Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Edymnion 08-16-07, 12:30 PM	With the official announcement of 4th Edition seemingly right around the corner (as in, a matter of hours), and the screenshots of the 4e forums that got leaked, it brings up an interesting question. Keith, have you been approached to do work on the 4e Eberron Campaign Setting book?
Nived 08-16-07, 12:31 PM	Could be awhile before you get an answer Edy, he's probably in or on his way to Indy for GenCon right now. He's likely under an NDA anyway.
N3palm 08-16-07, 12:35 PM	The 4th Edition isn't really thát interesting is it, its just adjustment and adding to the rules isnt it?
Sigurd van Norhusen 08-16-07, 12:42 PM	The 4th Edition isn't really thát interesting is it, its just adjustment and adding to the rules isnt it? Depending on the changes, Eberron might just get its own version of the Times of Troubles.
Hideous Phidias 08-16-07, 12:51 PM	Sadly Forgotten Realms is going to come first it will be awhile for any 4E Eberron stuff. I starting to think that maybe it will be a while before anything new for Eberron is published,other than the few books they have on the list of future releases . Read this article [url]http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11123.html[/url
eehamburg 08-16-07, 12:58 PM	what does 4e do differently?
DragoonDarkfire 08-16-07, 01:03 PM	what does 4e do differently? Base classes will go up to 30 instead of 20.
Dr. Benway 08-16-07, 01:11 PM	I starting to think that maybe it will be a while before anything new for Eberron that is now already list is publish. Um...try this sentence again perhaps...? DocB :88E: vs :coolcthul Who shall prevail?
Frederyck 08-16-07, 01:12 PM	Base classes will go up to 30 instead of 20. Also, it slices bread, makes cars run on water and washes your linen. It truly is innovative. :D
Revvecor 08-16-07, 01:14 PM	So basically if they are only releasing a single setting a year the earliest they will update Eberron is 2009? That is irritating.
Chairman Aeon 08-16-07, 01:18 PM	what does 4e do differently? Look at Star Wars Saga Edition. I'm guessing that SWSE was based on the near finished version of D&D 4e. If so, then this could be as big a shift from 3.xe as 3e was from 2e. Yes, most of the mechanics stay the same, but the classes allow for much more customization using talents and the possibility of spells acting like SWSE powers were you can cast certain spells per encounter rather than per day. I'm actually looking forward to 4e, but not to waiting 18 months (minimum) for Eberron for 4e. On the plus side most of the Eberron books I own are fluff heavy. With talk of Tieflings in the core, I hope some of the Eberron races and artificer (talent tree for Wizards?) make it in the core, so we don't have to woory about Eberron crunch. Iain.
Amaril 08-16-07, 01:19 PM	Base classes will go up to 30 instead of 20. Keep in mind that the 30 levels is supposed to include epic levels, too, as a means of supporting them as core.
eehamburg 08-16-07, 01:26 PM	gaining more levels is not enough to support making a new edition. what else has changed? I don't play Star Wars, so using that as a comparison is no good.
Euangelion 08-16-07, 01:36 PM	Eberron might not be updated until 2010. If FR is 2008, maybe Greyhawk is 2009. I understand on one level why FR is coming first, but I sure hope they don't shoot the Eberron players in the foot.
InkBlot 08-16-07, 01:40 PM	gaining more levels is not enough to support making a new edition. what else has changed? I don't play Star Wars, so using that as a comparison is no good. I'm pretty sure they were joking about more levels. As far as I know, Wizards hasn't said anything specific about 4th edition. From what I read in the previews, Star Wars Saga edition included the following changes - Talent Trees: Have you played D20 Modern? The Saga base classes use talent trees like in Modern. Think of it like Ranger fighting styles, but for things other than fighting, and with more branching choices, and for every class. Or think of it kind of like a nice pile of variant class features built into every class. Or think of it like replacing a lot of class features with lists of bonus feats. Skill Points: They're gone. In Saga, when a character uses a skill they roll something like 1d20 + their character level + ability modifier + other modifiers. IIRC, having a skill as a class skill just gives you a bonus to your check. Fewer Classes: In Saga, many classes were consolidated into talent trees for more generic classes. In D&D terms, imagine replacing Bard and Rogue with a Scoundrel class, which can choose from sneak attack, spellcasting, scouting, and bardic music talent trees. You could use the Scoundrel class to make bards, rogues, scouts, and anything imbetween. Faster Combat: Itterative attacks, and other things which involve a lot of rolls, are gone. Actions are simplified. Rules are simplified. Emphasis is on cinematic action. A bit like Tome Of Battle, where instead of itterative attacks you have special attacks, which are just as cool but require fewer rolls. Per Encounter Magic: The Force powers in Saga use a per encounter system which is remarkably similar to Tome Of Battle. I don't believe that 4th Edition is comming in 4 hours, and 51 minutes. I think it's just counting down to GenCon, which lasts 4 days. 4 D Venture = four day venture.
Kawnell 08-16-07, 01:49 PM	Posted @ ENWorld Thursday, August 16th, 2007 D&D 4th Edition News EN Worlder MerricB has consolidated all the known information about 4e in the first post of this thread: 4th Edition is Coming The big announcement will be made at GenCon shortly. Specific 4e forums have been created at the Wizards site Yes, there will be a "Player's Handbook", "Dungeon Master's Guide" and "Monster Manual" in 4e. (Source) There will be at least 7 books of D&D 4 on 2008. (Source) From theminiaturespage.net: August 16, 2007 (Renton, WA) – Whether you storm a mad wizard's tower every week or haven't delved into a dungeon since you had a mullet and a mean pair of parachute pants, one thing is certain - millions of D&D players worldwide have anticipated the coming of 4th Edition for many years. Today, Wizards of the Coast confirms that the new edition will launch in May 2008 with the release of the D&D Player's Handbook. A pop culture icon, Dungeons & Dragons is the #1 tabletop roleplaying game in the world, and is revered by legions of gamers of all ages. The 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons game includes elements familiar to current D&D players, including illustrated rulebooks and pre-painted plastic miniatures. Also releasing next year will be new web-based tools and online community forums through the brand-new Dungeons & Dragons Insider (D&D Insider) digital offering. D&D Insider lowers the barriers of entry for new players while simultaneously offering the depth of play that appeals to veteran players. The 4th Edition rules emphasize faster game play, offer exciting new character options, and reduce the amount of "prep time" needed to run the game. D&D Insider includes a character creator that lets players design and equip their D&D characters, dungeon- and adventure-building tools for Dungeon Masters, online magazine content, and a digital game table that lets you play 24/7 on the internet — the perfect option for anyone who can't find time to get together. "We've been gathering player feedback for eight years," said Bill Slavicsek, R&D Director of Roleplaying and Miniatures Games at Wizards of the Coast. "Fourth Edition streamlines parts of the D&D game that are too complex, while enhancing the overall play experience. At its heart, it's still a tabletop game experience. However, D&D Insider makes it easier for players to create characters, run their games, and interact with the rest of the D&D community." Wizards of the Coast will release two 4th Edition preview books in December and January — Wizards Presents: Classes and Races and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters. The first live demos of 4th Edition will happen at the D&D Experience gaming convention in Washington D.C. in February 2008. The full scope of 4th Edition books, miniatures, and adventures will be available in the spring and summer of 2008. Since its first release in 1974, the fantasy roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons has taken millions of players on imaginary adventures of epic scale. Today, D&D is universally regarded as the original game that created the roleplaying game category, and the inspiration for generations of game designers. D&D is enjoyed by millions of players worldwide, while countless more remember it with fond nostalgia. Player's Handbook 4e: May 2008 (Source) Dungeon Master's Guide 4e: June 2008 (Source) Monster Manual 4e: July 2008 (Source) D&D Insider This is the "D&D Online" section of Gleemax It contains a "Dungeon Master's Kit" that includes the following: dungeon builder (map tool) adventure builder PC generator other things (Source) "Character Generator" character sheets character visualizer (Source) "My Campaign" "My Character" (Source) "D&D Game Table" (Source) "Dungeon & Dragon Magazines" (Source) Open Gaming Licence 3rd party publishers will be able to get licenses to create 4e material from Wizards. (source) Fans will be able to publish material on Gleemax under (free) license from Wizards. (This material will be available to Wizards to republish; see discussion on Gleemax TOS). The OGL/SRD/d20 Licenses will still exist - details still to come (Source)
Nived 08-16-07, 02:08 PM	Eberron might not be updated until 2010. If FR is 2008, maybe Greyhawk is 2009. I understand on one level why FR is coming first, but I sure hope they don't shoot the Eberron players in the foot. Wouldn't sweat that their Insider information stuff talks about weekly FR and Eberron material specifically without mention of any other setting as of yet so you know, relax.
Jimmifett 08-16-07, 02:40 PM	Unless the eberon races and classes are in 4e (which would be silly not to include), i'm not planning on fully upgrading until a 4e ECS shows up. Of course, i'm not going to be stubborn for the heck of it either, if theres a good mechanic in 4e I like, you can bet it gets house ruled in as the new default rule (grapple anyone?) As a side thought, i should look closer at SWSE sitting on my shelf gathering dust. I rather like ToB, so using that system to simplify attacks to less die rolls is a plus in my book.
Nived 08-16-07, 02:54 PM	I hope that the Eberron races are NOT in core. I'd just assume not have Warforged, Shifters, Changlings, and Kalashtar crammed into every other setting. Don't get me wrong, but I'd rather not see a Warforged and a Kalashtar in Waterdeep. That being said a new edition will at least give them the oportunity to fix Shifters. As most can agree that their feat heavy mechanic makes them very difficult to build effectively.
Rechan 08-16-07, 03:13 PM	I hope that the Eberron races are NOT in core. I'd just assume not have Warforged, Shifters, Changlings, and Kalashtar crammed into every other setting. Don't get me wrong, but I'd rather not see a Warforged and a Kalashtar in Waterdeep. That being said a new edition will at least give them the oportunity to fix Shifters. As most can agree that their feat heavy mechanic makes them very difficult to build effectively. Ehh. I think Changelings and Shifters can work just fine in other settings. But in general it would please me if the Core had more races than the standard 6. Also, having artificers in the Core would be nice. However, I dislike us upgrading to 4e. Meh. Yay new books/obsolete old books.
Amaril 08-16-07, 03:29 PM	I will say that I had expected certain aspects of Eberron to be fleshed out for 3.5 before 4e would even be announced. I hope that any 4e Eberron products will not be covering what's already been explored in 3.5e.
eehamburg 08-16-07, 03:47 PM	I hope that the Eberron races are NOT in core. I'd just assume not have Warforged, Shifters, Changlings, and Kalashtar crammed into every other setting. Don't get me wrong, but I'd rather not see a Warforged and a Kalashtar in Waterdeep. That being said a new edition will at least give them the oportunity to fix Shifters. As most can agree that their feat heavy mechanic makes them very difficult to build effectively. How would you even incorporate those races into that setting??
Alex_ 08-16-07, 03:50 PM	If 4E is anything like Star Wars Saga Edition, I'd buy up all the 4E Eberron books in a heart beat. Eberron is exactly the kind of setting where people should stop fiddling around with cumbersome mechanics so one can focus more on the flavor and roleplaying. It also better helps communicate Eberron's adventurous feel while at the same time satisfying the desires of those who focus on the "grittier" aspects (i.e. condition tracks in combat).
Just another user 08-16-07, 05:20 PM	I dunno, some thing I've heard seems interesting (I like talents) but other make me cringe, what oes it mean no skill ranks? So if we are same class and same abilities we are equally good at everything? How does it works in SWSE? and I can already say that I hate spell per encounter, it make D&D more videogame-like than it already was ands unless there are some strong discrepancies between different kind of magic how would work non combat magic, like healing for example. I hope to be surprised, but judging from how they developed the game in the last period "I have a bad felling about this"
WarlockDa 08-16-07, 05:25 PM	For me, buying SAGA wasn't a big deal, RCR only had maybe what 10 books? 3.5.....I've got 40 or more. I'll buy into 4E once I run out of material and ideas in the thousands of $ I've alreasdy put into 3.5.
WarlockDa 08-16-07, 05:29 PM	I dunno, some thing I've heard seems interesting (I like talents) but other make me cringe, what oes it mean no skill ranks? So if we are same class and same abilities we are equally good at everything? How does it works in SWSE? and I can already say tyhat I hate spell per encounter, it make D&D more videogame-like than it already was ands unless there are some strong discrepancies between different kind of magic how would work non combat magic, like healing for example. I hope to be surprised, but judging from how they developed the game in the last period "I have a bad felling about this" Short of SAGA Skills, each class has a decent set of class skills, and provides a PC with INT+2 to 4 trained skills. You can also takes a feat to become trained. All skills are useable to a point. Training allows a +5 to the check, in additiion to Ability mod = 1/2 Character level. Multiclassing or taking a PRC doesn't allow you to get more trained skills. Multi classing only allows you to have more class skills with which to gain by taking the training feat. So you can easily have 2 Scouts with completely different trained skills.
Alex_ 08-16-07, 05:30 PM	So if we are same class and same abilities we are equally good at everything? No. Your ability scores, and any applicable Feats, Talents, and other mechanics will modify skill rolls. Most people try to max out their class skills anyway. How does it works in SWSE? and I can already say tyhat I hate spell per encounter, it make D&D more videogame-like than it already was Spells per encounter doesn't make it more like a videogame. Having something like mana points would make it more like a videogame- not that there aren't some parts of videogames that D&D couldn't stand to learn from. ands unless there are some strong discrepancies between different kind of magic how would work non combat magic, like healing for example. I can't see how they could overlook something like that. We'll probably see the end of really powerful spells that are only mitigated by the fact that they can only be cast a few times per day.
DBlizzard 08-16-07, 07:06 PM	My concern is the loss of a race. We know a race is going missing from the core set (replaced with the tiefling). The candidates are the gnome, half-elf and half-orc, all with strong ties to Eberron. The half-orc is the one we can lose (until it's added in an expansion) easiest. I'll bet it's the gnome though.
Alex_ 08-16-07, 07:28 PM	Half-Elves and Half-Orcs should have gotten axe. There are already Humans, Elves, and Orcs in the game. Putting 2 Half-Human races in Core, especialy with a lack of Half-Dwarves is just silly. They did say that whatever races were removed from the game would be found in other books though. For simplicity's sake, they should just go with Human, Elf, Dwarf, Orc, and Halfling, and add all the other character options in the Monster Manual.
Meloncov 08-16-07, 07:53 PM	My concern is the loss of a race. We know a race is going missing from the core set (replaced with the tiefling). The candidates are the gnome, half-elf and half-orc, all with strong ties to Eberron. They can just include the stats for that race in the 4e Eberron Campaign Setting, or in the 4e monster manual.
DragoonDarkfire 08-16-07, 08:20 PM	Wait. WHY are they sacking a race for the Tiefling again?
Elemental_Elf 08-16-07, 09:11 PM	How would you even incorporate those races into that setting?? Warforged could be from Halurra(sp?), that big Magic Country in the south. They love to tinker and make cool stuff. Alternatively, the Gnomes of Latan could make Warforged, they're great tinkerers and have a God who loves technology. The Wizards of Thay could also be their progenitors, they have a need of sentient construct bodyguards, especially those that showcase the Wizard's mastery of Arcane lore. As for Kalashtar... Well they could be a spiritual link to a dead god, or rather a God who chose mortality over omnipotence. I'm not that well read up on the planes of FR but I'm sure you could find a way to integrate them easily enough. ~~~ Half-Elves and Half-Orcs should have gotten axe. There are already Humans, Elves, and Orcs in the game. Putting 2 Half-Human races in Core, especialy with a lack of Half-Dwarves is just silly. They did say that whatever races were removed from the game would be found in other books though. For simplicity's sake, they should just go with Human, Elf, Dwarf, Orc, and Halfling, and add all the other character options in the Monster Manual. I like the Half-Races, they're flavorful and fun, even if they're a tad weak mechanically speaking in 3.x. Still I can understand people's desire for simplicity in Core, so away with halfies and up with fullies. Actually, I remember reading an article that said Tieflings would become Core. Wait. WHY are they sacking a race for the Tiefling again? Because Tieflings have that 'Sexy, I'm cool feel.' Where as Gnomes/Halfies don't have that appeal.
mhacdebhandia 08-16-07, 09:18 PM	Because Planescape was awesome.
Charles Phipps 08-17-07, 12:02 AM	4th Edition Eberron MUST have the following changes.... 1. Led Zeppelin Music played in the background while you ride dragons standing up. 2. EVERYONE starts at Epic level. 3. All of the Sovereign Host manifests in a "Time of Problems" where players can kill them. 4. All Assassins in Eberron are killed by the Devourer performing a ritual to empower himself. 5. A feisty old wizard named Keithmeister, 60th level, takes up the role of the PC's mentor. 6. Jaela is raised to legal age and is blindingly hot as well as promiscous. 7. Same for Aurala, Diani, and their four other sisters with silver hair. 8. King Kaius gains 16 levels of Necromancer and "Castle Karrnath" becomes a adventure all PCs must beat. 9. Khyber is revealed to have Dark Elves. Millions of them....and they're all hot women into bondage and each other. 10. Half-Vampires Sorcerer/Fighters with two sweet wands held Gun-Fu style becomes the new Drizzt to immitate. 11. Orcs are all Chaotic Evil Nazis. 12. Without exception. 13. The Church of the Silver Flame declares all Non-Humans to be EVILLLLL and engages in Warhammer levels of depravity against them, women, and other religions. 14. All Paladins=Pure evil. 15. Holy Liberators are the awesome. 16. The new edition shall contain copious cussing. 17. Also nudity. 18. The new edition shall contain "badass" rules like recieving action points for spitting your drink on someone and setting them on fire. 19. Hit points are replaced with rules to simulate a 1000 arrows coming at you and all of them missing you while you fire a hundred home and they all hit. 20. You can Pimp Slap people for EXP. 21. Argonessan is a smoking empty crater because the next Eberron MMORPG is canon and it's all about killing everyone alive on it. 22. The Princesses of Breland and Karrnath need saving and they will reward you amply. 23. The Next War is ON! You're going to win it....all by yourselves. 24. Nuclear Magical Bombs are available as equipment. 25. Airships have chain guns now. 26. Chain guns are also avaialble for regular equipment. 27. Human shaped Warforged that are like Terminators in every single way are opponents. 28. So are Aliens. 29. And Predators. 30. Ninjas are everywhere. 31. All Named Characters carry katana. 32. And Long Trenchcoats. 33. Shifters are now Catgirls and Foxgirls. All boys are Bishounen dog guys. 34. All armor for women is now skimpy with cheesecake art everywhere. 35. The next Eberron supplement shall be called "Buckets of Blood"
Rechan 08-17-07, 12:10 AM	33. Shifters are now Catgirls and Foxgirls. All boys are Bishounen dog guys. Please. Inuyasha was not that attractive. Definitely have to be something more effeminate than a dog. 34. All armor for women is now skimpy with cheesecake art everywhere. Wait, we don't have that all ready?
Tolly7249 08-17-07, 12:11 AM	Ahhhhhhhhhhh, sweet sarcastic reminders of why I bailed from FR. Until they fix... well, nigh-on everything about FR since the Time of Troubles (and a fair bit from before, if I'm being honest), I'm staying here. You know, where the undiscovered stuff really IS undiscovered, and where even Captain Kirk would have an exceptionally rough time. The moment there is a 'canon' explanation for the Mourning, I'm outta here.
Charles Phipps 08-17-07, 12:32 AM	The moment there is a 'canon' explanation for the Mourning, I'm outta here. Your time travelling PCs did it. ...on a dare.
