1/10
- The dragonmarks look nice. One feat to do them all is an interesting attempt. Will habe to look closer, but feels great. I don't like the part with the material component. This does not feel dragonmark like. Anyway 8/10

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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....

When I think about binders I want to cut myself, frankly!

I never enjoyed maintaining them, and they were always annoyingly bulky, prone to breaking (esp. if clumsy players get involved), prone to sheets going missing or getting ruined or re-ordered, and generally an annoyance.

Working in my current job with tons of what are, effectively aggrandized rules-binders, I can see that these problems are not unique to role-playing games. It's no wonder we're moving digital with as much of this stuff as we possibly can.

So yeah, I think if you enjoy the physicality and rituals and so on involved with binders, good for you, but that's a good illustration of why I'm really disappointed that 5E has been a complete, total, unmitigated failure on the digital front (ironic, given the older books are being busily digitized!).

 

[AverageCitizen]

I am a fan of Eberron but this document has left me disappointed, and worried. This feels like leftovers from the play test. Leftovers which they didn't even bother to update to match the final rules. That is disappointing alone, not to mention the violence this does to the setting with the conceptual changes to the artificer and the changelings.

There are some things in here with merit, but to me the whole document is worryingly low-effort. Some of you are relieved they broke the radio silence, and some of you are calling this a play test, but to me it seems like a death-rattle. I think they want to deliver on promises for free continued support, but they aren't being allowed to put any worthwhile effort into it.

 

[DMZ2112]

When I think about binders I want to cut myself, frankly!

Then to you, Lady Grantham, I say good day!

I never enjoyed maintaining them, and they were always annoyingly bulky, prone to breaking (esp. if clumsy players get involved), prone to sheets going missing or getting ruined or re-ordered, and generally an annoyance.

You let your players touch things? You don't know where they've been!

Working in my current job with tons of what are, effectively aggrandized rules-binders, I can see that these problems are not unique to role-playing games. It's no wonder we're moving digital with as much of this stuff as we possibly can.

I will agree with you on this. Binders and paper for work are always bad news. It's like harnessing a kitten to a tiny oxcart and making it work for food.

So yeah, I think if you enjoy the physicality and rituals and so on involved with binders, good for you, but that's a good illustration of why I'm really disappointed that 5E has been a complete, total, unmitigated failure on the digital front (ironic, given the older books are being busily digitized!).

Really? Three synonymous adjectives? The whole ruleset is available for free online, in both PDF and hypertext formats. I am /surprised/ we don't have digital versions of the core books in 2015, because admittedly that is now status quo for the industry, but three synonymous adjectives? Come on. This is not a three synonymous adjective problem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Really? Three synonymous adjectives? The whole ruleset is available for free online, in both PDF and hypertext formats. I am /surprised/ we don't have digital versions of the core books in 2015, because admittedly that is now status quo for the industry, but three synonymous adjectives? Come on. This is not a three synonymous adjective problem.

I fear it is, sir!

(Unless I missed something, the "whole" as in "in the PHB/DMG" ruleset isn't available in PDF/HTML, only the "basic" ruleset, right? Not trying to argue just have been away!)

4E's digital stuff had a ton of problems initially, but they did manage a reliable digital offering eventually, which should (theoretically) have lead to easily doing a similar thing for 5E.

Failing that, y'know, PDFs or similar would be a decent offering.

Failing that, having some kind of digital stuff at least IN DEVELOPMENT would be something.

But we've had a triple-fail here! First they ditched all the 4E DDI developed stuff and the developers involved, so avoided the easiest route. Then they have refused to do PDFs or similar (despite early, admittedly super-vague suggestions they would) which would also be EZ. Then Morningstar was somehow a failure and got canned, and not only failed in WotC's eyes, but then attempts a Kickstarter which also failed, showing it'd sorely failed in the eyes of fans, too (quad-fail?) AND, as "the final insult", the Morningstar people SWITCHED TO PATHFINDER!

Given this level of serious fail, of intentionally doing things the hardest possible way then screwing them up, I have to say, I believe triple-synonym is totally on point and not excessive.

What's really sad is, getting a basic functional, attractive (in a simple way) character builder and monster builder out there is not hard (much like 4E's stuff but maybe even more basic), and would barely set WotC back six digits, and could be charged for, and pay for itself, in like, a month, if that. Just no insane decisions like 4E's Silverlight. I mean man what.

 

[Gecko85]

Then Morningstar was somehow a failure and got canned, and not only failed in WotC's eyes, but then attempts a Kickstarter which also failed, showing it'd sorely failed in the eyes of fans, too (quad-fail?) AND, as "the final insult", the Morningstar people SWITCHED TO PATHFINDER!

How on earth is that "the final insult"? If WotC got frustrated with Morningstar, thought it was a POS, and the general public on Kickstarter thought it was a POS so didn't fund it, how is them taking their POS that nobody wants to Pathfinder "the final insult"?

 

[dream66_]

I think a good way of putting it is that while this document has an artificer, it doesn't have the artificer. It feels a lot closer to the 2e wizard specialization than to 3e's buffer/construct-focused caster.

But then again, a lot of the things the 3e artificer did are things 5e doesn't want PCs to do. It had a lot of buffs (flavored as making temporary magic items - the artificer didn't cast shield of faith on his buddy, he cast it on his buddy's bracelet instead, turning it into a bracelet of protection +x), but 5e limits buffs through the use of Concentration rules. It was better at crafting magic items, getting a pool of bonus XP to spend on making them, getting item creation feats for free, and additional feats that could be used to reduce time and cost for making them - but 5e strongly discourages PCs making magic items. That makes the artificer a very hard class to capture in 5e - potentially impossible.

I honestly agree with you, and I think that's the biggest problem. For as much as we heard in the playtest about how flexible 5e would be and how rules modules would allow you to make it your game and feel like any edition, it's really the most locked down of certain types of play just aren't allowed in 5e.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I honestly agree with you, and I think that's the biggest problem. For as much as we heard in the playtest about how flexible 5e would be and how rules modules would allow you to make it your game and feel like any edition, it's really the most locked down of certain types of play just aren't allowed in 5e.

I agree with this. I do think it is possible, but you'd have to change some of the assumptions in the DMG and opt for the variants. Which is why it would take more effort than this afterthought.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Dragonmarked people should just be presented as Eberron-specific racial variants. We have the drow as a good example of a subrace with evolving spellcasting ability. It can be done and balanced, and it would be much better than the solution they presented.