What the Dorruh are you doing to my Eberron?

[cwhs01]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WotC is all about ^that^

Now profit isn't a bad thing, but there should also be a line where what you create has some value beyond the dollars and cents. What WotC just did is selling out, nothing more, nothing less.

Selling a lot of books would probably indicate that they have value to the people who buy them.
But if you dislike the aesthetics of the new cosmology, fair enough. don't buy the new books.

But as i see it, the changes are all being made to improve accesability and usability for new and old gms, and new and old players. And also to ensure that the new books are inclusive and usable without a library of 3e books.
Which i find is a fairly reasonable design goal.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Eberron is the place that was different. A different take on orcs, elves, alignment, the planes, gods....

I've played an eberron campaign for a few years now. Very cool and (sometimes) very different from other more standard dnd worlds. But While there have been some references to the planes, it wouldn't have mattered much if our gm had used another cosmology. As i see it the cosmology is not the important or defining feature in eberron.
IMO eberron flavour is best described as high fantasy pulp, with low(ish) fantasy heroes. The specific Cosmology is slightly unimportant (but not entirely ofcourse) background fluff.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Beyond the fact this isnt really news, it's something they mentioned a bit back...honestly nothing much has changed.

Some points on the map now point to specific subplanes. (Which, I might remind people, can be cut off from the rest of the plane anyways) Most of them also have Eberron specific names. Beyond that they're still essentially the same. Keith Baker's even commented on how it's not really that different, though for the life of me I cant find it anymore. The orrery still works; the various realms shift closer and farther in an intricate cycle that can affect Eberron itself. Beyond the EXACT location on the planar map, the actual realms themselves are the same.

 

[vagabundo]

Allowing players and DMs to use their purchased books in any of the campaign settings is a goal to be lauded IMO.

I mean, it is up to the DM and player to own their campaign; if they wish to use the Aerialist Rogue from Martial Power with the Goliath from PHBII in the soon-to-be-released 4e Dark Sun setting, then the campaign material should have information on what their role could be in the world. It is a simple enough fix to eliminate these races, your DM just says, "No there are no Goliaths in Dark Sun".

Allowing a DM to easily integrate the material from the MotP in Eberron Cosmology to its planes is a good thing.

My 2c's anyway.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Let's keep it civil, folks. It's fine to disagree with the direction of the change, but when it starts toeing the line to insults, that's where we draw the line.
-Kid Charlemagne, ENWorld Mod

 

[Jhaelen]

Frankly, what bothers me is that they had to reinvent planar cosmology for 4E. It isn't as though the previous version somehow needed fixing.

Well, for me the 4E cosmology is like a 'best-of' version of the old cosmologies. It adapts concepts that have proven successful and creates a framework that can easily incorporate the (slightly) different variants we've seen in the different 3E settings.

 

[Khairn]

I'm an FR fan who believes that WotC seriously mangled that setting when they converted it to 4E. And after seeing that hack job WotC did, I felt justifiably worried that they would do the same to Eberron. But so far, the official statements imply that will not be the case. Despite the small changes the OP is talking about I'm still cautiously optimistic that Eberron will still be recognizable when they are done.

Having said that, homogenizing the cosmology of 4E settings does nothing to improve their individual flavor. Yes it may result in better sales of planar books, but it can also make those books quite bland.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, I was thinking Nomad from the Original Star Trek.

I knew that! Do I get a cookie?

 

[hexgrid]

I've been out of the loop since 4E came out, so can someone clarify for me: does this mean that if I run an interplanar campaign I can have my players travel from FR and into Eberron without defying the core cosmological themes of each setting?

This has only been slighty been hinted at in the MotP- if you travel far enough in the Astral Sea, you might arrive at the Astral Dominions of other worlds.

Comparing the FRCG and the MotP, though, it appears that each campaign setting uses it's own customized implementation of the World Axis cosmology, and isn't meant to correspond exactly to any other setting's version of it.

 

[hexgrid]

This is highly possible... WotC has already said players will be able to use any player-oriented option in any book in any campaign setting.

They did not say this. They said that any book would have material useable in any D&D campaign (which has always been the case, even if not explicitly stated.) As always, it's up to the DM to decide what exists in a campaign.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I have to agree with the sentiment of: why have seperate settings if they're all going to be the same?

yes, they want to sell more books, but why couldn't they write some of those books to be more like tool kits instead of "this is the way it is".

Manual of the Planes could have been 60-70% all about the default cosmology, and the remainder being all about making your own, integrating the core into other settings, and brief examples of the other setting's cosmologies. Why would that have been so bad?

The design philosophy just seem so restrictive. I mean, they're constraining their own creativity by limiting themselves to these "core concepts" only.