Euangelion 08-17-07, 01:07 AM	They're making the tieflings a core race? Nah, shoulda been the hobgoblin. Also, half-orc shoulda been replaced by the orc. Half-elves and half-orcs would remain MM options... Then again, removing a core race would seriously FUBAR the Dragonmarked House system... Zilargo, land of the tieflings!! (Come to think of it, it's plausible. Wait, what the heck am I saying? Dang, it's late.) Besides, feytouched are more cool than tieflings anyway... they're like that sorta crazy friend you had/have who would literally do anything..."Hey, let's steal the police cruiser's hubcap, fill it with jello, and then put it on the steps of the police station. Wanna help?" Or "Hey, let's hide in bushes at night and throw nerf footballs at passing cars." Stuff like that. Tieflings would be all like "Yeah, and when they get outta their car, let's stick 'em." :blink:
mhacdebhandia 08-17-07, 02:24 AM	At GenCon they handed out flash drives which had a pair of images on them, drawn from a larger pool (I've seen two sets already). One of them had an "eladrin wizard", so it's possible that there will be more than just the tieflings added to the core races.
Hopeless 08-17-07, 03:40 AM	Warforged could be from Halurra(sp?), that big Magic Country in the south. Close enough. As for Kalashtar... Well they could be a spiritual link to a dead god, or rather a God who chose mortality over omnipotence. I'm not that well read up on the planes of FR but I'm sure you could find a way to integrate them easily enough. ~~~ Well they did create the Elan after all (not H.G.Wells version) I like the Half-Races, they're flavorful and fun, even if they're a tad weak mechanically speaking in 3.x. They're okay. Still I can understand people's desire for simplicity in Core, so away with halfies and up with fullies. Actually, I remember reading an article that said Tieflings would become Core. One word, a long one at that simply put that word is POWERGAMING Because Tieflings have that 'Sexy, I'm cool feel.' Where as Gnomes/Halflings don't have that appeal. And then they'd have to add aasimars and then... Oh and no they're neither sexy nor cool, thats the sole province of Eberron, why? Because they're demolishing Shadowdale just to compete thats why!
Hopeless 08-17-07, 04:05 AM	4th Edition Eberron MUST have the following changes.... 1. Led Zeppelin Music played in the background while you ride dragons standing up. GRINS, now thats worth it just for the reaction! 2. EVERYONE starts at Epic level. No it just looks like that 3. All of the Sovereign Host manifests in a "Time of Problems" where players can kill them. Nice idea, but its been done, I'd just reveal they're already dead and the Silver Flame is whats left of them just to really irk people mind you! 4. All Assassins in Eberron are killed by the Devourer performing a ritual to empower himself. No thats Faerun, here the devourer gets the assassins to kill OTHER PEOPLE, lots of them... that way he has MORE power and it needn't stop until the assassins do (see Buffy the vampire slayer pilot "The Harvest" for details on that) 5. A feisty old wizard named Keithmeister, 60th level, takes up the role of the PC's mentor. And promptly dies because the only high level npc's are paranoid, secretive and have a geas on them to speak in riddles most of the time (see d&d cartoon for details on that)! 6. Jaela is raised to legal age and is blindingly hot as well as promiscous. What and miss out on the pre-teen crowd, like bratz, winx club, etc... oh you talking about Smallville aren't you? 7. Same for Aurala, Diani, and their four other sisters with silver hair. Watch it! Aurala role models Margaret Thatcher, heck even Erandis Vol hero worships Margaret Thatcher! 8. King Kaius gains 16 levels of Necromancer and "Castle Karrnath" becomes a adventure all PCs must beat. No that would be silly and anyway he probably b****slap the owner of Castle Ravenloft if he made the mistake of turning up! 9. Khyber is revealed to have Dark Elves. Millions of them....and they're all hot women into bondage and each other. And occasionally one is born good and into paired weapons, a figurine of wondrous power and hanging out with dwarves! 10. Half-Vampires Sorcerer/Fighters with two sweet wands held Gun-Fu style becomes the new Drizzt to immitate. And are promptly crushed, torn apart and then eaten before being passed through on top of the nearest entrance to Khyber by a wyrmling silver dragon... of course its name would probably be Tiny... 11. Orcs are all Chaotic Evil Nazis. No just Nazis' the CE ones were kicked out becauser they weren't hard enough! 12. Without exception. Two words, greyhawk and not. 13. The Church of the Silver Flame declares all Non-Humans to be EVILLLLL and engages in Warhammer levels of depravity against them, women, and other religions. You mean the Puritans don't already? 14. All Paladins=Pure evil. If its run by my Faerun dm then definitely yes, if its practically anyone else, then probably not... probably because I don't know their dm. 15. Holy Liberators are the awesome. Unless you're their target 16. The new edition shall contain copious cussing. Oh if only... 17. Also nudity. Why? That would only spoil things! 18. The new edition shall contain "badass" rules like recieving action points for spitting your drink on someone and setting them on fire. Or both at the same time... 19. Hit points are replaced with rules to simulate a 1000 arrows coming at you and all of them missing you while you fire a hundred home and they all hit. Thats called Exalted nd the correct terminology would be they fire several thousand and whilst they pepper your mirror image whilst you're behind cover you fire back a single arrow and casue a rockfall that wipes the lot out, that is called luck... and there will be an old man present who'll say "There's no such thing in my experience" 20. You can Pimp Slap people for EXP. That I suspect has already been happening where I don't know but it certainly has... 21. Argonessan is a smoking empty crater because the next Eberron MMORPG is canon and it's all about killing everyone alive on it. Speechless 22. The Princesses of Breland and Karrnath need saving and they will reward you amply. Depends on which one is undead and which one does the actual saving... 23. The Next War is ON! You're going to win it....all by yourselves. And? 24. Nuclear Magical Bombs are available as equipment. Heck no, they'd just make things boring now skydiving without a parachute off an airship in a HALO drop now that would be interesting... 25. Airships have chain guns now. You mean they didn't? 26. Chain guns are also avaialble for regular equipment. Ditto 27. Human shaped Warforged that are like Terminators in every single way are opponents. Laughs... I call them fleshforged and they kill people for the materials they need for their covering which gest destroyed far too easily but they're indistinguishable from people unless you weigh them... 28. So are Aliens. They'd just watch, after all they're aliens... 29. And Predators. Oooh, now you're just being nasty! 30. Ninjas are everywhere. And nowhere to be seen... 31. All Named Characters carry katana. And their weapons will all have names of their own 32. And Long Trenchcoats. Why not if Van Helsing can do it... 33. Shifters are now Catgirls and Foxgirls. All boys are Bishounen dog guys. Laughs 34. All armor for women is now skimpy with cheesecake art everywhere. Unless its a woman behind the screen then its the blokes turn! 35. The next Eberron supplement shall be called "Buckets of Blood" Oh I thought it was... The Good, the Bad and the Undead?
Charles Phipps 08-17-07, 04:28 AM	Good resposnes Hopeless. Yes, 4th edition will either A: Take it to the 11, turning Eberron into the phat setting of kewl ROXOR! B: Be a few minor rules modifications.
Werebat 08-17-07, 04:52 AM	Eberron might not be updated until 2010. If FR is 2008, maybe Greyhawk is 2009. I understand on one level why FR is coming first, but I sure hope they don't shoot the Eberron players in the foot. They won't put Greyhawk before Eberron. [Edit: Unless Greyhawk is the "core setting" as it supposedly was in 3E] - Ron ^*^
That Blasted Somoflange 08-17-07, 07:32 AM	Haven't been to the Eberron/D&D forums for a while - got really sick of 3.5 ed. Then a little thing called Star Wars Saga Edition came out, and I started to get excited for D&D 4e. You see, the SWSE is an incredible improvement to d20, and the feel you get from that game is something more akin to the idea behind Eberron in my opinion. Regular D&D doesn't work - too much emphasis on loot and god-like characters. Now, I'm hoping, that SWSE was a preview of sorts for 4e. Because I know when I got that book, I started working on converting it to D&D - specifically with Eberron in mind.
Kaodi 08-17-07, 09:06 AM	Actually, I'll be kind of glad if they slow down or stop publishing Eberron books for a while. I'm going off to university this year, and I'm going to be looking towards only getting books for Christmas and my birthday. I guess I'm kind of being selfish like that, but I have every Eberron hardcover, and I'd like it to stay that way... In any case, the 4e Eberron Campaign Setting is going to have a great chance to do something 3e didn't, namely make each race more appropriate for the setting. With races getting more abilities as you level up, and having special powers that you can take with some classes, there is going to be a whole lot of customization for Eberron available there. I would bet that we'll see the stats for races that are more prominent in Eberron than core, but that we probably won't see much for tieflings, though theoretically tieflings could be numerous in Demon Wastes, where I put them now, as Sakah. There was some post about a playtest psion that was a wizard with the numbers filed off, so I'm not sure whether that means psionics are going to be integrated into the spellcasting system or what. If not, that may be why Eberron could be pushed back to 2009, to give them time to get out that 4e Psionics Handbook that is crucial for really completing Eberron.
Lazaro 08-17-07, 10:02 AM	http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm Well other than having added teifling here's what caught my eye. "…heck, there might even be three new races in the new edition!"
Voric 08-17-07, 10:06 AM	...that may be why Eberron could be pushed back to 2009... I believe the official word is that it is being slated for 2009 release.
Kid SixXx 08-17-07, 10:34 AM	4th Edition Eberron MUST have the following changes.... 1. Led Zeppelin Music played in the background while you ride dragons standing up. 2. EVERYONE starts at Epic level. 3. All of the Sovereign Host manifests in a "Time of Problems" where players can kill them. 4. All Assassins in Eberron are killed by the Devourer performing a ritual to empower himself. 5. A feisty old wizard named Keithmeister, 60th level, takes up the role of the PC's mentor. 6. Jaela is raised to legal age and is blindingly hot as well as promiscous. 7. Same for Aurala, Diani, and their four other sisters with silver hair. 8. King Kaius gains 16 levels of Necromancer and "Castle Karrnath" becomes a adventure all PCs must beat. 9. Khyber is revealed to have Dark Elves. Millions of them....and they're all hot women into bondage and each other. 10. Half-Vampires Sorcerer/Fighters with two sweet wands held Gun-Fu style becomes the new Drizzt to immitate. 11. Orcs are all Chaotic Evil Nazis. 12. Without exception. 13. The Church of the Silver Flame declares all Non-Humans to be EVILLLLL and engages in Warhammer levels of depravity against them, women, and other religions. 14. All Paladins=Pure evil. 15. Holy Liberators are the awesome. 16. The new edition shall contain copious cussing. 17. Also nudity. 18. The new edition shall contain "badass" rules like recieving action points for spitting your drink on someone and setting them on fire. 19. Hit points are replaced with rules to simulate a 1000 arrows coming at you and all of them missing you while you fire a hundred home and they all hit. 20. You can Pimp Slap people for EXP. 21. Argonessan is a smoking empty crater because the next Eberron MMORPG is canon and it's all about killing everyone alive on it. 22. The Princesses of Breland and Karrnath need saving and they will reward you amply. 23. The Next War is ON! You're going to win it....all by yourselves. 24. Nuclear Magical Bombs are available as equipment. 25. Airships have chain guns now. 26. Chain guns are also avaialble for regular equipment. 27. Human shaped Warforged that are like Terminators in every single way are opponents. 28. So are Aliens. 29. And Predators. 30. Ninjas are everywhere. 31. All Named Characters carry katana. 32. And Long Trenchcoats. 33. Shifters are now Catgirls and Foxgirls. All boys are Bishounen dog guys. 34. All armor for women is now skimpy with cheesecake art everywhere. 35. The next Eberron supplement shall be called "Buckets of Blood" 36. The Mourning will be explained in full clarity and in painfully exact detail. No need for mass adoration heaped at our doorstep.. We knew you wanted us to do your thinking for you, anway. 37. Anyone can get a dragonmark. All ya gotta do is ask. 38. Upon review, we've decided that the X4 Crit for the Tangat should be returned. Gotta have something to compete with the spiked chain. 39. Mordain the Fleshweaver is the Chosen of Mys.... I mean.. Aureon.. 40. "Monkey Grip" will be replaced by "Spikey Hair" as the pre-req feat for wielding oversized weapons.
The White Sorcerer 08-17-07, 10:49 AM	We know a race is going missing from the core set (replaced with the tiefling). Where'd you hear that? It's likely that they'll be adding tieflings, but why would that mean the removal of another race?
Lazaro 08-17-07, 10:56 AM	Where'd you hear that? It's likely that they'll be adding tieflings, but why would that mean the removal of another race? "The same thing will happen to the races covered in the core books, where the half-demon tieflings will claim a place at the expense of an undisclosed race—we’re guessing a half-elf, gnome and halfling were shut up in a dark cave with some paring knives, and no questions were asked of whoever came out…heck, there might even be three new races in the new edition!"
seTiny 08-17-07, 01:27 PM	Hey, folks-- I'm in my GenCon hotel lobby and don't have time to address every question here, but let me assure you that Eberron is in good hands. We certainly hope that Keith will continue doing freelance work for Eberron, and I'll be doing my best to keep an eye on every bit of Eberron material we produce to avoid straying too far in unwanted directions. Eberron is almost as much my baby as it is Keith's. He and I have had a lot of conversations about our visions for the world, and I'm confident we're on the same page and have similar dreams for the setting. And one of my goals is to get the RPG folks and our book editors working more closely together as well. We don't have plans to make dramatic changes to Eberron with the new edition—don't look for a Time of Troubles-scale shakeup. As several folks have pointed out, it's still a young world and we like it right where it is, just out of the Last War. We won't be removing a race from the world or losing a dragonmark. The fact that something isn't in the first Player's Handbook doesn't mean it's out of the game! We can't include everything that exists in 3.5 with the first release of core rules, but we'll get to it sooner or later. With no huge changes in the works, of course your 3.5 Eberron books will still be useful. Does Five Nations become suddenly invalid if you can't use the Knight Phantom prestige class as written any more? Of course not. Eberron is a richly-detailed setting, and those details aren't going away. So fear not, keep playing, and keep checking back for more updates! (I'm assured our main site servers will be back up soon...) Thanks for your interest in Eberron. It's very gratifying to know that something I've put so much work and care into is making your games better! I'm sure it will keep doing so for years to come. Posted in the 4e Forums in the 4E Eberron thread
Hopeless 08-17-07, 01:38 PM	Good resposnes Hopeless. Reading your e-mail cheered me up considerably and that HALO drop comes directly from a thread that intermingles the trailer with an eberron fetish that I'd love to see! Yes, 4th edition will either A: Take it to the 11, turning Eberron into the phat setting of kewl ROXOR! Given what I've read so far as long as KB is given the time to deal with the changes then maybe it won't be so bad (But I'm NOT buying spare copies this time!) B: Be a few minor rules modifications. If its SAGA related then I can hope it'll be compliant with 3.5 rather than the other way round, I am not buying all the eberron stuff again just because they've decided to forget they've no longer got Dragon and Dungeon magazines to ease the transition and looks like any news of the changes will be limited to those with internet access...
Hopeless 08-17-07, 01:51 PM	Haven't been to the Eberron/D&D forums for a while - got really sick of 3.5 ed. Then a little thing called Star Wars Saga Edition came out, and I started to get excited for D&D 4e. You see, the SWSE is an incredible improvement to d20, and the feel you get from that game is something more akin to the idea behind Eberron in my opinion. Regular D&D doesn't work - too much emphasis on loot and god-like characters. Now, I'm hoping, that SWSE was a preview of sorts for 4e. Because I know when I got that book, I started working on converting it to D&D - specifically with Eberron in mind. I have to admit they have some good ideas but the only problems I had was the nerfing of the sorceror class straight from 3.0 and then they had the gall to create the warlock class but that was nothing compared to the Favoured Soul which is really the Sorceror class except they decided to split the original sorceror class and then they have the nerve to give the favoured soul bonus feats where the cleric class it was supposedly based on doesn't have any and then ignore the fact that the wizard class gets bonus feats and the sorceror class is still stuck with a d4 hit die and no cha skills and no adding the Bluff skill in exchange for the scry skill doesn't count! All they needed to do was increase the hd to d6, give them the choice of 3 bonus class skills that had to be chosen with their sorceror's spellcasting style and perhaps given the option of specialising like the wizard with the addition of making it clear sorcerors ARE NOT DEPENDENT on Wizards for THEIR SPELLS ABSOLUTELY PERIOD!!! Sorry I've run two sorcerors so far, the first had been a 7th level cleric aged 60 years so he couldn't wander around with the suit of full plate he had been using so I asked to multiclass and was told yes, the dm then chose all of the spells himself ignoring the fact he's not the one casting them, and then the character had to go back wearing his full plate because he turned the sorceror into a blaster and kept sticking high attack rolling foes... The second is a halfling and was told the class was dependent on scrolls for spells ignoring the fact the class isn't a subclass of wizard, otherwise had no problem running the character except I was the only player to give a perfectly valid reason why my character was going to multiclass and then it turned out I was running the only arcane spellcaster and then after the dwarf fighter met a human ranger and got to 2nd level he was able to multiclass as a ranger... Sigh... I do hope they've based 4e on ideas from SAGA and not some closet desire for powergaming... I really hope this pans out as I really don't like how they've been handling this announcement.
BlackHalfDragon 08-17-07, 02:11 PM	if you can provide a link to the sexy half vampire sorceress dragon chick with the wands and bluff me high enough that this is in eberron 3.x then i will buy the book NOW
Rechan 08-17-07, 02:39 PM	I think the Half-elf is not being cut (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a). n the final version of 4th Edition, most of your racial traits come into play right out of the gate at 1st level—dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf’s inspiring presence, and so on. As you go up levels, you can take racial feats to make those abilities even more exciting and gain new capabilities tied to your race. You can also take race-specific powers built into your class, which accomplish a lot of what racial substitution levels used to do: a dwarf fighter with the friend of earth power can do something that other 10th-level fighters just can’t do.
Hopeless 08-17-07, 02:42 PM	36. The Mourning will be explained in full clarity and in painfully exact detail. No need for mass adoration heaped at our doorstep.. We knew you wanted us to do your thinking for you, anway. I believe the correction terminology involves flying monkeys and someone's derriere... And they'd still be wrong... 37. Anyone can get a dragonmark. All ya gotta do is ask. Pretty much but my answer would still be no even to an aberrant mark... those things are sub plots and unless they've explained you aint's getting any... 38. Upon review, we've decided that the X4 Crit for the Tangat should be returned. Gotta have something to compete with the spiked chain. Aw I was hoping for the Rust Monster and give it attacks of opportunity on chains I just like the look on their faces when their exotic weapon is eaten more rapidly than a McDonalds or a KFC except it actually tastes good... 39. Mordain the Fleshweaver is the Chosen of Mys.... I mean.. Aureon.. Laughs hysterically 40. "Monkey Grip" will be replaced by "Spikey Hair" as the pre-req feat for wielding oversized weapons. Very Final Fantasy... i like it! 41) Everything mysterious will always mean there's a dragon involved... even the lords of dust find this unnerving 42) Motorcycles in Eberron are called Skycutters and they run on dragon shards, the ones you really have to be worried about are actually warforged and have the ability to transform... alot of people think the Argonth is one one of them but thats because nobody's figured out how to ask Sharn nicely... 43) The scariest person in Eberron hasn't reached puberty yet... 44) They still haven't stated how old Erandis Vol was when she was turned into a lich... 45) If you think she's bad, wait until you meet her nursemaid... and her imaginary friends... 46) Thaliost is the only city on Khorvaire unaware that the last war has ended, to them the treaty of thronehold is a lame excuse that everybody else used to not admit defeat... 47) There are still munchkins who think they can ride heavy warhorses wielding a great sword in one hand and a great axe in the other... fortunately the rest of us can read AND write. 48) No half dragons will NEVER be one of the races for the new core rules PHB... 49) Where there are tieflings there shall be aasimar and I'll never run either as a character... 50) Perhaps this time they'll point out Paladins are supposed to be good even more than lawful, but I doubt those who need to read this will even notice... 51) As long as psionics use the vancian rules there isn't a problem BUt if you're planning on use power points kindly remember the rest of us who actually roleplay their characters would sooner you didn't PERIOD. 52) 1st edition is the only version of d&d that treated psionics properly, 3.0 at least showed signs that it could be done properly just not the way they wrote it and Eberron seemed to be the first sign it would be treated properly... I DO HOPE ACTUALLY YOU'RE READING THIS! 53) Everyone thinks Cyre may have blown itself up, but it was actually destroyed in an attempt to wipe out Khorvaire and it only got as far as it did because Aundaire deliberately let them... now their only hope lies in finding the chosen one who can save them and it isn't b****y Harry Potter! 54) The closest thing to Hogwarts is in Aundaire and most of them were killed near the end of the Last War mostly by people who didn't like having the end of the last book revealed... 55) In case you're wondering the chosen one is Khoravire's equivalent of Hermione... except she's Cyran... and Aundaire have no idea where she is... nor that she's spent the last two years making Red Sonja look weak... 56) The Khorvaire equivalent of Conan is a warforged... 57) The eberron equivalent of Kevin Sorbo is Brelish, Lucy Lawless is from the Eldeen Reaches, I have no idea where the Sarah Michelle Gellar version is from but Scooby Doo and Shaggy would make a nice addition to Eberron! 58) Scrappy is still CE, however CE denies this fervently because they do have some self respect... 59) Someone dressed as a bat running around Karrnath is only an urban myth to everyone outside the nation, the one about a kid dressed in brightly coloured garb calling himself after some cheerful bird is just considered plain sick... mostly by the Karrns who think its some underaged Brelish acrobat with serious mental problems... as for the other guy he's just plain normal as far as they're concerned... 60) The guy flying around Sharn claiming to be from another world is a mentally unbalanced sorceror who just happened to make one wish too many, the fact his foes include the leader of House Cannith in Sharn and at least two warforged using greenish dragon shards as power sources is just a coincedence... 61) No there's absolutely no truth whatsover that a dragon was responsible for singlehandedly casing the destruction of Xendrik and no his name was definitely NOT Chuck Norris even though he is a fan of Jackie Chan... 62) There's also no truth to the rumour that the dragons of Argonessen are using the continent of Khorvaire as an Etch-O-Sketch... 63) Noone knows what dragons dream about, its better that way... 64) And no there's absolutely no truth to the machinations of the gnomes of Zilargo after all who the heck could tell if there was?
Hopeless 08-17-07, 02:56 PM	I think the Half-elf is not being cut (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a). I can give you two good reasons why not right now; 1) House Lyrandar and 2) The Crimson Talisman is still considered a mistake And the only change for halflings is to change their favoured class to any... and gnomes well they're fine as they are... Any idea why they'd want to add tieflings in anything other than the Forgotten Realms campaign setting for 4e?
Rechan 08-17-07, 03:06 PM	Probably the same reason they added the Half-orc in 3e. Also, I think Tiefs are popular.
Paulon 08-17-07, 03:58 PM	The question I have is 'Why delete all the existing online support material when the release of 4th Ed is so far away?' All preexisting 3rd edition articles for Eberron: Dragonshards, Steal This Hook and so forth, seems to have been deleted from the site. The same goes for the FR stuff as well. Seems a bit shortsighted to me. :(
DBlizzard 08-17-07, 04:26 PM	Here is an interesting tidbit from the Design & Development summary someone posted on ENWorld here (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3707358&postcount=22). Design philosophies on races. There is a tiefling on the player’s handbook. There may also be a changeling (from Eberron). Design philosophies of races. Mike did all the talking, where there will be a very REAL ACTIVE difference within the races that will really make a difference between the Dwarf Fighter and an Elven Fighter.
DBlizzard 08-17-07, 04:28 PM	The question I have is 'Why delete all the existing online support material when the release of 4th Ed is so far away?' All preexisting 3rd edition articles for Eberron: Dragonshards, Steal This Hook and so forth, seems to have been deleted from the site. The same goes for the FR stuff as well. Seems a bit shortsighted to me. :( It's there (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eberron). Buried a bit right now, but there.
DragoonDarkfire 08-17-07, 04:42 PM	Here is an interesting tidbit from the Design & Development summary someone posted on ENWorld here (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3707358&postcount=22). Well changeling ain't so bad. It and Shifters seem like something that you can throw into any world and have it fit. Warforged and Kalashtar are more Eberron oriented.
The White Sorcerer 08-17-07, 06:27 PM	If they do drop gnomes, I hope they add another small race.
Rechan 08-17-07, 07:27 PM	If they do drop gnomes, I hope they add another small race. I personally would like kobolds, but I highly doubt.
Kaodi 08-17-07, 07:30 PM	A) The material from the website has not been deleted, there is just some wonky stuff going on. This was explored by someone on EN World. B) I find it rather disturbing that it has been implied that Eberron will be changing somehow. Advancing a single year, even a single month is uncalled for. The mission of the setting is very clear on this point, The Eberron setting will remain static, because it is meant for your campaign, not ours. :weep: That is not to say that they cannot add certain elements, like explicitly giving the tiefling a place at the table (Hello, Sakah anyone?) but the story and plot elements must remain the same.
Loki5654 08-17-07, 07:46 PM	Why is everyone so darned sure that the picture is of a Tiefling? I look at that picture and I don't see "Tiefling". I see "Half-Dragon (copper or bronze, whichever has their horns like that)" http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm?popup=2
Rechan 08-17-07, 07:58 PM	Considering they're offering racial powers as you advance, wouldn't surprise me if it's a half-dragon. But then, that's probably going to throw a wrench into Eberron.
Kaodi 08-17-07, 08:03 PM	Yes, I know the male picture is a half-red dragon. I also know that tieflings have been confirmed as a core race in 4e, and that there have been at least two pictures of female tieflings that most definately look like tieflings, and not like half-dragons.
Rechan 08-17-07, 08:10 PM	Where was this confirmed, Kaodi?
Joni-san 08-17-07, 08:31 PM	Am I the only one who suspects that the race to get the axe is the Half-Orc?
Kalanth 08-17-07, 09:00 PM	Well that does it for me. Once they stop making 3.5 and move on to 4th ed I will stop buying products. It's not a lack of desire to try it, or an interest in the changes. Instead, as I look about my room I see thousands of dollars invested in 3.5. I already went through this with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ed. I am happy with 3.5, and don't feel like spending anything on 4th. Hopefully they at least put out some decent Eberron stuff before the change...
Dragom 08-17-07, 09:00 PM	Would you mind overly if they axed the Half-Orc and remade the Orc in a more playable fashion?
Charles Phipps 08-17-07, 09:58 PM	Would you mind overly if they axed the Half-Orc and remade the Orc in a more playable fashion? I don't see why this is a good thing. I like my orcs like I like my demons. They're a soulless race of mauraders, racists, rapists, and mass murderers that cannot be reasoned with anymore than Daleks. Eberron should be the exception to Orcs=Evil Incarnate.
Dragom 08-17-07, 10:01 PM	I don't see why this is a good thing. I like my orcs like I like my demons. They're a soulless race of mauraders, racists, rapists, and mass murderers that cannot be reasoned with anymore than Daleks. Eberron, remember. You mean deeply thoughtful tree hugging hippies.
Alex_ 08-17-07, 10:16 PM	I don't see why this is a good thing. I like my orcs like I like my demons. They're a soulless race of mauraders, racists, rapists, and mass murderers that cannot be reasoned with anymore than Daleks. Eberron should be the exception to Orcs=Evil Incarnate. Not even in Core are Orcs as universally or thoroughly Evil as Outsiders, especially Outsiders with the Evil subtype. According to the MM, They're Evil as often as Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes are Good, and we know how often players abide by those suggestions. I don't even think much change to existing flavor is required. The Orcs that are adventurers are the ones that aren't as violent or xenophobic as the rest. Sure they'll be in the minority, but Half-Orcs were always a minority amongst PC races as well.
Charles Phipps 08-17-07, 10:21 PM	Not even in Core are Orcs as universally or thoroughly Evil as Outsiders, especially Outsiders with the Evil subtype. According to the MM, They're Evil as often as Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes are Good, and we know how often players abide by those suggestions. I don't even think much change to existing flavor is required. The Orcs that are adventurers are the ones that aren't as violent or xenophobic as the rest. Sure they'll be in the minority, but Half-Orcs were always a minority amongst PC races as well. Yes, except we've got a Succubus Paladin in the mainbook. Let's face it, if everyone wants to dial up the evil on Outsiders, I'm perfectly content to dial up the evil on Orcs. :-)
Charles Phipps 08-17-07, 10:23 PM	Eberron, remember. You mean deeply thoughtful tree hugging hippies. I noted the exception. That's what makes it cool. The fact they're NOT flesh eaters.
Crake 08-17-07, 11:11 PM	Tree hugging hippies who will smash your face in if you are pro-Xoriat.
Alex_ 08-17-07, 11:21 PM	Yes, except we've got a Succubus Paladin in the mainbook. Which mainbook would that be? Also, the Succubus Paladin created during the online competition isn't just a Succubus with Paladin levels. She still upholds the standards of the Paladins, which includes a general revocation/nullification of powers she could use while being a Succubus that relied on her once being Evil aligned. She also still shows up like a beacon if someone uses Detect Evil, and is still subject to Smite attacks. Let's face it, if everyone wants to dial up the evil on Outsiders, I'm perfectly content to dial up the evil on Orcs. It's not about dialing up the Evil. Outsiders with the Evil subtype, with MM alignment descriptions as "Always" are more Evil and less likely to be non-Evil than stuff like Orcs (Evil Humanoids with a "Usually" or "Often" alignment descriptor). Even when you accept the Good Aligned Succubus, it doesn't turn up the level of Evil of stuff like Orcs. It turns down the dial of Evil in general. If a Succubus isn't that Evil, Orcs are even less Evil.
Loki5654 08-18-07, 01:07 AM	Yes, I know the male picture is a half-red dragon. I also know that tieflings have been confirmed as a core race in 4e, and that there have been at least two pictures of female tieflings that most definately look like tieflings, and not like half-dragons. Where was this confirmed, Kaodi? I second the request for the citation of your source(s). I haven't seen the pictures to which you refer, but I remain skeptical. After all, just because someone drew a picture of something is no guarantee that it is confirmed to be in one of the books. As a side thought, maybe it is a Tiefling. But maybe its a picture for the new MM, not the PHB.
Euangelion 08-18-07, 01:10 AM	I got to thinking more about what would need to stay in place for Eberron to remain Eberron as we know it. Pulp/Noir: this isn't going to be a problem with 4th ed., I'm sure. In fact, more flexibility with class roles will probably make it easier to capture these styles. Low(ish)-level: this potentially could be an issue. Who knows what the demographics are going to look like. Who knows if there's even going to be NPC classes. One thing I like about Eberron is that it plays by the demographics rules, and that very few people possess levels in PC classes. Grey alignments: shouldn't be an issue with 4th ed. Artificers: this could go either way. It might be very easy to emulate. It might end up being harder to include, especially if infusions are deemed to be necessary mechanics of the class. Personally, I'm betting it'll be easier to implement that one might think at first. The Dragonmarked Houses: shouldn't be an issue, based on James Wyatt's comments. Psionics/kalashtar/Inspired: this could be an interesting facet to see implemented. I've got a few concerns with this. An last but not least, especially in terms of people agreeing with me, paladins: Yes, the oft-maligned, oft-abused, oft-misplayed class from 1st ed. days might be on the chopping block. It's such a niche role, that I doubt it'll be a class of its own in 4th ed. But that niche is vital in Eberron. In a world of a wide range of shades of grey, there needs to be that one shining beacon of truth and hope. That's the paladin. What Tira Miron if she's not a paladin? What are the Ghaash'kala if there's not paladins among them? Then again, perhaps the paladin will remain, but with more options, such as the blackguard or gray guard routes, or bone knight for Eberron for that matter. And maybe paladin becomes an option for any class. You could have a rogue paladin that smites instead of doing sneak attack damage, or a wizard paladin that looks a lot like the Holy Scourge from Complete Mage or the Silver Pyromancer from Five Nations. Is there any other facet of Eberron that needs to remain pretty much as is that might be affected by 4th ed. that I missed?
mhacdebhandia 08-18-07, 01:26 AM	This InQuest article (http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm) confirms that tieflings are a core race. Also, the name of that male fighter image is "tiefling fighter", so.
Dragom 08-18-07, 01:33 AM	This InQuest article (http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm) confirms that tieflings are a core race. Also, the name of that male fighter image is "tiefling fighter", so. 7 months is a long time for things to happen. Tiefling could get changed out for Lizardfolk pretty easily...
ArcTan 08-18-07, 02:21 AM	If 4E is anything like Star Wars Saga Edition, I'd buy up all the 4E Eberron books in a heart beat. Eberron is exactly the kind of setting where people should stop fiddling around with cumbersome mechanics so one can focus more on the flavor and roleplaying. It also better helps communicate Eberron's adventurous feel while at the same time satisfying the desires of those who focus on the "grittier" aspects (i.e. condition tracks in combat). To be honest, I don't see this as setting-specific. There's no reason a Greyhawk campaign shouldn't also be a campaign where people stop fiddling around with cumbersome mechanics (as though cumbersome mechanics were a feature of Greyhawk rather, like, in all settings, something that *gets in the way* of the setting). Greyhawk has potential for flavor and roleplaying in it too, after all. To say otherwise is a disservice. I never believed for one moment that the changes in SWSE were meant to encapsulate the "feel" of Star Wars as something somehow distinct from D&D. The changes were simply *good changes*, for *any* setting where you want to have heroic characters.
ArcTan 08-18-07, 02:38 AM	BTW, they said there won't be any Eberron Time of Troubles, which is a good thing, because that would be the single most awful way to handle it.
DBlizzard 08-18-07, 03:23 AM	I got to thinking more about what would need to stay in place for Eberron to remain Eberron as we know it. I expect no changes to Eberron that will make Eberron "not-Eberron." Both Keith and James are involved in it, and James is apparently in charge of the story team for 4E. Low(ish)-level: this potentially could be an issue. Who knows what the demographics are going to look like. Who knows if there's even going to be NPC classes. One thing I like about Eberron is that it plays by the demographics rules, and that very few people possess levels in PC classes. The numbers might change for the wider spread of class levels, but the feel will be the same. Artificers: this could go either way. It might be very easy to emulate. It might end up being harder to include, especially if infusions are deemed to be necessary mechanics of the class. Personally, I'm betting it'll be easier to implement that one might think at first. Magic Item creation is going to be severely redone. No experience costs, for example. So the artificer will need to be redone. James Wyatt played a paladin and ranger in his two playtest groups, BTW.
Charles Phipps 08-18-07, 04:25 AM	My worry is that D&D 4th edition is going to become like Star Wars SAGA edition and frankly I can't stand that. SAGA edition represents a lot of what I loathe about the direction D&D was taking when I first left it. It, frankly, killed by love for Star Wars D20 and sent me back to D6 Star Wars produced by West End Games. They may not have the license anymore but I've managed to complete my collection of its supplements. Here's what I want to avoid at all costs. * The Super-PC: I don't want to see PC classes becoming, by nature, ridiculously badass. I want PC classes to represent elite training and skill rather than a "PC" halo. If I wanted to play that game, I'd play Feng Shui. * Don't crimp the Single Classes: I love Multi-classing but I personally don't think there should anything wrong with encouraging the straight Fighter/Barbarian. * Don't screw with the class-ics: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Thief are the stalwarts. Removing them is pretty much like removing a part of what makes it D&D. * Don't mess with the Beloved Races: Half-Elf, Elves, Dwarves, Half-Orcs (even though they disappeared in 2nd edition), Humans, Half-Elves. * You can't mess with these: Levels and Hit Points. Everyone recognizes these. What I *DO* think could be better. * Finally Fix the Magic System by Combining Sorcerer and Wizard * Fix the Magic Item Creation System
Lazaro 08-18-07, 04:57 AM	I'm sure a bunch of ya'll have seen this, but it caught my interest (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3707358&postcount=22): Design philosophies on races. There is a tiefling on the player’s handbook. There may also be a changeling (from Eberron). Design philosophies of races. Mike did all the talking, where there will be a very REAL ACTIVE difference within the races that will really make a difference between the Dwarf Fighter and an Elven Fighter. I think it would it would be cool to have the changling added to the PHB.
Alex_ 08-18-07, 10:30 AM	* The Super-PC: I don't want to see PC classes becoming, by nature, ridiculously badass. I want PC classes to represent elite training and skill rather than a "PC" halo. If I wanted to play that game, I'd play Feng Shui. You have been playing this game for years now. Since 3.0 at least. Wizards, Fighters, and Rogues can't simply be trained into being. They're born with that potential. * Don't crimp the Single Classes: I love Multi-classing but I personally don't think there should anything wrong with encouraging the straight Fighter/Barbarian. I'm sure that's definitely something they're trying to address. I think they kind of messed up on Cleric and Druid because they were trying to make the classes more appealing to play, and in doing so, ended up creating monsters. * Don't screw with the class-ics: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Thief are the stalwarts. Removing them is pretty much like removing a part of what makes it D&D. Ranger and Paladin weren't introduced as core classes until 3.0. I doubt they're going to lose Cleric/Fighter/Wizard/Rogue though. The Divine caster, Arcane caster, Warrior, and Skilled classes are too central to the core idea of most RPGs. * Don't mess with the Beloved Races: Half-Elf, Elves, Dwarves, Half-Orcs (even though they disappeared in 2nd edition), Humans, Half-Elves. Although I personally love Half-Orcs, I would hardly call them "beloved" in general. I think Gnomes and Half-Orcs are currently both candidates for the chopping block. :( * You can't mess with these: Levels and Hit Points. Everyone recognizes these. Neither show any signs of going anywhere. In fact, they upped the core class level advancement to 30 instead of 20. * Finally Fix the Magic System by Combining Sorcerer and Wizard They won't be combined. Hopefully though, Sorcerer should be more comparable in terms of relative gameplay balance. * Fix the Magic Item Creation System Well they changed it it up some. Less reliance on magic items compared to your character's actual abilities (think Iron Heroes) and fewer hard rules (like fixed prices) for magic items. ........................................ ........................................ ....................................... Just trying to help ease your fears and clear up some things if I can.
Edymnion 08-18-07, 01:02 PM	B) I find it rather disturbing that it has been implied that Eberron will be changing somehow. Advancing a single year, even a single month is uncalled for. The mission of the setting is very clear on this point, The Eberron setting will remain static, because it is meant for your campaign, not ours. :weep: That is not to say that they cannot add certain elements, like explicitly giving the tiefling a place at the table (Hello, Sakah anyone?) but the story and plot elements must remain the same.See, IMO the inclusion of Tieflings as a core race, the fact that several races are getting the axe (even if they come back in later splatbooks), just means one thing. The only way for Eberron to stay the same is to basically retcon it back to 3e by putting back in everything 4e takes out (particularly for the races). Combine that with the fact that Eberron is going to be dead for at least a year (since it won't get converted until 2009 at the earliest), more depending on when the last 3.5 book comes out, and I'm not optimistic. Add in the fact that we'll undoubtedly have 4.5 a year or two after the ECS gets updated, which means another reprinting, and well... stick a fork in me, I'm done.
The White Sorcerer 08-18-07, 03:45 PM	Add in the fact that we'll undoubtedly have 4.5 a year or two after the ECS gets updated, which means another reprinting, and well... stick a fork in me, I'm done. Yeah, because they reprinted the FRCS when 3.5 came out!:mad: They actually didn't. Also, unlike 4th Edition and, perhaps, 5th Edition, 4.5 isn't inevitable.
Edymnion 08-18-07, 05:31 PM	Yeah, because they reprinted the FRCS when 3.5 came out!:mad: They actually didn't. Also, unlike 4th Edition and, perhaps, 5th Edition, 4.5 isn't inevitable.Except that, you know, they actually did. FRCS was 3.0, the PGtFR was the 3.5 update.
ZappoHisbane 08-18-07, 07:04 PM	Add in the fact that we'll undoubtedly have 4.5 a year or two after the ECS gets updated, which means another reprinting, and well... stick a fork in me, I'm done. I would surmise that a 4.5 edition isn't as likely here. 4.0 builds on the basics of 3.5, the Star Wars Saga stuff, Tome of Battle, etc. All stuff that has been out there in the real world. It's not nearly the blind leap that 3.0 was. The other part is the whole D&D Insider thing. The books are going to be available online to those who subscribe. Any errata or corrections thus should be instantly available. Even the characters that you make and store online are based in databases, so it's *possible* that they could be updated automatically as necessary. Scary, but kinda cool too. :) Question is, do I want to pay $10-15 a month (or whatever)? Aye, there's the rub...
Euangelion 08-18-07, 07:32 PM	Ranger and Paladin weren't introduced as core classes until 3.0. While rangers and paladins were listed as sub-classes of the fighter (with druid being a sub-class of cleric, illusionist being a sub-class of magic-user, and assassin being a sub-class of rogue), they were in the 1st ed. PH, right there with all the rest. If you want, I'll get out my well-worn copy and look up the page numbers! ;) Edy, tieflings could simply be the primary race of the Carrion Tribes, and it would hardly make a dent in what makes Eberron what it is. Heck, 25% of the population of the Demon Wastes are fiends, they could simply be the most common type. Don't panic. Or at least, not yet.
The White Sorcerer 08-18-07, 08:24 PM	Except that, you know, they actually did. FRCS was 3.0, the PGtFR was the 3.5 update. It wasn't a reprint, though. Sure it updated the rules, but it wasn't a full FRCS. Also, regarding 4.5, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs). Although, if you're already in the "They're just moneygrabbing liars" camp, that's not going to convince you, is it?
DBlizzard 08-18-07, 08:27 PM	Updates on Eberron (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=welcome/conventions/gencon07#) at GenCon # Saturday, 2:53 p.m.: Updates on Eberron by Bart Carroll And on to the Eberron seminar! Keith Baker (inventor of course of Eberron) and James Wyatt (who worked with Keith and Bill Slavicsek to create the Eberron campaign setting, as well as being lead story designer for D&D) took the floor, introducing the forthcoming products in the Eberron line, including Forge of War and Dragons of Eberron. As well as the forthcoming novels, nine of which will appear in 2008. # Flight of the Dying Sun # Forge of the Mind Slayers # Night of the Long Shadows # Legacy of Wolves They noted that Eberron will continue into 4th edition, with some elements incorporated into the core system. There was also one more plug for the DnDInsider.com, which refers in part to the website editorial content including the Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and which will carry a portion of the Eberron campaign setting information—under the watchful eye of D&D R&D, including James Wyatt himself. James and Keith opened the floor to questions, such as DMs managing the conflict between personal destiny and the Prophecy (a topic touched upon in Dragon 359's Secrets of D&D article, as well as covered in James's forthcoming novel), The Mark of Death (and what would happen should it fall into the wrong hands), advancement of the Eberron timeline, that following In the Claws of the Tiger there may well be raksashas appearing in other novels (notably Keith's)—and, as always, what caused the Mournland (a question that they said will officially not be answered officially, though Keith Baker also provides some suggested explanations, once more in Dragon 359). Will there be a continuation of Eberron music? As Chris Perkins chimed in, there's a good working relationship with David Davidson, and hosting more tracks online would be a great idea. Keith also discussed his original formation of the Eberron campaign setting, and how it changed in conjunction with Wizards of the Coast; such as, during the concepting phase, there was some general direction given, in terms of development of the magical system, and a push to include shifters and warforged as distinct player races. The world was originally twice its original size, which was decided to be too unwieldy... and the Talenta halflings did not originally ride dinosaurs.
Charles Phipps 08-18-07, 08:29 PM	You have been playing this game for years now. Since 3.0 at least. Wizards, Fighters, and Rogues can't simply be trained into being. They're born with that potential. Since WHEN? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Ranger and Paladin weren't introduced as core classes until 3.0. I doubt they're going to lose Cleric/Fighter/Wizard/Rogue though. The Divine caster, Arcane caster, Warrior, and Skilled classes are too central to the core idea of most RPGs. I have a big orange 2nd Edition Player's Guide with Rangers and Paladins in it.
Rechan 08-18-07, 09:36 PM	Tieflings shouldn't be too hard to incorporate. Remember that if a Rakshasa breeds with something, it makes a half-demon. And a half-demon breeds with something, it likely comes out with the Fiendish template. And if that breeds with something... You eventually get a tiefling. Considering how many Lords of Dust there are out there, who want to be able to Breed powerful and loyal soldiers, tieflings would be an inevitable result. Half-Daelkyr are created by communities who are close to areas of high Daelkyr magic. A Tiefling could be created by a community close to an imprisoned Rajah. Tieflings could be created by simple exposure to the "natural" magic of Khyber. I highly doubt Tieflings will have their own culture. They will more than likely be as common as Warlocks, for much the same reasons with much the same origins.
Edymnion 08-18-07, 09:48 PM	I would surmise that a 4.5 edition isn't as likely here. 4.0 builds on the basics of 3.5, the Star Wars Saga stuff, Tome of Battle, etc. All stuff that has been out there in the real world. It's not nearly the blind leap that 3.0 was.When the sales for 4e slack off, there will be a 4.5. Honestly, I was in the WotC defenders camp until they announced 4e this early. They lost me with that one.The other part is the whole D&D Insider thing. The books are going to be available online to those who subscribe.For a nominal fee. Just because you bought the hard copy and got the activation code doesn't mean you get the online book for free. You're still going to pay WotC more money to use it online. It wasn't a reprint, though. Sure it updated the rules, but it wasn't a full FRCS.The point being though that we still had a rules update book that was required to bring Faerun into 3.5, so there is no reason to think that it won't happen again if there is a 4.5. Although, if you're already in the "They're just moneygrabbing liars" camp, that's not going to convince you, is it?Liars, no. Money grubbing, yes. IMO, 3.5 and the early release of 4e are proof of that.
Tolly7249 08-18-07, 10:45 PM	I'm gonna need some SERIOUS convincing before investing in 4.0. 3.5 has only recently wormed it's way down to where I live... imagine how long it'll be before 4.0 even GETS here! It sucks living here, I gotta tell ya.
itraylor 08-18-07, 10:57 PM	I am a long time player, began playing in 1988 or so with first edition (only books my friend had) and almost immediately got into second edition. I had hundreds of dollars worth of second edition material and I think that I have over a thousand dollars invested in 3.5 stuff (I have everything Eberron published from novels to gaming books); I am just not sure if my wallet can support a new edition because just like Edy said, it will inevitably lead to Ed. 4.5 and Ed. 5.0. I honestly want to believe that these new editions are published to enhance the gamers experience and make the game run more smoothly but the fact of the matter is that it’s about money, plain and simple. The honey train has run its course on 3.5 and so its time for something new. I go thru great expense to make sure I have doubles of most core/common books for use by players that can't really afford as much and it seems like every time my collection is where I want it to be then a new edition is published. Grr…
WarlockDa 08-18-07, 11:22 PM	One thing is for sure, I won't even concider the Insider until I see some proof of the server being beefed up. After the mess with the server crash from the 4e announcement, why would I plan to give them money when chances are that with each of the 3 weekly updates, either the server would again crash, or access would be spotty for a day or two? It's bad enough that currently when they update the pages there's a few hours of 404 errors and such, but no biggy since it's a freebie,....but if I'm paying for it,..I want assurance that I can access it whenever I want it.
Arcane Guyver 08-19-07, 12:55 AM	Finally back from GenCon '07. A few things. #1 - James Wyatt and Keith Baker were a riot during the Eberron Q&A. Mr. Wyatt definitely has a 'drinking problem.' ;) #2 - As far as 4e goes...I've got a number of suspicions. During the 4e panel I attended, I asked how they would address the updating of Eberron (since, unlike FR, there are four new races and one new class). Andy Collins sort of smirked and said something to the effect that "I think Eberron fans will find a few surprises in the core rules." Now, psionics are confirmed to not be core, and I'm pretty sure someone at some point said that the Artificer wouldn't be. But as far as races go... :) I have a totally unfounded theory that humans will have the option to sacrifice a bonus feat for some sort of 'blood' feat, like "Elf-Blooded" (for half-elf), "Orc-Blooded" (half-orc), "Celestial-Blooded" (aasimar), "Doppelganger Heritage" (changeling)... Wouldn't be hard to release a "Quori Heritage" for kalashtar. #3 - Keith Baker was pretty awesome for the various panels he was on Saturday. He even sat down with fans from 6-7pm for more Q&A time. For the record, he knows about as much of 4e as we do. #4 - Insider will be HEAVILY Eberron content early on, according to Mr. Wyatt. Though we won't get any new books for awhile, we will get steady support. Dragons of Eberron and City of Stormreach will get online 4e updates, too. Well, it's pretty friggin late and I'm completely fried. I'll try to post some more tomorrow night. Edit: This website (http://www.thetomeshow.com/)will have some info eventually, depending on how fast we get our stuff around.
Kalanth 08-19-07, 02:13 AM	You watch the seminar and there is one thing that grabs you right off the bat. 1st edition - 1978 2nd edition - 1989 3rd edition - 2003 4th edition - 2008? 11 years of 1st ed, 14 of 2nd, and only 5 for 3rd? Oh how Wizards has changed the face of D&D since taking over for TSR. There used to be a time from for a game to thrive, develop, and be played. No longer. 5 years is not long enough for the game to really have scratched the surface, and then take in that we lost some of that time with the rushed 3.0 version of the game. Sure, they are changing grapple and such to make it easier. But is it worth another $120 to get hard copy books that are probly going to have intential errors in order to coerce you into getting the subscription and using the activation code? Money grubbing is right. Soon as I heard that "subscription based" statement, I nearly threw up. They want a monthly fee like I am playing an MMO? Guess the old 3.5 book will just have to be used and abused until they fall apart, cause 4e wont be on this mans shelf.
Volaran 08-19-07, 03:24 AM	You watch the seminar and there is one thing that grabs you right off the bat. 1st edition - 1978 2nd edition - 1989 3rd edition - 2003 4th edition - 2008? 11 years of 1st ed, 14 of 2nd, and only 5 for 3rd? Oh how Wizards has changed the face of D&D since taking over for TSR. There used to be a time from for a game to thrive, develop, and be played. No longer. 5 years is not long enough for the game to really have scratched the surface, and then take in that we lost some of that time with the rushed 3.0 version of the game. Sure, they are changing grapple and such to make it easier. But is it worth another $120 to get hard copy books that are probly going to have intential errors in order to coerce you into getting the subscription and using the activation code? Money grubbing is right. Soon as I heard that "subscription based" statement, I nearly threw up. They want a monthly fee like I am playing an MMO? Guess the old 3.5 book will just have to be used and abused until they fall apart, cause 4e wont be on this mans shelf. 3rd edition was 1999 or 2000 if I recall correctly. Perhaps you are thinking of 3.5?
DBlizzard 08-19-07, 04:45 AM	3rd edition was 1999 or 2000 if I recall correctly. Perhaps you are thinking of 3.5? The video only has scenes during those years. They skip 3E to go to 3.5. It gets really complex when you have to decide things like: Is 3.5 a different "edition" from 3E? Does the release of "Skills & Powers" count as a new edition? How do you count the various basic editions, since they ran concurrently to the normal editions? Excluding BD&D I can come up with 9 eras of the game, just based on major rules environments. Limiting things as much as possible, though, we have: OD&D (1973-1977*) AD&D (1977*-1989) AD&D 2nd edition (1989-2000) D&D 3E (2001-2008) D&D 4E (2008-?) That gives us a "lifespan"*** of: OD&D (4-6 years) AD&D (10-12 years) AD&D 2nd (11 years) D&D 3E (8 years) From my point of view at the time, both AD&D and AD&D 2nd were overdue for an update (although I was never satisfied with 2nd, and was playing other RPGs instead during that period). * 1977 is not a hard end date, since D&D material was released at the same time AD&D material was. ** 1977 is a vague start date. The AD&D Monster Manual was released in 1977, but the DMG wasn't released until 1979. PHB was 1978 which might be the fairest choice. *** Yes, there are still people playing every edition, including OD&D.
mhacdebhandia 08-19-07, 07:48 AM	But is it worth another $120 to get hard copy books that are probly going to have intential errors in order to coerce you into getting the subscription and using the activation code? Tinfoil hat time! Jesus H. Christ.
The White Sorcerer 08-19-07, 07:57 AM	Liars, no. Then you believe what Mr. Wyatt said about 4.5?
Kalanth 08-19-07, 08:44 AM	Tinfoil hat time! Jesus H. Christ. Tinfoil hat? I watched the presentation on Youtube, brought to you be the head of R&D and his buddy. In that they said you buy the books, and for a nominal subscription fee. Can't shout tinfoil hat like I am paranoid when they already said it.
The White Sorcerer 08-19-07, 08:56 AM	Tinfoil hat? I watched the presentation on Youtube, brought to you be the head of R&D and his buddy. In that they said you buy the books, and for a nominal subscription fee. Can't shout tinfoil hat like I am paranoid when they already said it. I watched that presentation too. Must've missed the part where they said they were... going to have intential (sic) errors in order to coerce you into getting the subscription and using the activation code?
Kalanth 08-19-07, 10:33 AM	Oh no, that one is fine, White. That one is paranoia and I have no problem admiting that. But that was not what mhacdebhandia was pointing at when he was calling me paranoid.
The White Sorcerer 08-19-07, 10:52 AM	But that was not what mhacdebhandia was pointing at when he was calling me paranoid. Yes it was. I'll repost the quote from his post: But is it worth another $120 to get hard copy books that are probly going to have intential errors in order to coerce you into getting the subscription and using the activation code? I might just need glasses, though.
Kalanth 08-19-07, 02:27 PM	Yes it was. I'll repost the quote from his post. I might just need glasses, though. Bah, I just forgot what I wrote is all. Then I gladly wear the tinfoil hat, but until I see something that boosts my confidence I expect nothing but money grubbing.
Euangelion 08-19-07, 05:25 PM	Ya know, I think we've got to grow up here a little bit. Hasbro and WOTC aren't non-profit organizations. Their primary purpose is to make money. Get over it. One way they choose to do so is to make a game, in this case Dungeons and Dragons. The current edition of the game is 3.5. They believe that they can improve their product, so they're releasing a new edition next year, which incorporates changes that they believe improves the product, just like every other company does that wants to stay in business! What if this were cars, or computers, or any other widget that worked okay, but still had some bugs? Would you expect them to refrain from trying to improve it? No frickin way. Would you expect them to give it away for free? Again, no way. (Except, they kinda do, since the SRD is free, which is basically Dungeons and Dragons. Uhhh, hmmm, maybe they're not so much money grubbers after all.) Then there's Eberron, yet another attempt to improve the game. But Eberron isn't perfect, and maybe, just maybe, this 4th ed. might improve it as well. We don't know what 4th ed. will look like. We don't know exactly what D&D Insider will look like or how it will work. We humans have a funny (but not "ha ha" funny) way of dealing with lack of information: we assume the worst and then react emotionally to that worst-case scenario as if it were actually true. But almost always the worst case is not the case. (I'm not immune to this tendency, but I do try to avoid it.) Let me put the money you've spent on 3.0 and 3.5 edition products in perspective by asking a few questions: Did you use the materials? Did you enjoy the materials? Regarding the materials that you didn't use or enjoy so much, how much research did you put into the product before you purchased it? Do you still have the materials? Do they retain any value once 4th ed. comes out? When you go to a movie, how much do you spend on tickets, popcorn and a soda? How long does that product last? When you go out to eat, how much do you spend? How long does that product last? How many cable channels do you pay for but never watch? If you have a car, did you buy the least expensive car that gets the best gas mileage? How much do you spend on upgading your computer, and what value do you get from the old components after you replace them with the upgrades? Bottom line: we sound like people who simply don't like change. But change is coming. Have courage, my friends, it's not the end of the (real) world as we know it. (Dons greater ring of energy resistance[fire]).
Hellcow 08-19-07, 08:11 PM	Keith, have you been approached to do work on the 4e Eberron Campaign Setting book? As others have said, per NDA I can't confirm or deny this. However, I'm certainly going to be working on Eberron material for D&D Insider, and I'm looking forward to working with James again in the days that lie ahead.
Revvecor 08-19-07, 08:13 PM	As others have said, per NDA I can't confirm or deny this. However, I'm certainly going to be working on Eberron material for D&D Insider, and I'm looking forward to working with James again in the days that lie ahead. Can you tell us how much Eberron will change to fit into 4e?
Ultimatecalibur 08-19-07, 08:14 PM	I read somewhere reliable (I am not sure where, so please don't request a source.) that the types of threats characters face will be broken into broad 3 groups based on level: 1-10: Facing a threat to a single village or town. (fight bandits, protect village from wandering giant, etc.) 11-20: Facing a threat to a nation(s). (Stop a war, prevent the king's assassination, etc.) 21-30: Facing a threat to the world or planes. (Stop the resurrection of the God of Destruction, return the Dragon King to his slumber, Kill a Demon Lord, etc.)
Arryn 08-19-07, 08:30 PM	Ya know, I think we've got to grow up here a little bit. Hasbro and WOTC aren't non-profit organizations. Their primary purpose is to make money. Get over it. One way they choose to do so is to make a game, in this case Dungeons and Dragons. The current edition of the game is 3.5. They believe that they can improve their product, so they're releasing a new edition next year, which incorporates changes that they believe improves the product, just like every other company does that wants to stay in business! What if this were cars, or computers, or any other widget that worked okay, but still had some bugs? Would you expect them to refrain from trying to improve it? No frickin way. Would you expect them to give it away for free? Again, no way. (Except, they kinda do, since the SRD is free, which is basically Dungeons and Dragons. Uhhh, hmmm, maybe they're not so much money grubbers after all.) Then there's Eberron, yet another attempt to improve the game. But Eberron isn't perfect, and maybe, just maybe, this 4th ed. might improve it as well. We don't know what 4th ed. will look like. We don't know exactly what D&D Insider will look like or how it will work. We humans have a funny (but not "ha ha" funny) way of dealing with lack of information: we assume the worst and then react emotionally to that worst-case scenario as if it were actually true. But almost always the worst case is not the case. (I'm not immune to this tendency, but I do try to avoid it.) Let me put the money you've spent on 3.0 and 3.5 edition products in perspective by asking a few questions: Did you use the materials? Did you enjoy the materials? Regarding the materials that you didn't use or enjoy so much, how much research did you put into the product before you purchased it? Do you still have the materials? Do they retain any value once 4th ed. comes out? When you go to a movie, how much do you spend on tickets, popcorn and a soda? How long does that product last? When you go out to eat, how much do you spend? How long does that product last? How many cable channels do you pay for but never watch? If you have a car, did you buy the least expensive car that gets the best gas mileage? How much do you spend on upgading your computer, and what value do you get from the old components after you replace them with the upgrades? Bottom line: we sound like people who simply don't like change. But change is coming. Have courage, my friends, it's not the end of the (real) world as we know it. (Dons greater ring of energy resistance[fire]). HOW DARE YOU USE LOGIC AND GOOD SENSE WHEN DEALING WITH D&D?!?! Are you a rabid fanboy or not? Really, that was so out of character for someone with this hobby that you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Wotc is just trying to make money like a normal business... Heresy!!! :rolleyes:
Rechan 08-19-07, 08:37 PM	Hey Keith! Hope you're recuperating from GenCon. Let's go ahead and get this out of the gate. How would you plan on incorporating Tieflings into Eberron, making them a viable race? Where can they come from for PCs? Because "I trekked over here from the Demon Wastes" can only get so much mileage. If the only place to get Tiefs is in the Wastes, it's much like how the only place to get Drow are from Xen'drik, and both are as unlikely and rare for a PC choice.
Rechan 08-19-07, 08:48 PM	Euangelion, Arryn. Yes, WotC is a business. But part of smart business practice is to not alienate your loyal customers. The fear is that WotC is going to come out with a new edition every 4-7 years, thus making purchasing any books beyond the core redundant. Doing so alienates customers, which discourages them from buying the new edition's books, which results in less sales, which hurts business. Not to mention, this is going to encourage more customers to turn to piracy of WotC products, as those customers avoid spending a buttload on books. Granted, usually the people who get disgruntled about New Editions are those people that buy every book that comes out, only to find their entire collection turned obsolete.
Hellcow 08-19-07, 08:50 PM	Can you tell us how much Eberron will change to fit into 4e? Nope. At this point, I really don't know much more about 4e than you do. However, it's something James has obviously been thinking about for a long time, and I will have the opportunity to discuss it with him in the future. From what I've seen, it's not a qestion of Eberron undergoing massive changes; reading between the lines of James' post, the point is that even if a dragonmarked race is removed from the 4e PHB, it's not be removed from existence, and thus Eberron wouldn't be altered to say "There have never been half-orcs in House Tharashk" - it just might be that these races aren't presented as PC options right off the bat. So I don't expect massive changes to the WORLD, but I really don't know much.
Yadot 08-19-07, 08:51 PM	Limiting things as much as possible, though, we have: OD&D (1973-1977*) AD&D (1977*-1989) AD&D 2nd edition (1989-2000) D&D 3E (2001-2008) D&D 4E (2008-?) That gives us a "lifespan"*** of: OD&D (4-6 years) AD&D (10-12 years) AD&D 2nd (11 years) D&D 3E (8 years) From my point of view at the time, both AD&D and AD&D 2nd were overdue for an update (although I was never satisfied with 2nd, and was playing other RPGs instead during that period). I think that's a bit too simplified. The whole 1996 revision of AD&D 2ed and 3.5ed are different enough to be included too. OD&D, AD&D 1st edition, AD&D 2nd edition, the 1996 revision of 2nd edition, D&D 3rd edition, D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th edition make 7 different versions with and average of 4 years, 11 months lifespan. Compare this to any other RPG and you'll find DnD's editions live longer than most.Palladium: Has never made a major revision, but this disguises the fact that Palladium releases enough volume of new rules for a major revision of their system every two years or so. Call of Cthulhu: Released 1981, 11 major releases, most recent major release 2006. Average time between major releases: 2 years, 3 months. Interlock system: Released 1987, 3 major releases, most recent major release 1997. Average time between major releases: 3 years, 4 months Storyteller/Storytelling System: Released 1991, 4 major releases, most recent major release 2005. Average time between major releases: 3 years, 6 months GURPS: Released 1986, 4 major releases, most recent major release 2004. Average time between major releases: 4 years, 6 months Hero System: Released 1981, 6 major releases, most recent major release 2005. Average time between major releases: 4 years
DBlizzard 08-19-07, 08:53 PM	I broke down the timelines in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204601) at ENWorld to discuss the various "eras" (the "skills and powers" era, the "unearthed arcana" era) if you want to go into detail. The fear is that WotC is going to come out with a new edition every 4-7 years, thus making purchasing any books beyond the core redundant. Doing so alienates customers, which discourages them from buying the new edition's books, which results in less sales, which hurts business. Looking back at the various editions, I wouldn't have issues with every 7-8 years a new edition. 3.5 was enough of a "new edition" in practice that it broke the expectations, as I state in the linked thread. 3.5 felt like 4E, so 4E feels like 5E. 8 years is too soon to go through 2 editions and start a 3rd.
Hellcow 08-19-07, 09:02 PM	Let's go ahead and get this out of the gate. How would you plan on incorporating Tieflings into Eberron, making them a viable race? Where can they come from for PCs? First comes the question: what constitutes a "viable race"? Changelings have been a PC race from the start, yet the only place they have anything resembling a realm of their own is the Gray Tide. I think James has an even more extreme view of changelings than I do, with the thought that many people may never even have seen a changeling - they just know that they exist. So: does viable race mean that they have to have a significant presence in the world? Or are they still strange and mysterious, outcasts more often than not, PCs more often than not? How many tieflings are there in Sharn: 1? 10? 1000? Beyond that, "tieflings come from the Demon Wastes" is just one of many possible answers. Without having thought of this at all before reading your post, heres the first four answers that come off the top of my head. Tieflings are survivors of the Mourning. Have their souls been corrupted, or did the forces of change only affect their bodies? Tieflings come from Khyber, which allows them to appear anywhere in Eberron. Just as the shulassakar have been physically transformed by their devotion to the Silver Flame, the tieflings have been reshaped by the dangerous powers that lurk in the depths of Khyber. Tieflings and aasimars have a chance to be conceived when there is a particular convergence of coterminous planes. Aasimars bear the touch of planes such as Daavni, Syrania, and Irian; tieflings are tied to Shavarath, Mabar, Kythri, and the like. The planar connection is reflected in the personality of the character; a Shavar tiefling is more likely to have an aggressive, martial nature. Sure, they can be considered to be blessed beings among the Carrion Tribes of the Demon Wastes. Anyhow, I've got a lot to do in weeks ahead, and I really don't have many answers, so I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to do a lot of this sort of speculation. But there's something!
Rechan 08-19-07, 09:24 PM	First comes the question: what constitutes a "viable race"? By Viable, I mean a race that one has access to use. I once more reference the Drow. Drow have little business outside of Xen'drik, so Drow PCs are going to be rare outside of a Xen'Drik based campaign. There are a lot of campaigns where a Drow just would be hard to work in with the rest of the party, from a background point of view, or from relating to the other PCs. It's also reasonable that you encounter a lot of strong NPC reactions towards them. If Tieflings are only coming from the Demon Wastes, that means that a Tiefling in Khorvaire proper is a rare event, and even if they do, the PC is going to encounter a lot of strong NPC reactions. Tieflings have demonic heritage, and the CotSF is likely going to give them a hard time at best these guys are directly linked to supernatural evil. As to Tiefling origins, I suggested on page four that they could have come from communities close to imprisoned rajahs (Daelkyr Half-Blood: Daelkyr::Tiefling:Rajah), radiation from Khyber, or simply put, the inevitable result of the Lords of Dust creating half-fiends to fight for them. Any cause of Warlocks could very well be the same cause for Tieflings.
Rekko 08-19-07, 09:36 PM	I haven't invested alot in D&D books. What keeps updated with the new book supplements that comes out each month are the Boards and Community members, web articles and the like. My thoughts on 4E: I look foward to see what they will do with D&D Insider. Faster combat play and easier DM preparation is something that gets me hooked. Moreover, I think it matches the movie combat style that Eberron is all about. As for Tieflings in Eberron, aside from what is said about them in the Monster Manual, I don't really know much more about them. I think they could fit in the Demon Waste, Droaam, Q'barra. Heck even maybe Eldeen Reaches, Shadow Marshes, Mror Holds and Lhazaar Principalities. They might blend in Karrnathi land easier than other human nation. Rekko Edit: I like the Mournland Tieflings, but how such beings would be seen by the other races?
Hellcow 08-19-07, 09:38 PM	If Tieflings are only coming from the Demon Wastes... I see no reason why this should be the case. Personally, the path I'd be most likely to take would be planar influence as opposed to any direct intercourse with fiendish or celestial beings. Eberron is a world in which the planes do touch the world, through coterminous phases and manifest zones. If you say that any child conceived when Shavarath is conceived has a minute chance of being born as a tiefling, you have the potential for tieflings to appear ANYWHERE; they don't have to have any common cultural or geographical connections. If tieflings are only produced by the darker planes and if their personalities generally reflect this planar influence, you can still have tieflings possessing a sinister reputation; Shavar tieflings are seen as violent killers, Kythri tieflings as wild and unpredictable, Fernian tieflings as hotheads and arsonists. So I wouldn't bind them to the Demon Wastes or the Lords of Dust. Personally, I'd make them a physical manifestation of the influence the planes have on the material world.
Euangelion 08-19-07, 09:41 PM	Of course, in Sharn:City of Towers it states that the planetouched are protected under the Code of Galifar just as if they were humanoids. Please don't make me look up the page #.
Arryn 08-19-07, 09:53 PM	The fear is that WotC is going to come out with a new edition every 4-7 years, thus making purchasing any books beyond the core redundant. And that's my problem with all of this initial overreaction. It's just a fear, not a fact, but people are acting like this is the gospel truth. There's so little that we know at this point... Would it kill us all to wait and see what happens before we start spouting doom and gloom? I don't know... maybe there's just something wrong with me. I do know that while I get annoyed about having to buy new books, I've been pleased with every new edition of the game that has come out since 2nd. I guess I'm wierd... I like change. Anyway, no matter what anyone says, I will wait until I see the finished product before I pass judgement on it, and WOTC. I just can't do it any other way.
Rechan 08-19-07, 09:54 PM	If tieflings are only produced by the darker planes and if their personalities generally reflect this planar influence, you can still have tieflings possessing a sinister reputation; Shavar tieflings are seen as violent killers, Kythri tieflings as wild and unpredictable, Fernian tieflings as hotheads and arsonists. And Mabar tieflings as scheming and nefarious. This opens the door for feats to bring out the Tiefling's planar heritage. From what the 4e discussion on races has talked about, you get racial powers as you progress. So it's also possible to provide the Tiefling Race with planar-heritage powers as opposed to the likely fiendish-related powers the race will be granted in the Core 4e. This is way too early to speculate and talk pure mechanics, but it's nice to keep in mind. I also like the idea of Tieflings being related to Khyber's influence.
Hellcow 08-19-07, 09:55 PM	Of course, in Sharn:City of Towers it states that the planetouched are protected under the Code of Galifar just as if they were humanoids. Please don't make me look up the page #. Well, according to page 126 of S:CoT, race isn't the issue; it's citizenship. The Droaamite gnoll isn't unprotected because he's a gnoll, it's because he's not a citizen of the Thronehold nations. Undead are specifically excluded. But anyone from the Demon Wastes would be excluded as well, human or half-fiend. With that said, this is exactly why I prefer the "planetouched changeling" approach, where any child conceived under the right circumstances having a (tremendously small) chance to be born planetouched. There might have been children of kings of Galifar born planetouched. Certainly one would expects stigmas and superstitions about this in various regions and various points in the past; some people may BELIEVE that the woman who gives birth to a tiefling has had congress with a fiend. It would be interesting to consider how each nation reacts to the planetouched in its midst; some might kill them at birth, while others consider them blessed. But I like the "anyone conceived when the planes are right could be a tiefling/aasimar" precisely because it does spread them out across the world and across history. People often complain that the kalashtar feel as if they are chained to one story; I like the idea that you could have a Thranish tiefling with a bond to Kythri, a Karrnathi tiefling tied to Shavarath, and a Marcher tiefling with a connection to Xoriat - all very different in personality, appearance, and lineage.
Euangelion 08-19-07, 10:58 PM	They're all good. Of course, who's to say the PC has any idea where the fiendish or celestial heritage comes from? "For some reason, every 3rd generation produces a special child..." Then again, having an actual outsider ancestor becomes interesting when they come calling on their progeny for that special task that only they can handle...
Hellcow 08-19-07, 11:07 PM	Of course, who's to say the PC has any idea where the fiendish or celestial heritage comes from? Certainly. If you take the Coterminous Child, I'd assume that it has been a mystery throughout much of human history, and may still be in many cultures. And beyond that, you're right; another approach would be NOT to explain it, but to simply say that the planetouched appear among the population, and that people don't know if it's the result of the stars being right, actual fiendish acestry, the hand of Khyber, or something else... leaving it entirely in the hands of DM and player. Another question is whether tieflings are a true breeding race in Eberron. Personally, my inclination would be to say that they aren't, so you don't get big tiefling communities; whether the effect that creates them is known or mysterious, they are still rare and enigmatic beings. There may have been a Demon Prince of Thrane in 552 YK, but either he sired no children, or his children were normal humans.
Rechan 08-19-07, 11:08 PM	And that's my problem with all of this initial overreaction. It's just a fear, not a fact, They did it with 3rd edition. There's nothing stopping them from doing it again.
DragoonDarkfire 08-19-07, 11:11 PM	They did it with 3rd edition. There's nothing stopping them from doing it again. Popular demand? If there's a huge public outcry AGAINST 4.5 then I doubt WoTC would make that move.
Arryn 08-19-07, 11:30 PM	They did it with 3rd edition. There's nothing stopping them from doing it again. And did the world end? Did gaming as we know it cease to be? Nope, in fact the game got better. Definately a reason to cry foul eh? Companies are always going to tweak their product and they are always going to charge for the new product. I figure as long as it is still something worth buying... I'll buy. And so will you and just about everyone else who's complaining right now. So why bother?
deathbane 08-20-07, 12:06 AM	I have to admit they have some good ideas but the only problems I had was the nerfing of the sorceror class straight from 3.0 and then they had the gall to create the warlock class but that was nothing compared to the Favoured Soul which is really the Sorceror class except they decided to split the original sorceror class and then they have the nerve to give the favoured soul bonus feats where the cleric class it was supposedly based on doesn't have any and then ignore the fact that the wizard class gets bonus feats and the sorceror class is still stuck with a d4 hit die and no cha skills and no adding the Bluff skill in exchange for the scry skill doesn't count! All they needed to do was increase the hd to d6, give them the choice of 3 bonus class skills that had to be chosen with their sorceror's spellcasting style and perhaps given the option of specialising like the wizard with the addition of making it clear sorcerors ARE NOT DEPENDENT on Wizards for THEIR SPELLS ABSOLUTELY PERIOD!!! Sorry I've run two sorcerors so far, the first had been a 7th level cleric aged 60 years so he couldn't wander around with the suit of full plate he had been using so I asked to multiclass and was told yes, the dm then chose all of the spells himself ignoring the fact he's not the one casting them, and then the character had to go back wearing his full plate because he turned the sorceror into a blaster and kept sticking high attack rolling foes... The second is a halfling and was told the class was dependent on scrolls for spells ignoring the fact the class isn't a subclass of wizard, otherwise had no problem running the character except I was the only player to give a perfectly valid reason why my character was going to multiclass and then it turned out I was running the only arcane spellcaster and then after the dwarf fighter met a human ranger and got to 2nd level he was able to multiclass as a ranger... Sigh... I do hope they've based 4e on ideas from SAGA and not some closet desire for powergaming... I really hope this pans out as I really don't like how they've been handling this announcement. Those are not WOTC issues. Those are crappy DM issues. A sorcerer's understanding of magic is natural while a wizard has to learn through books, but it never says the sorcerer does not choose what spells he wants to cast.
Werebat 08-20-07, 12:14 AM	As to Tiefling origins, I suggested on page four that they could have come from communities close to imprisoned rajahs (Daelkyr Half-Blood: Daelkyr::Tiefling:Rajah), radiation from Khyber, or simply put, the inevitable result of the Lords of Dust creating half-fiends to fight for them. Any cause of Warlocks could very well be the same cause for Tieflings. You know I could have sworn that somewhere in the ECS it mentions that Q'Barra has a fair number of tieflings, or that they are recommended as a PC race from the area, or commonly encountered monsters. IDHTBIFOM but I was considering running a Q'Barra campaign when I read it. I figured they were the descendents of demon-worshipping Khyber cults out in the jungle that had found ruins they shouldn't have been poking around in. - Ron ^*^
Werebat 08-20-07, 12:16 AM	Edit: I like the Mournland Tieflings, but how such beings would be seen by the other races? Possibly irrelevant aside -- I have used Malhavoc's Chaositech book in Eberron solely for the mutant templates, which I've only applied to Mourning survivors. Players have the option to apply the templates to their PCs as well. - Ron ^*^
Werebat 08-20-07, 12:25 AM	I like the idea that you could have a Thranish tiefling with a bond to Kythri, a Karrnathi tiefling tied to Shavarath, and a Marcher tiefling with a connection to Xoriat - all very different in personality, appearance, and lineage. You da man, Hellcow, and thanks once again for being so active on these boards, but I have to state my disagreement with you on one minor point. Overall I hadn't considered your view on where planetouched come from before but I like it as one possible option, so long as the usual "great-grandpa was a demon" option still works as well. However I think that Xoriat should not be associated with tieflings as Xoriat deals with the pseudonatural rather than the fiendish. I think the Daelkyr Half-Blood race functions as the Xoriat analog of a tiefling and does that job quite well. I wouldn't mess with having tieflings be connected to Xoriat. Just my opinion of course, but I had to speak my mind. :) - Ron ^*^
Arcane Guyver 08-20-07, 12:28 AM	To those griping about 4e: I don't understand what the big deal is over a new edition. Sure, there's been a rather short interval between 3rd and 4th, but that's very much due to the fact that communications are much speedier than they were previously. Back in 2e, if you found a problem with the rules, you sent a letter via snail-mail and hoped they would somehow address the problem with a supplement or something. As of 3e, we've got email and these bloody message boards. If something comes up, or a better way of doing something comes up, the developers hear about it super-fast. I know that we definitely won't have a 4.5 coming as there won't be a need for it. 4e is set up so it is much more fluid, with errata being less of a dirty word. My recommendation is to just not worry about 4e until it hits and play the game utilizing the large amount of 3.5 resources in the meantime.
Werebat 08-20-07, 12:30 AM	Oh, and my own personal pet hope for Eberron 4E, connected to the idea that shifters get a minor overhaul regarding their feat issues -- WotC, please, please fix the Swiftwing shifter so that it's good for something other than being a monk! :rant: Sorry, I just have a... personal interest in the matter. :D - Ron ^*^
AkumaDaimyo 08-20-07, 12:41 AM	I love Tieflings and would like to see them as a standard race in Eberron but I know they aren't. Eberron has it's own standard races. Tieflings are not one of them so how does the PHB making them standard in 4th ed change that? It doesn't. Some other points about tieflings in Eberron: They are indeed protected by the code of Galifar. In fact I myself asked Hellcow about reactions vs them. Silver Flame actually doesn't bother them as much as you'd think according to Hellcow's own words. So nanny nanny boo boo to those stuck of Flame people. :P Tieflings come from a lot more places then just the Demon Wastes. Lhazaar Principalities is one place tieflings are common. Any places with manifest zones could have tieflings as well.
Kaodi 08-20-07, 12:41 AM	I often thought that Eberron deserved to have a unique planetouched creature or template for every one of the planes. That was the idea behind my poorly received " Syranian Planetouched " thread, where I tried to conceive how the thematic traits of that plane might affect someone (in this case, I thought that having the pull of gravity on such a character be less strong was an interesting take, but maybe I was the only one). Perhaps that is something you could consider if you do Planes of Eberron, Keith. Thirteen planes, thirteen unique planetouched. Anyway, if you were just going with the more standard planetouched, Syrania is the only plane that actual has a good alignment though Shavarath is good in some places, and Risia and Fernia are the planes with evil alignments, along with Shavarath being variably evil aligned. Considering that one of those planes is coterminous for a month every two and a half years, that is plenty of opportunity to conceive of tieflings of any age. Chaods and zenythiri would be the domain of Kythri and Daanvi, and whether they will be core this time around is anyones guess. Also, Shavarath could spawn them as well... Shavarath does seem to be uniquely useful in this function.
davethebrave371 08-20-07, 01:35 AM	I, for one, am cautiously optimistic. I think that setting advancement is a no-no, so I hope they don't go that route (although comments from James Wyatt concerncing his novel and events in it that "tie in" with 4e have made me nervous, and an interview with Don Bassingthwaite had him dropping a bomb about possible setting advancement re: Darguun). But so long as no setting advancement (and especially no revisionism) happens, I think I'll be immensely happy with the mechanical change. Story and fluff stays the same, and I'm golden.
DBlizzard 08-20-07, 02:29 AM	Keith has updated his blog (http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/) with some info: I've just returned from Gen Con 2007, and it was both great fun and very exhausting. The big news of the show was the announcement that the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons will be released in 2008. 'm sure many of you want to know exactly what this means for Eberron. I don't have all of the answers; I'm just a freelancer. However, I know a few things. * Wizards of the Coast will continue to support Eberron under Fourth Edition. * WotC may advance the timeline a few years to introduce a few new plots and to help incorporate new elements from core fourth edition rules. However, this is NOT going to be a major change; James has said "It won't be the Time of Troubles." There may be some new villains, some shifts in the political landscape, but I don't believe that WotC will suddenly erase the dragonmarks from existence, explain the Mourning, or anything like that. * WotC will be providing strong support for Eberron in the online D&D Insider site, starting ASAP. I don't know exactly what I'll be doing with that, but I'm certainly going to be contributing to the site. James Wyatt is now the prime mover behind the story of Eberron, and he's been thinking about these issues for over a year now. James was there at the begining of Eberron, and he understands the setting as well as I do. I hope that I will have an opportunity to work with him as Eberron moves into the future; collaborating on the development of the ECS was one of the best creative experiences of my life. However, whatever happens, I believe that Eberron is in good hands and I look forward to seeing where it goes from here.
OneWinged4ngel 08-20-07, 02:47 AM	I often thought that Eberron deserved to have a unique planetouched creature or template for every one of the planes. That was the idea behind my poorly received " Syranian Planetouched " thread, where I tried to conceive how the thematic traits of that plane might affect someone (in this case, I thought that having the pull of gravity on such a character be less strong was an interesting take, but maybe I was the only one). Perhaps that is something you could consider if you do Planes of Eberron, Keith. Thirteen planes, thirteen unique planetouched. Sounds like a cool idea to me.
davethebrave371 08-20-07, 02:53 AM	Eugh. Any plot advancement is just endorsement of further plot advancement, no matter how innocent and minor it seems. This is the beginning of a slippery slope. I generally don't ascribe things to logical fallacies like this, but past precedent is unanimous in this. I can't think of one RPG setting, D&D or otherwise that has maintained a friendly-start non-advancement policy after an advancement of even minor proportions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of one.
Daydreamer 08-20-07, 03:06 AM	anything thats changed would simply become part of the campaign setting. If half-orc is no longer a core race, it becomes an 'eberron' race just like changlings or warforged are. When you get right down to it, the bulk of the changes are going to be made to the mechanics, and not really much impact on the story.
davethebrave371 08-20-07, 03:13 AM	anything thats changed would simply become part of the campaign setting. If half-orc is no longer a core race, it becomes an 'eberron' race just like changlings or warforged are. When you get right down to it, the bulk of the changes are going to be made to the mechanics, and not really much impact on the story. Did you read DBlizzard's post above?
Syltorian 08-20-07, 04:18 AM	Keith's blog, as quoted above by DBlizzard * WotC may advance the timeline a few years to introduce a few new plots and to help incorporate new elements from core fourth edition rules. However, this is NOT going to be a major change; James has said "It won't be the Time of Troubles." There may be some new villains, some shifts in the political landscape, but I don't believe that WotC will suddenly erase the dragonmarks from existence, explain the Mourning, or anything like that. Please, please, please, James (Keith, I don't appeal to you because I do not think you can stand up against WotC), reconsider. The setting is great just a year and a half out of the War. As has been said previously on this thread, advancing it even one month would spoil a lot, even if it is not going to change a lot. The histories of my characters is very important to me. Their ages are very important to me. Their connections to previous events are very important to me. I want to continue these characters without having to add a few more years or otherwise modify their histories. You are already telling us that we cannot easily convert the mechanics for our characters. Now will you also play around with our ability to use a faithful interpretation? For the inevitable reply that I can always continue to play in 998 YK: True, but it won't be the actual setting. There will be less support for that, I'd have to eliminate part of the flavour, I'd have to potentially ignore complete articles. Even if it is nothing major, it will be bad enough. Please, I am trying to come to terms with having to redo characters for the new edition, please do not force me to remake them for a new Eberron as well! Introduce new villains by all means. But leave the timeline and the politics alone! Write new novels about them, sure. But make sure they stay non-canon. I'm completely with Davethebrave, too. You are setting a dangerous precedent. Eberron is not very old yet, and the campaign setting is great. Please, do not advance the timeline. And to everybody else, even though I do not believe WotC cares about petitions and the like, please (if you agree with me), let WotC hear about it. Before they set about spoiling the setting, however minor they claim their changes are.
Adamaro23 08-20-07, 04:25 AM	Keith's blog, as quoted above by DBlizzard Please, please, please, James (Keith, I don't appeal to you because I do not think you can stand up against WotC), reconsider. The setting is great just a year and a half out of the War. As has been said previously on this thread, advancing it even one month would spoil a lot, even if it is not going to change a lot. The histories of my characters is very important to me. Their ages are very important to me. Their connections to previous events are very important to me. I want to continue these characters without having to add a few more years or otherwise modify their histories. You are already telling us that we cannot easily convert the mechanics for our characters. Now will you also play around with our ability to use a faithful interpretation? For the inevitable reply that I can always continue to play in 998 YK: True, but it won't be the actual setting. There will be less support for that, I'd have to eliminate part of the flavour, I'd have to potentially ignore complete articles. Even if it is nothing major, it will be bad enough. Please, I am trying to come to terms with having to redo characters for the new edition, please do not force me to remake them for a new Eberron as well! Introduce new villains by all means. But leave the timeline and the politics alone! Write new novels about them, sure. But make sure they stay non-canon. I'm completely with Davethebrave, too. You are setting a dangerous precedent. Eberron is not very old yet, and the campaign setting is great. Please, do not advance the timeline. And to everybody else, even though I do not believe WotC cares about petitions and the like, please (if you agree with me), let WotC hear about it. Before they set about spoiling the setting, however minor they claim their changes are. I agree with every single word you said :)
Darakhoranon 08-20-07, 06:14 AM	I don´t think we´re facing "regular" time-warps like in FR. And please don´t tell me YOU never "advanced" the timeline in Eberron. Or did your characters go from level 1 to 15 in just about 5 minutes? Didn´t think so. The only difference would be that "Now we write the year 1005 YK (or whatever)." would be the official timeline - but who cares? Would it be really better if every additional information (and the resulting necessary changes e.g. in the relations between Aundair and Karrnath if a "new" secret society showed up) happened all at once? Wouldn´t THAT be ret-conning at its worst?
Syltorian 08-20-07, 06:48 AM	I don´t think we´re facing "regular" time-warps like in FR. They are setting a precedent. If the argument for advancing the time line works now, it will work in the future. Besides, I don't care whether there are regular time-warps or not. I've got a number of characters that will be destroyed, hampered or in other ways taken out of my hands by a single jump of more than a year. And please don´t tell me YOU never "advanced" the timeline in Eberron. Or did your characters go from level 1 to 15 in just about 5 minutes? Didn´t think so. No, I never advanced the timeline, because all my campaigns start in 998 YK, and do not influence each other. Yes, each campaign individually advances in time. But that's the story of that campaign, and should have no bearing whatsoever on the setting beyond that one campaign. The only difference would be that "Now we write the year 1005 YK (or whatever)." would be the official timeline - but who cares? I do, and so do people who have posted here before and mentioned that advancing it even by one month would be too much. Besides, it would not be the only difference. The year 1005 YK (keeping it as an example) would be a different feeling. The Last War would not be as fresh. The Mourning would not be as fresh. Why change that? Would it be really better if every additional information (and the resulting necessary changes e.g. in the relations between Aundair and Karrnath if a "new" secret society showed up) happened all at once? Wouldn´t THAT be ret-conning at its worst? No, it would not be ret-conning if they do it correctly. And so far, they have managed that. Did the introduction of the Red Watchers in Magic of Eberron make changes that clashed with the setting information? No. Did the introduction of the Mosaic Committee in Five Nations do so? No. Do you think every book with any new material should advance the time line? If not, then it is not needed now, either. It is perfectly possible to add new elements to a setting as yet as little fleshed out as Eberron without having to advance the timeline. They have done so in all the previous material, after all. Why upset things now? Besides, things would not have happen all at once. Who says these societies have to appear all in 998? Why not in 996? Or 994? Or 992? You get the point. The societies have thousands of years in the past to appear, and it is not retconning unless there is something that specifically said that such a society did not exist before. Very little in the campaign material is being definite about things not existing, as far as I can tell.
The White Sorcerer 08-20-07, 06:59 AM	They did it with 3rd edition. There's nothing stopping them from doing it again. Other than, as James Wyatt has said, the lack of need for it? I will, once again, point you to this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs). I find this reaction hilarious. "Their business model says that 4.5 will come out!" LOL! One revision doth not a business model make, folks. Well, if you already belong firmly to the "v.3.5 was planned from the beginning to grub our moneys!" camp, nothing I, or the designers, say will convince you.
Darakhoranon 08-20-07, 07:43 AM	Syltorian, while you´re right to say that UNTIL NOW they didn´t contradict previously published material, how long do you think will it be until they will do exactly that? And EVERY additional information for an already published part of a setting IS ret-con - at least in a certain way. Let´s say we learn about a secret group of nobles in Karrnath who are (secretly of course) trying to take control of all the undead in the Karrnathi army. We also learn that these nobles were behind the recently published adventure "28 Nights Later" which featured units of Karranthi skeletons slaughtering whole villages of innocents. Of course, our party annihilated those undead. Our DM even dropped hints about BoV involvement. However, as we now know, this "new" secret noble cabal hates the BoV and would never work with them (or even use them as pawns). So the experiences and knowledge of our characters would have to be modified to take this into account. Just what you DON´T want to happen, right? Of course, this is an exaggerated example, but for our discussion it should be good enough. Everytime we get more information about the behind-the-scenes politics (even if it´s only rumors), the way we see Eberron is changed. ESPECIALLY if "it all happened 5 years ago". You´re right in that we can easily incorporate things that happened in Sarlona (or somewhere else most of us never adventured), but if our PCs stayed in Sharn during their whole career (and one of them is an investigator type with dozens of contacts) do you really think we would have never stumbled upon this not-so-secret group we just learned existed ALL ALONG? Granted, I´m making things up to show my point, but is it really impossible that this could happen? All things considered, it isn´t NECESSARY to advance the time-line. And it definitely might hurt the feeling of Eberron - in this I´m with you. But just as adding more information about Karrnath doesn´t necessarily qualify as ret-conning (or changing the atmosphere of Eberron), advancing the time-line a couple of years doesn´t necessarily "break" the setting. Until we know more about WHAT they actually want to do, we can only guess about the actual impact of the changes when Eberron 4E finally rolls around.
Syltorian 08-20-07, 08:08 AM	Syltorian, while you´re right to say that UNTIL NOW they didn´t contradict previously published material, how long do you think will it be until they will do exactly that? That depends on their skill, and the attention they devote to the setting; it is usually possible to fit things in without changing what is already there. Every DM does that, to a certain extent, with their campaigns; and if you are looking around the boards here, people try to bring in lots of stuff without changing the canon material and often get good advise here about how to do it. It might take more effort, of course; but I still believe it would be worth it. Besides, so much has not been fleshed out yet. The Reaches, the Talenta Plains, the Shadow Marches, Valenar have not been described. Neither have Flamekeep or Fairhaven, to any extent. Or the Planes. Even the Emerald Claw and the Aurum have received little treatment in supplements. There is little information about the War of the Mark, no collection of rules about the Mournland, nothing about the Seas and the undersea cultures. There are tons of material they could have done that hasn't been touched on yet, instead of advancing the campaign setting and changing what we know already, be it in a "minor" way. And EVERY additional information for an already published part of a setting IS ret-con - at least in a certain way. Granted; but it is not necessarily a correction (i.e. it does not invalidate what has gone before); it merely adds to it. Let´s say we learn about a secret group of nobles in Karrnath who are (secretly of course) trying to take control of all the undead in the Karrnathi army. We also learn that these nobles were behind the recently published adventure "28 Nights Later" which featured units of Karranthi skeletons slaughtering whole villages of innocents. Of course, our party annihilated those undead. Our DM even dropped hints about BoV involvement. However, as we now know, this "new" secret noble cabal hates the BoV and would never work with them (or even use them as pawns). So the experiences and knowledge of our characters would have to be modified to take this into account. Just what you DON´T want to happen, right? I am not quite sure about what you want to say with this. That the DM dropping hints about the BoV involvement before he knew that the secret group hates the BoV causes problems? True, it does for that campaign; but it could be solved (for instance, the BoV could be framed, and the hints were wrong in-game as well as out-of-character). Also, regarding campaigns, I do not think that they are supposed to have happened in the setting. The "28-days-later" adventure will have happened in that particular group, but it is not an issue for the next campaign that same group plays for different characters; same as the group discovering the reason for the Mourning in one campaign might be playing different characters where the Mourning was caused by something else entirely. But yes, every material that comes out forces us to make modifications to our characters. But mostly, it does not simply throw them out - advancing the timeline does that, in many cases. You'd have to explain all of a sudden what your character did for that long (and frankly, spending time as a statue or in Thelanis is a bit of an evasion); you'd have to update his age, that of his family, and so forth; my main complaint here is that I do not only have to add bits into the past, I'll have to rewrite the present too; ending up with a different character. Everytime we get more information about the behind-the-scenes politics (even if it´s only rumors), the way we see Eberron is changed. ESPECIALLY if "it all happened 5 years ago". True again, but not as much as if the entire setting moves ahead in time. As I also said before, it changes the entire flavour. The Nations are currently out of the war for 13 months. That's much more imminent than 5 years (or even three years). It will also change NPCs we love. Will Boranel live that long? Will Jaela have grown up? Is Haydith still in Breland? For instance, the point of Jaela is that she is so young, and yet in control of a nation and a powerful religion. That's going to be lost the older she becomes. An 11-year-old in that position of power is more interesting than someone in their late teens. You´re right in that we can easily incorporate things that happened in Sarlona (or somewhere else most of us never adventured), but if our PCs stayed in Sharn during their whole career (and one of them is an investigator type with dozens of contacts) do you really think we would have never stumbled upon this not-so-secret group we just learned existed ALL ALONG? Granted, I´m making things up to show my point, but is it really impossible that this could happen? But it would still be the lesser evil to having to add some further years to your character's history. Maybe that group did not interest him, or simply did not get into his life; it's a large city, and I doubt you know all the groups in your real-life home city, even if they would have some kind of impact on your life. Of course, introducing that "this fits my character so well, why couldn't they tell me earlier?" element is frustrating. But the "so my innocent young adventurer is suddenly a mature adult" is equally so. All things considered, it isn´t NECESSARY to advance the time-line. And it definitely might hurt the feeling of Eberron - in this I´m with you. But just as adding more information about Karrnath doesn´t necessarily qualify as ret-conning (or changing the atmosphere of Eberron), advancing the time-line a couple of years doesn´t necessarily "break" the setting. Thanks for conceding the first point; on the second: it might not break the setting, but it will change the atmosphere (the imminence disappears, even if it is replaced by something else). It will certainly destroy a good deal of my PCs, NPCs and adventure ideas. Until we know more about WHAT they actually want to do, we can only guess about the actual impact of the changes when Eberron 4E finally rolls around. True again; but I still think it better to protest now than to try and do so when we are holding the new campaign setting in our hands. Not that either will work, but there is that tiny sliver of a chance more in the first case.
Euangelion 08-20-07, 09:04 AM	Slight advancement is one thing, major advancement is another. For instance, I could see the Dhakaani taking over Darguun, which wouldn't be a drastic change in the setting. But Thrane taking over Karnnath would be a drastic change. I guess I've always assumed that when 4th ed. came out, there would be some metaplot advancement for Eberron. Just as long as it isn't something dramatic like the Turning of the Age of Dol Quor, or the resumption of the Last War, or a new Argonnessen-Aerenal War, or a new continent suddenly rising from the sea (or falling from the sky), or the establishment of a Dragonmarked Nation, or Breland becoming a parliamentary republic at the death of Boranel, or a planar invansion of Fernia, etc., etc.
Edymnion 08-20-07, 09:05 AM	Then you believe what Mr. Wyatt said about 4.5?No, I don't believe it, but I draw a line between a lie and the standard business practice of denying something is in the works until you are officially ready to announce it. The *ONLY* way I would believe WotC does not intend to pull a 4.5 is if I have a legally binding contract in my hands, signed by WotC, that says something along the lines of "If we ever publish a 4.5 edition, then we agree to pay you X million dollars." If they don't, then obviosly they at the very least plan on keeping that option open.Popular demand? If there's a huge public outcry AGAINST 4.5 then I doubt WoTC would make that move.Uh, I don't think WotC cares very much about public outcry against things right now. There was a lot of public outcry over canning Dragon and Dungeon, but you see how good that was. There is public outcry over 4e coming so soon, but you see how much good thats doing.To those griping about 4e: I don't understand what the big deal is over a new edition.I really need to make a nice fully explination on this for people that don't get it, but beyond just saying "you either get it or you don't", I'll throw out some brief keynotes: There was the implied notion that 3e would last for a set amount of time, and hence that we would get a set amount of use out of our material before the next edition came out. No, "your old books will keep working" is not a valid counter, because the turn of the editions invariably causes available games for the last edition to die off. Just try to find a 2e game running right now that started up since 3e launched. If you use the internet, you might find one or two. Go to your local gaming store and try finding one though. The lifespan of an edition is also the general lifespan of being easily able to find a game for that edition. Once 4e has been out for a few months, 3e will be virtually dead, in the same way 2e is now. Reprints. When 3e launched, half the material was 2e updates/conversions/reprints, which was fine. Then 3.5 launched, and despite promises of no reprints, we spent most of the 3.5 lifespan getting reprints of 3.0 material in the Complete series. Now that we're finally out of reprint material (ie, they covered almost all of it), we're getting a new edition where they can reprint *the exact same material* once again. How about letting the last reprint cool down from the presses before we reprint it again, huh? The timing. We have seen *zero* evidence from WotC that they really care for the well-being of the game, just their bottom line. Now, to some degree, this is to be expected. They're a business, they need to make money just like everybody else. However, cranking up the edition number in half edition incriments every time the sales settle down into a longterm pattern just so you can reprint the same material again is not a business plan that is respectful of the customer base. Nothing I've seen so far about 4e changes this basic idea of "Just stick it under their noses and they'll lap it up". None of their business practices to date indicate that they are more interested in delivering a good game than in making maximum profit for minimum effort. PDFs at the same price as hardcopies springs to mind. No publishing costs, and the books go to the printers as PDFs, and no middle man, so where is the cost savings for us? No, WotC just sees bigger profit margins, and charges us full price for soemthing that costs them less than half of what they normally pay to get the books to us. "Nominal fees" for activating books online under the digital initiative. The fact they KNOW you already bought a copy at full price, they are going to charge you AGAIN for a virtual copy that can only be used on their website. Killing Dragon and Dungeon so they could pull that material into Insider to get direct access to those profits. I honestly can't recall the last time I saw WotC do something that was good for the community since 3e launched with the OGL, and even that was a well planned method for upping their own sales. No solid evidence that they won't just do it all again as soon as 4e falls off the best seller chart. Sure, they swear up and down now that they won't do 4.5. Just like they swore up and down that 3.5 was a "minor rules tweak, you won't even notice" and that they weren't working on 4e for 2 years. Again, not that I accuse them of lying, I just accuse them of not being able to trust anything they say due to standard business practices. They're well known now for official denials having nothing to do in any shape, form, or fashion with what they're really doing, so why should we suddenly believe that they're actually being 100% honest with us now, when they haven't been 100% honest with us for... 3, nearly 4 years running now? Eugh. Any plot advancement is just endorsement of further plot advancement, no matter how innocent and minor it seems. This is the beginning of a slippery slope.Agreed. I will consider any advancement of the metaplot for what it is, a slap in the face from all the times they told us the metaplot would not advance. If it does advance, then not even Eberron will be enough to bring me into 4e, since IMO Eberron will have sold out. There are three things that, if they occur, will mean I will not buy future Eberron material: Advancing the Metaplot. This is precisely what killed Faerun, and I'll be damned if I go along for the ride to watch it happen to Eberron. Novels becoming canon. The root cause for #1, its what ruined Faerun. Novels are canon, which advanced the metaplot, which ruined the setting. Explaining the Mourning. The major lynchpin in the idea that there are mysteries in Eberron that will be left up to DMs.If I see any one of those three occur, thats it, I'm out. I'll continue to play the setting with the old material, but I'll never buy a new book for it ever again.
The White Sorcerer 08-20-07, 09:39 AM	No, I don't believe it, but I draw a line between a lie and the standard business practice of denying something is in the works until you are officially ready to announce it. The *ONLY* way I would believe WotC does not intend to pull a 4.5 is if I have a legally binding contract in my hands, signed by WotC, that says something along the lines of "If we ever publish a 4.5 edition, then we agree to pay you X million dollars." Eh. So you subscribe to the "They did it once, they WILL do it again, just to screw us over" school of thought? You know, they NEVER denied that 4th Edition was coming.
Kaodi 08-20-07, 09:49 AM	I always thought that the campaign starting year was 998 YK so that when 1000 YK rolled around, the DM would have the option to do something really setting-changing or apocalyptic to tie in with the new year. If they advance the game to 1000 YK, that suddenly becomes very difficult to do for any new players starting with 4e Eberron, and if it starts in 1001 YK, that is totally gone. A wasted opportunity for most DMs.
Euangelion 08-20-07, 10:19 AM	And where did they promise never to advance the metaplot? This isn't snarky. They may have said that, I just missed it, I guess. Come on, Kaodi, missed opportunity for a particular year? The moons and planes are constantly whipping around Eberron, creating new patterns and new alignments every day. Any day, any month, any year can be an opportunity for cataclysmic events. Don't limit your thinking to a year with a bunch of zeroes. Besides, there's no year 0 in Eberron either, so the new millenium starts on the first day of 1001 YK.
Rechan 08-20-07, 10:31 AM	Other than, as James Wyatt has said, the lack of need for it? I will, once again, point you to this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs). I watched the video long before I made the comment. I'm aware of what James Wyatt said. James Wyatt is a member of the Story department, not the R&D or rules department. I wouldn't expect the guy in Human Resources to know all that much about the details in Accounting, and even if there was a 4.5 planned, Wyatt wouldn't likely be told. I find this reaction hilarious. "Their business model says that 4.5 will come out!" LOL! One revision doth not a business model make, folks. Well, if you already belong firmly to the "v.3.5 was planned from the beginning to grub our moneys!" camp, nothing I, or the designers, say will convince you. I never said it was planned from the beginning. But constant reprinting then updating the edition then coming out with a new one, so as soon as your splatbooks are printed, you can get people to buy all new splatbooks, is consistent with 3e. There's no reason why, as a business, they wouldn't do this, because it works. Businesses care about their product to the extent that it will sell. D&D will always be D&D because removing things like Hitpoints, AC, ability scores, and classes, will make people move away because "It's not D&D anymore", which would hurt sales from repeat customers. It wouldn't surprise me if 3.5 or 4e was instigated by people at the top, or the sales department, because the current books weren't selling. So no, I'm not implying that 3.5 was anticipated before the 3.0 core book was put out, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't an intentional decision motivated by business sales. No, it didn't end the world. But it certainly hurts those who spent thousands of dollars on books (given how each one is what, $30-$40 store price?).
Rauric 08-20-07, 10:58 AM	If there is a metaplot advancement, people still do not have to follow it. In some FR games I have played the Realms were drastically different than the campaign book since the players had a real affect on the world. I changed alot of FR material during my game. The players were not FR snobs and were cool with it. Even the Diehard FR fans. They liked how they could affect they world. The gaming group I play with have the same feeling about Eberron. If one DM runs us through a campaign that changes something another DM sometimes leaves that bit of change in there. Plus the people that say "I am no longer buying X if Y happens." are usually the vocal minority. Especially on the net. If people like Eberron they will most likely pick it up through many changes and many editions to come. Saying timeline changes killed FR is silly. Maybe it killed it for you. That makes more sense. People have learned to ignore things they dislike and use what they think is useful or right for their campaign. The only thing that is true continuity is what I allow as a DM. That doesn't mean I am a total tyrant about it. It just mean I have control over the content in my games. Hey, Ed Greenwood still runs his game in the 1350s I think, some 20 years before the current FR timeline. A few FR games I have been in ignored the Time of Troubles totally. At first that bothered me but I got used to it because in the end we all had fun with the game. Anyway I am fine with advancement if it gives us some new content (more mysterious places, more plot devices) and doesn't take away anything, like getting rid of a House or destroying a city. Adding to the world is better than reducing portions of it. That is what I would like to see. This campaign world has done a lot on how camapigns can be run. Basically it helped me become less of a continuity purist/nazi and just made me want to run and play in a game that is fun.;)
Hellcow 08-20-07, 11:32 AM	However I think that Xoriat should not be associated with tieflings as Xoriat deals with the pseudonatural rather than the fiendish. Whereas I'd be perfectly happy placing Obyriths in Xoriat. So, in my opinion, it's not that you couldn't have a tiefling tied to Xoriat - it's that a tiefling tied to Xoriat should be VERY different from a tiefling tied to Shavarath. It should reflect the inhabitants and the nature of the plane. But I'm perfectly content to have fiends in Xoriat - as long as they feel like fiends that BELONG in Xoriat. But I certainly accept the fact that many will disagree with me here. ;)
Hellcow 08-20-07, 11:35 AM	Regarding the timeline advancement concern, I'll start off by posting my response from my livejournal... ------------------- I understand your frustration, Dave. However, if they maintain a policy of "Only advance things when a new edition of the game comes out", that's good enough for me. Thing thing to consider is that they AREN'T doing this just for the sake of changing the setting. It's not like they just decided to introduce the Time of Troubles for the sake of shaking things up. Instead, we have the fact that 4th Edition is going to introduce a number of very fundamental changes. New core races. New "power sources", as they called them during the presentation. We leaves a choice: we pretend that these things have been there all along and you just never noticed them, or we add events into the world that justify the changes. Personally, that's what I'd rather do, so the world feels more internally consistent. So I DON'T want to see the world suddenly become a place that's constantly reshaped by new scripted events or novels. I believe that the designers still respect the principle of leaving much of Eberron in the hands of the DM. At the Secrets of Eberron, James - the official story masters - brought up that list of things WotC will NEVER DO. It's straight official policy: THEY WILL NEVER GIVE AN ANSWER TO THE MOURNING. They will never explain the Mark of Death. It's still the case that they want to leave DMs rooms to move. But the change of editions is a MAJOR thing and there are going to be a lot of ripples, and I'd like the chance to incorporate those into the world into a logical way. Anyhow, as long as the timeline doesn't advance again until fifth edition (I know, you're all saying "You mean 2010?"), I'll be satisfied.
LadyJorasco 08-20-07, 11:46 AM	I don´t think we´re facing "regular" time-warps like in FR. And please don´t tell me YOU never "advanced" the timeline in Eberron. Or did your characters go from level 1 to 15 in just about 5 minutes? Didn´t think so. The only difference would be that "Now we write the year 1005 YK (or whatever)." would be the official timeline - but who cares? Would it be really better if every additional information (and the resulting necessary changes e.g. in the relations between Aundair and Karrnath if a "new" secret society showed up) happened all at once? Wouldn´t THAT be ret-conning at its worst? its not about individual dms and players advancing a few months, a year or even a decade. its about the official setting. right now its totally userfriendly. davethebrave (i assume its the saem one from the boards here) posted a good comment to keith's blog post talking about how friendly eberron is to new players and new dms, and how very few settings are. yeah you can choose to ignore tons of new content and play just out of the campaign setting book, but youre going to end up with far less material then someone who uses the entirety of the setting. and you can use the entirety of the setting easily if there is no advancement. otherwise, you have to figure out when what thing happened and how to fit it in with stuff thats already happened in your game etc etc and if you just bought all the 3.5 eberron books but are now not going to play a game until 4e comes out (like a friend of mine from michigan, who just bought and/or received for her birthday all the core books and most of the eberron books on the 12th) it becomes frustrating that youll have to deal with an advancement. one of her big problems with dnd is that all the settings advance. shes been playing homebrew games with other game systems for years, and i recently recommended she read tales of the last war, the dreaming dark trilogy, and the dragon below trilogy. she loved them so much that she decided to get back into dnd (something she hasn't done since the time of troubles bullcrap). even now, with wotcs "stupid" business practice of introducing this new edition (from her pov, i think its about time to be honest) she is still so enamored with the setting that shes willing to wait for 4e and buy those books. i hope she doesnt find out theres going to be setting advancement.
LadyJorasco 08-20-07, 11:49 AM	Anyhow, as long as the timeline doesn't advance again until fifth edition (I know, you're all saying "You mean 2010?"), I'll be satisfied. i still dont think it should happen at all but if it does and if its actually necessary than my main concern would be letting wotc know in no uncertain terms that 5th edition is absolutely the only setting advancement after this, and that novels should still remain totally noncanon.
Hellcow 08-20-07, 12:00 PM	Advancing the Metaplot. This is precisely what killed Faerun, and I'll be damned if I go along for the ride to watch it happen to Eberron. So I'll say this again: If one instance of this is sufficient to kill the setting for you forever, than I'm afraid this is the end, and I will be sorry to see you go. Personally, I understand why WotC is doing this, and do not feel that it in any way indicates a fundamental change in the long term approach to Eberron. This doesn't mean that every year they'll be a new Khorvaire-Shattering-Event. It is a single action intended to incorporate the inevitable changes that come along with 4E, and that will in the process look at a few changes to the world. What WON'T it be? "The Dragonmarks are gone." "The Sovereign Host has returned to walk the earth." "Thrane has been wiped from the map by the return of the Rajah." "Riedra has invaded Khorvaire." Again, the point of this is NOT to be a "realm-shaking event." It's (in my mind, as an outsider) a way to work in changes that DON'T seamlessly fit into the current world, with what I expect to be MINOR new threads for people to play with. Here's a sahuagin warlord who is rallying his people and terrorizing shipping along the Thunder Sea. Here's a new monster that has risen out of Khyber and is lurking in the Shadow Marches. Is it a harbinger of the daelkyr? Maybe. It's not about CHANGING the setting, in the way that the Time of Troubles did. It's about throwing a few more toys into the sandbox. Though again, that's just the impression I've gotten over the last few days. (And note that I completely made up those two examples.) Novels becoming canon. The root cause for #1, its what ruined Faerun. Novels are canon, which advanced the metaplot, which ruined the setting. I've seen nothing indicating that this is a justified fear at this time. Though I'll also note that I still don't think I've ever seen an actual WotC employee say that this is a promise or a fact; as far as I know, *I'M* the one who keeps advocating for it. But novels haven't shaped the setting so far, and I don't see any reason to think that will change. Explaining the Mourning. The major lynchpin in the idea that there are mysteries in Eberron that will be left up to DMs. Meanwhile, that's something that was officially stated by the WotC lead story designer. Right there at the Secrets of Eberron seminar, James Wyatt stated conclusively that there's a list of things WotC will never officially touch, including the cause of the Mourning and the powers of the Mark of Death. This is a conscious, official decision on the part of WotC management, and it's not something that's going to change. So I think that sums up my point. WotC recognizes that one of the fundamental principles of Eberron is that there are mysteries that should be left to the DM, and places - Xen'drik, I'm looking at you - that should be left to the DM. They aren't stumbling around with no idea that these things matter to people. But they believe that the release of the new edition is worth advancing the timeline slightly in order to smooth the transition and to present new elements into the world. It's not a realm-shattering event; it's a evolution of ideas that they DON'T consider so earthshaking as to break the world. Perhaps they will say "A group of warforged have created a city in the Mournland." But that's easily overlooked if you don't like it. They WON'T say "All warforged have gone on a murderous rampage against humanity" or "All warforged have died" - or at least that's my impression. As I said at the start, the man driving this is James Wyatt, who was there from the begining; this is not someone with no concept of what Eberron is about. I hope that I will be involved as well. So yes, there's going to eventually be a shift for 4E - but it shouldn't be a cataclysm that will ruin everything you've ever done. If I see any one of those three occur, thats it, I'm out. I'll continue to play the setting with the old material, but I'll never buy a new book for it ever again. Well, it will be a while, but I'm afraid that it is likely to be inevitable, and I'll be sorry to see you go. I have always been a strong supporter of the setting leaving things as open as possible. And after 4E comes out, I will strongly oppose any other timeline change. However, I do believe that what WotC has planned - from what little I know of it - is an appropriate way to deal with the release of 4E, and I don't believe it's going to destroy Eberron as we know it. And as has been said, if you don't like it, don't use it. Because we AREN'T talking about "The gods are walking the earth! Divine magic has stopped! The Eldeen Reaches have fallen into the sea!", I don't believe you'll have too much trouble if you hold to the original. With that said, we're talking about something that's at least two years away. Nothing's set in stone. As such, I recognize that this is an important time for you to make your voices heard, because there is time for WotC to respond, and they could always change their mind... so I'm not suggesting that people stop complaining. But this isn't happening tomorrow, it potentially might not happen at all... and in any case, from everything I've seen, if it does happen we aren't talking about the massive transformative events seen in other settings.
Kaodi 08-20-07, 12:04 PM	Come on, Kaodi, missed opportunity for a particular year? The moons and planes are constantly whipping around Eberron, creating new patterns and new alignments every day. Any day, any month, any year can be an opportunity for cataclysmic events. Don't limit your thinking to a year with a bunch of zeroes. Besides, there's no year 0 in Eberron either, so the new millenium starts on the first day of 1001 YK. It is not necessary that all events revolve around lunar and planar conjunctions. For instance, what if Galifar had made a pact with the most powerful of the Lords of Dust, that his conquest would succeed where his ancestor, Karrn, had failed? In return, his oath would mean that in the 1000th year of his " reign " , something truly terrible would happen. A secret journal uncovered by the PCs reveals that Galifar believed that in a thousand years his people would be able to defeat this evil, but because of the Last War that it is up to them to put right what Galifar had left wrong.
Hellcow 08-20-07, 12:11 PM	i still dont think it should happen at all but if it does and if its actually necessary than my main concern would be letting wotc know in no uncertain terms that 5th edition is absolutely the only setting advancement after this, and that novels should still remain totally noncanon. And as I said, you should certainly make your voice heard. But the main point I would make is that WotC isn't looking at this as a plotline advancement that they are trying to force on everyone - a plotline advancement with no reason other than to shake things up. The point is that they will, in time, be releasing a 4E Eberron Campaign Setting Book. If you get into Eberron five years from now, the current book won't even be on the shelves. So if your friend gets into Eberron two years from now, this will be the only book she needs. This book is necessary because there are things in Eberron that will need to be mechanically updated to 4E. Assuming that they don't end up in the core rules, how do warforged work in 4E? What about artificers? If you play in Eberron AND play using 4E rules, you'll need the book. As such, I believe that their goal in advancing the setting is to provide DMs who HAVE the ECS with added value... to not simply say "Here's the book you already own, but with the warforged racial traits block changed." They want to offer new things to play with - the sahuagin warlord, a Seren Dragonspeaker sieizing territory in Q'barra and forming an alliance with the Cold SUn lizardfolk (again, making this up). Not a VAST REALM SHAKING EVENT; a number of small shifts that provide old DMs with new plot hooks to explore. If you'd rather just get that book that has the warforged stat block changed and nothing more, that's something you should let WotC know. But personally, it makes sense to me and does not appear to be the harbinger of MASSIVE SETTING CHANGES to follow as yearly events or anything like that. But, of course, I could be wrong.
Remmster 08-20-07, 12:11 PM	It wouldn't surprise me if 3.5 or 4e was instigated by people at the top, or the sales department, because the current books weren't selling. So no, I'm not implying that 3.5 was anticipated before the 3.0 core book was put out, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't an intentional decision motivated by business sales. Frankly, I think it's just the name that sets some people off about the 3.5E, which might've been conceived in advance, and a possible 4.5. Let's face it, guys: Every roleplaying game does it. In some cases, it's rather random (the evolution of AD&D), in some cases, more carefully engineered, like the D&D 3.5e product palette. But what it boils down to: Every game system I've known so far evolves. Every 5-10 years, you can expect a supplemen/rulebook that widely redefines game mechanisms, replaces older material (and thus makes it "incompatible" or "useless") and so on. The difference here is just that most game systems actually didn't really label their stuff with numbers in the "compatible version series"-sense up until lately. Take Shadowrun, for example, the Rigger 2. It widely replaces the rules for that part as they worked in the first Rigger Blackbook and the SR2-core book, and then the material from Rigger 2 got mostly drafted into the SR3 core book, BUT without being the "official Rigger 3 rules". Even without announcements you could tell some time in the future, it was bound to have a Rigger 3. Repeact cycle. That's the "smooth" transition that is widely accepted as improvement and not as "OH MY, EVIL MARKETING STRATEGIES!" - but everyone keeps crying that when a game officially sheds the 2 for a 3, the 3 for a 4 and so on. D&D 3.5 just became the target because it had it's own number, and actually made a real effort to keep all the changes that most other systems suffer from month-to-month into a complete batch. At least, you know where the line between 3 and 3.5 is. In many systems, it's way harder to keep track of "compability". So, having the X.a, X.b, X.c and so on editions of a game system is totally inevitable. Ever has been like that, ever will be like that. And every RP publisher will want to keep his stuff evolving, and be it only for money, sure. A product that sells once and then never again is not a good product, but in the end the customer seems to like it anyway. New is nice. --- For the setting-advancement thing: Well, I have to say that actually I'm part of the no-canonic-changes faction, because it's so much easier to keep track of things and feeling totally right in persueing your own timeline. But at any rate, I think that's the only problem vast changes in settings bring: Keeping track of things if you want to incorporate every single bit of canonic advancement. The rest is irrelevant, since you can, it's been said often enough, do what you want with your game anyway. The problem with major face-lifting is that players who are new to the game might perceive the setting with very different eyes than the veterans, that much is for certain, but for that the changes really had to be major. For the rest? Better see it like suggestions, which is in my opinion Eberron is centered around anyway, rather outlining possibilities and inspirations than plainly tossing hard facts right in your face. As long as the flexible aspect of Eberron is kept, I see no problem there. You don't have to follow it, but think of it as fuel for your future campaigns, maybe. While some people may have a very solid perspective on how their own continuity develops, some others might run into a dead end at some point, and maybe some "tweaks" to the setting will ignite a new spark. In the end, when it is at some point intended that different Eberron campaigns starting in 998 all treat the following as a different continuity, not affecting another campaign starting also in 998, then why not perceiving the upcoming changes as just another alternate scenario? Just take it as a "what if", and if you don't like that, stick with your 998-continuities. I guess that's at least how I would like to handle it. When it happens and you can nothing do against it, make the best of it - or ignore it, and I think ignoring it in the case of Eberron is simple, since it's so flexibly designed from the start up. Userfriendliness will wear off at one point anyway. I'm not entirely sure, but I think so far already some sourcebooks contradicted each other in minor details here and there, and it's likely this will happen in the future (though I cannot put my finger on one particular thing, so I might very well be wrong here, mind you). Just keep telling yourself every night before going to bed: You have to pay taxes, but you don't have to do anything you don't like in a roleplaying game. Remember that "official" doesn't equal "the only right path".
Syltorian 08-20-07, 12:15 PM	its not about individual dms and players advancing a few months, a year or even a decade. its about the official setting. right now its totally userfriendly. QFT I always thought that the campaign starting year was 998 YK so that when 1000 YK rolled around, the DM would have the option to do something really setting-changing or apocalyptic to tie in with the new year. If they advance the game to 1000 YK, that suddenly becomes very difficult to do for any new players starting with 4e Eberron, and if it starts in 1001 YK, that is totally gone. A wasted opportunity for most DMs. Exactly. We all live through the 1999/2000, and some people could get rather crazy about it. In the Middle Ages, the 990s were not much different. The millenium change has a huge potential. Yes, it is borrowing a lot from our own world, and maybe people in Eberron are not scared by ominously round numbers. But let's look at it this way: We're currently in 998 YK, and have had two major catastrophes: Galifar is no more. The Mourning destroyed Cyre. Doomsday prophecies should be ripe. So, in 998 you can play that, in 999 it becomes really accute, and in 1000... it's gone. I do agree that this is one of my lesser concerns, though. It matters more to me that I see a world just out of a war as more interesting than one a few years out of a war. Quite beside being personally annoyed at having to redo some characters, some of which will be destroyed by this change. If there is a metaplot advancement, people still do not have to follow it. True, and I do not believe that I for one will follow it. But that will leave me out in the cold. I will have to houserule the flavour more or less heavily; the "new elements" introduced by 4th Edition will have to be explained into the setting by me and other, individual, DMs, without anything that could unify them, and let them benefit from the new material, where it pertains to the new time. I will also have to ignore material and articles. It will isolate those of us who want their Eberron fresh out of the War, who do not want an advance in metaplot, those who like the setting as it is. It will hamper our ability to engage in discussion here in the community, because the majority of people will be talking about the new Eberron, not 998 YK. To refuse the metaplot advancement is simply going to isolate people. Instead, we have the fact that 4th Edition is going to introduce a number of very fundamental changes. New core races. New "power sources", as they called them during the presentation. We leaves a choice: we pretend that these things have been there all along and you just never noticed them, or we add events into the world that justify the changes. Personally, that's what I'd rather do, so the world feels more internally consistent. Thanks for understanding us, Hellcow. But I am still wary about a time change. Unless they advance the campaign setting by quite a long time, say, a century (highly unlikely, from my reading of the information), you will have to cram all of the new material, power sources, core races, and so forth, into, shall we say, three years. That leaves us with the dragonmarked houses taking centuries to discover lighting rails and airships or coming up with street lighting, and then within few years where suddenly half a dozen new sources appear at once; that is not what I would call a "minor change"; that's a major upheaval. If those sources are, say, new monsters or a Sahuagin warlord, like you describe in your second post, then all the timeline needs to be advanced by is a month. Maybe a year, and go to 999 YK. But otherwise, and I am aware that I don't know yet what the changes to 4th Edition are, it seems as if anything that warrants a timeline advance would be, while not world-shaking in the Time of Troubles way, a time laden with much more events and discoveries than anything we know of so far in Eberron. So yes, I would rather we add them into the world as it is, pretending they always existed, unless they cause fundamental changes to how the setting works - but in that case, they wouldn't be good in either past or future. We managed to get Incarnum, Shadow Magic, Truespeaking and so forth into Eberron, after all, without having to advance the timeline. I'd like that Sahuagin Warlord to be around just now; why can't the news that he is terrorising the shipping lanes appear in, say, Olarune 998 rather than sometime in 1001? As I said, it will rather severely hamper my enjoying of the setting, because there is just over a year since the Last War, not a longer time of intervening peace; because some of my characters will have to be greatly modified, because of the (trivial, perhaps) "millenium-craze", because of Jaela being not even a teenager while being at the helm of Thrane and the CotSF, because Haydith is still running around in Wroat and not an adult back in Karrnath, and so forth. I'll trust you when you say that the changes will be minor enough that I can easily ignore them and fit them into a 998 YK world, but for the moment, I can't feel anything for my version and view of Eberron but worry. Also, since this is almost two years off, do you know whether the material that appears between then and now will advance the setting, or will they stay in 998 YK? I assume you cannot tell us (or do not know) exactly how far the setting will advance, or whether it is years rather than a year?
Hellcow 08-20-07, 12:17 PM	Kaodi, quick question... am I correct in gathering that your concern is that by pushing things to 1000 YK, WotC is going to deny the DM the chance to have something cool happen in 1000 YK? I don't really see the logic here. It's not like they'd be pushing it to Vult 25, 1000 YK; we're talking Zarantyr 1. The millenium won't be OVER; it will be just begining. If you've got YOUR massive realm-shaking event planned for 1000 YK, great - the year has just turned, let it rip. Like I said, this isn't about changing the world. It's pushing things forward a few years so that there can be some evolution of events and introduction of new elements. But far from stealing the millenium, it's saying "It IS the millenium - what do you have in mind?"
Remmster 08-20-07, 12:26 PM	If those sources are, say, new monsters or a Sahuagin warlord, like you describe in your second post, then all the timeline needs to be advanced by is a month. Maybe a year, and go to 999 YK. Actually, i personally think advancing one year is worse than advancing say, 10 years. Think about it; advancing 10 years will lead to a rough summary of "what has happened so far in the official Eberron?" - which leaves plenty of space to fill some gaps with what might've happened in your campaign, OR still giving you maybe a year or two even for a more advanced campaign to actually incorporate this actively with your PCs involved; all that in case you decide to incorporate it at all, that is. If they start advancing a year here and there now and then, then we get down into the detail mincemeating and hodgepodgeing conflicting material that made various other game settings into weird patchworks. IF there has to be advancement, I prefer a big leap with a rough definition and lots of space for interpretation over tip-toeing from year to year.
Hellcow 08-20-07, 12:37 PM	I assume you cannot tell us (or do not know) exactly how far the setting will advance, or whether it is years rather than a year? At the Secrets of Eberron seminar, James Wyatt said that it would likely advance two years. Far from saying "Now the world's been at peace for two years, the tension of the Last War is gone", I'd expect the tension to be WORSE. Look at the Cold War in our world; it's not like it faded away after a year or two, and WWII was far shorter than the Last War. And with the threat of the Mourning being the only thing holding the war at bay, if nothing has changed there, I would expect tensions to rise and people to be contemplating new action. So I do not think that two years is sufficient to wipe all the tension and political dynamics from the setting. hat I could see (again, this is me making things up off the top of my head) would be things like a more active anti-Kaius force in Karrnath - a warlord rallying forces who feel the nation should return to war, and who has built up greater support over the last two years; a stronger connection to Riedra on the part of some nation, in the hopes that such an alliance would help in future battles; even greater tension in Darguun, as Lhesh Haruuc grows older and the question of his successor becomes ever more important; perhaps an active conflict in Q'barra between humans and lizardfolk; and so on. Sure, battle breaking out in Q'barra would be a change, providing a war scenario if players wanted to go be part of it. But it WOULDN'T be "Utterly destroying Q'barra and replacing it with a lizardfolk nation." This isn't a question of "Thrane destroys Kaius and takes over Karrnath" - but it COULD be "A strong threat to Kaius' rule has arisen within the nation". I should stop posting about this at this point. I don't have the answers, and if I conjecture too much, there's the danger of someone assuming that I DO have the answers and taking what I've written for more than it's worth. But I'll just say that from talking to James, I believe that this will work out well and that it's NOT going to be the end of the world. I don't believe that it will shatter any of the core values of Eberron. It's a one-time event, and a matter of logical evolution as opposed to massive unexpected change ("A giant dragonshard falls from the sky and destroys Breland!"). What I've heard so far I like, and I hope to be involved with it from the begining. I've always been an advocate for leaving options for the DM and for having your players be the greatest heroes of the world. I believe that any changes made will simply provide new and interesting story hooks - not destroy the Eberron we all know. Again, it's at least two years away and it's ALL unknown - but I believe in James' dedication to the world, I hope to be involved myself, and I'm personally looking forward to it. Not only is this not about doing things like revealing the cause of the Mourning, WotC has officially reaffirmed that they'll NEVER reveal the cause of the Mourning - that they understand the importance of leaving some things to the DM. So looking directly back to Edy, I do hope you'll at least wait to see what's done before concluding that it WILL be the same sort of thing that drove you away from the Realms - because I don't expect it to be like that at all.
Edymnion 08-20-07, 12:39 PM	Eh. So you subscribe to the "They did it once, they WILL do it again, just to screw us over" school of thought? You know, they NEVER denied that 4th Edition was coming.No, because they knew they could never get away with that. They just flat out told us to our faces, for two years, that they were not working on it in any form, its not going to be out for a long time, oh btw, here it is. Thing thing to consider is that they AREN'T doing this just for the sake of changing the setting. It's not like they just decided to introduce the Time of Troubles for the sake of shaking things up. Instead, we have the fact that 4th Edition is going to introduce a number of very fundamental changes. New core races. New "power sources", as they called them during the presentation. We leaves a choice: we pretend that these things have been there all along and you just never noticed them, or we add events into the world that justify the changes. Personally, that's what I'd rather do, so the world feels more internally consistent.See, I'm of the opinion that something like a campaign setting should be essentially rules independant. I should be able to pick up Eberron, take it to an entirely differant rules set, sit it down, and have it work with only minor tweaking on the part of the mechanics to make it fit. In fact, I've done this already by doing a test game of Eberron using Mutants & Masterminds 2e rules, and it worked beautifully. As far as this goes though, its a new edition, I would much prefer everything just settle down into the new patterns, no explination given. Its an edition change, thats all the explination it needs. I don't want to see the setting advance in it's timeline and add a bunch of new stuff and new plot just to try to fit to the new rules. If Teiflings are a new core race, fine, just write in how they fit, and we can just assume they were there the whole time and just nobody explored that avenue of gameplay. I *MUCH* prefer that to the idea of having to write some long winded and ultimately pointless bit of plot advancement to explain why they suddenly just appeared in number. Change what absolutely must be changed to fit the new mechanics, but don't go advancing the plot and adding in a bunch of new stuff to try to gloss over the edition change. Just do it and get it over with. Its no differant from releasing any other source book. I mean, nobody bothered to advance the plotline when Dragonmarked came out to give a reason why suddenly there were all these new dragonmark abilities and spells, they are just suddenly there. End of story. And yes, I worry about the slippery slope, because more often than not, thats exactly what happens. Take the whole "No subraces in Eberron" thing. Yeah, that lasted how long again? First the RPGA put out whisper gnomes, and then the next thing we know we've got the Eberron books giving abberant marks to subraces, legitimizing them. We get the ECS saying that "Abberant marks are bad, m'kay", then we got psuedo-plot advancement when later books came out with "Oh yeah, some extremists still think that, but most people don't care anymore. Here, have a load of new Abberant mark feats, its okay, because they're coming back now. It wasn't the case when the ECS came out, but it is now." And no, I honestly do not believe WotC has the self restraint to do something "just once" and not do it again. If WotC advances the metaplot once, and gets away with it, I fully believe they will do it again the next time they need an easy excuse to add new material, and then next thing we know the official setting is in the year 1200 or something. Honestly, Eberron was the only way WotC was going to get me into 4e, and from what I read here (namely the metaplot advancement and adding the new races), they already screwed that up. As of today, I see no reason for me to upgrade to 4e, nor do I see any reason for me to continue supporting the direction Eberron is going. I am essentially taking my books, and going home.
Hellcow 08-20-07, 12:39 PM	If they start advancing a year here and there now and then... Again, not the concern, unless you consider "every time they release a new edition of the game" to be "now and then" (which, of course, you might).
Rechan 08-20-07, 12:45 PM	Frankly, I think it's just the name that sets some people off about the 3.5E, which might've been conceived in advance, and a possible 4.5. Let's face it, guys: Every roleplaying game does it. In some cases, it's rather random (the evolution of AD&D), in some cases, more carefully engineered, like the D&D 3.5e product palette. But what it boils down to: Every game system I've known so far evolves. Every 5-10 years, you can expect a supplemen/rulebook that widely redefines game mechanisms, replaces older material (and thus makes it "incompatible" or "useless") and so on. The difference here is just that most game systems actually didn't really label their stuff with numbers in the "compatible version series"-sense up until lately. Take Shadowrun, for example, the Rigger 2. It widely replaces the rules for that part as they worked in the first Rigger Blackbook and the SR2-core book, and then the material from Rigger 2 got mostly drafted into the SR3 core book, BUT without being the "official Rigger 3 rules". Even without announcements you could tell some time in the future, it was bound to have a Rigger 3. Repeact cycle. That's the "smooth" transition that is widely accepted as improvement and not as "OH MY, EVIL MARKETING STRATEGIES!" - but everyone keeps crying that when a game officially sheds the 2 for a 3, the 3 for a 4 and so on. D&D 3.5 just became the target because it had it's own number, and actually made a real effort to keep all the changes that most other systems suffer from month-to-month into a complete batch. At least, you know where the line between 3 and 3.5 is. In many systems, it's way harder to keep track of "compability". So, having the X.a, X.b, X.c and so on editions of a game system is totally inevitable. Ever has been like that, ever will be like that. And every RP publisher will want to keep his stuff evolving, and be it only for money, sure. A product that sells once and then never again is not a good product, but in the end the customer seems to like it anyway. New is nice. Except that this evolution is happening too fast. I can understand and accept "Once every ten years". That's reasonable. Not every 4-8. You might find the complaints here as "OH MY, EVIL MARKETING STRATEGIES!" as silly, but I think it's equally as silly to say "WOTC is GREAT stop complaining they LOVE US! :D :D :D :D :D" Saying WotC are evil backstabbing moneygrubbing liars is unfounded and unfair, and equally it is unfair to trust them completely and say criticism of them and their business practices is unnecessary. We, as customers, and as fans, have the right to say "I do not like the changes you are making and the actions of your company", just like any fan of any comic can say that about the direction that the writers take the series. It is their property, but as a customer, we have the right to complain. This is not like the next generation of Video Game Consoles. Where the Nintendo goes from NES to SNES to N64 to Gamecube to Wii. Because I can plug in any of those into my TV and play them now. New editions of Magic the Gathering cards can still be used in a current game against people using new magic cards. Yes, I could pick up 2e and play it just fine with some people, but if I want to walk into my FLGS and find some people to game with, they're going to look at me like I have two heads if I want to play 2e with them. If I want to stay current and play with other gamers, I'll either need to isolate myself with people who only play the old edition, suck it up and buy the new edition, or stop playing entirely. I see businesses, and that includes WotC, a lot like politicians. Not having them sucks. But, that doesn't mean that I'm going to like what they're going to do, they can clearly make mistakes, and I don't make a habit of trusting them. Even so, if they do something I like, I will give them cautious support.
Syltorian 08-20-07, 12:46 PM	The point is that they will, in time, be releasing a 4E Eberron Campaign Setting Book. If you get into Eberron five years from now, the current book won't even be on the shelves. So if your friend gets into Eberron two years from now, this will be the only book she needs. And that will make it rather difficult for those of us who try to stay in 998 YK, because less and less people will know what we are talking about. This is not addressed so much to you, Keith, as to those who reply to our concerns that we can simply houserule our own material and go on as we have before. It will put us into an offside position. They want to offer new things to play with - the sahuagin warlord, a Seren Dragonspeaker sieizing territory in Q'barra and forming an alliance with the Cold SUn lizardfolk (again, making this up). Not a VAST REALM SHAKING EVENT; a number of small shifts that provide old DMs with new plot hooks to explore. Why not offer those as options, though - like they do with the true identity of the Lord of Blades, the building pieces for sites in Secrets of Xen'drik, and the Steal this Hook series? I understand that it is not "massive setting changes" we are looking forward to; I too trust James Wyatt enough not to do that to the setting. But some things that might appear minor to some people might appear much bigger to others. Our raising our voices is mostly due to the fact that we'd like WotC to consider this. I still believe that offering options, building-blocks, adventure ideas and so forth will bring equal benefit but hurt less people. I'm not against offering possibilities and propositions of what might happen in 999 YK, as long as it does not become canon. For the rest? Better see it like suggestions, which is in my opinion Eberron is centered around anyway, rather outlining possibilities and inspirations than plainly tossing hard facts right in your face. As long as the flexible aspect of Eberron is kept, I see no problem there. You don't have to follow it, but think of it as fuel for your future campaigns, maybe. While some people may have a very solid perspective on how their own continuity develops, some others might run into a dead end at some point, and maybe some "tweaks" to the setting will ignite a new spark. As I said above, if that is what Eberron is centered around anyway, than why not offer it as options, possibilities and inspirations? Perhaps the way the Draconic Prophecy functions: it is not a "This will happen on Zarantyr 24th 999 YK", it is a row of events that might happen if certain other things happen first. So it would be consistent with the setting itself that certain things can be described even if they have not happened yet, and even if they contradict each other. The Prophecy does it, too! In the end, when it is at some point intended that different Eberron campaigns starting in 998 all treat the following as a different continuity, not affecting another campaign starting also in 998, then why not perceiving the upcoming changes as just another alternate scenario? Just take it as a "what if", and if you don't like that, stick with your 998-continuities. I guess that's at least how I would like to handle it. Ditto as above. It is probably what I will do, once my worry at this passes; but it will leave some of us a bit more isolated from the community, and could be avoided if they were to introduce a "Prophecy Model" as I described above: openly admitting that it is a variant. They'd never have to advance the timeline at all. They could just offer variants! Actually, i personally think advancing one year is worse than advancing say, 10 years. I see your point - notwithstanding that I don't want any advancement at all, of course - but 10 years will be a major change. Boranel will be dead, Jaela will be 21, the Mournland will have been around for about 15 years and bear much less terror, the war will have been over for 10 years and we're now in 1955 situations where things have considerably cooled down (except for getting into a different war with different foes, of course). At the Secrets of Eberron seminar, James Wyatt said that it would likely advance two years. Thanks! So that will make it 1000 YK? Far from saying "Now the world's been at peace for two years, the tension of the Last War is gone", I'd expect the tension to be WORSE. Look at the Cold War in our world; it's not like it faded away after a year or two, and WWII was far shorter than the Last War. And with the threat of the Mourning being the only thing holding the war at bay, if nothing has changed there, I would expect tensions to rise and people to be contemplating new action. So, excuse me for being rather malignant here, that amounts to saying that the Mournland will have lost part of its terror and hence its appeal, if people consider it safer to ignore it? There would have been much more time to explore the Mournland, and the nations seem to be quite interested in doing so - again, those two years could change a lot. I should stop posting about this at this point. I don't have the answers, and if I conjecture too much, there's the danger of someone assuming that I DO have the answers and taking what I've written for more than it's worth. Understood. Regarding the posting too much, I don't manage to keep up with the replies! :D Thanks for talking to us, though; even if I'm arguing with you, I appreciate your presence here very much! :)
Hellcow 08-20-07, 12:53 PM	As far as this goes though, its a new edition, I would much prefer everything just settle down into the new patterns, no explination given. Its an edition change, thats all the explination it needs. And I feel exactly the opposite. Nothing wrong with that, but I'd hate it. Not all DMs are alike, and WotC has to pick a path; as it turns out, they're currently planning to take the path that appeals to me. I won't argue the point, because you're entitled to your opinion and because it's going to be two years before you can see if it's as bad as you think it will be. Likewise, if it turns out that 95% of Eberron players feels as you do, WotC should know that. But all I can say is that I do like what little I've seen, and that it's being handled by the people who created Eberron to begin with. We love Eberron as much as any of you. We're the people who WANTED Eberron to be different from the other settings out there. I'm the one who argued that there should never be an answer to the Mourning, something WotC HAS officially embraced. This hasn't been handed to some new department who doesn't understand the fundamental ideas behind the setting, and who's going to say "Why don't we reveal the mystery of the Mournland? I'll bet THAT would sell a few books." I love Eberron. There wouldn't be an Eberron without me, and there wouldn't be an Eberron as it exists today without James. And I believe in what he's doing. I am certain there will be people who disapprove and who will quit on general principle, and I will be deeply sorry to lose every one of them, especially if that includes someone as active and creative as you, Edymnion. But personally, I like what little I've heard from James and I believe that it's the right approach to take. If it suddenly starts happening every year, I'll be the first to stand against it. But that's not what's going on here, and unless I see otherwise, I will stand by this plan.
Rechan 08-20-07, 01:03 PM	As to the advancement of the timeline and changes in Eberron... I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, I do like inclusion of new factions. I don't think that "An Anti-Kaius political movement has grown in Karnath" is bad. After all, we weren't introduced to the Swords of Liberty - an anti-Brelish Monarch group - until 5 Nations. The Becoming God is dropped into the world in Faiths of Eberron. I don't think that developments and new additions like this hurt the campaign world. I, personally, don't care if the timeline is moved up two years. On the other hand, it also does make sense that these "could always have been there". Keith has managed, through Eberron Expanded and such articles, to tell us how the New Thing fits in Eberron - so why can't this be done for 4e? After all, power sources can always be present - just dormant or infrequently used. Incarnum? Over in that isle, or by the Drow. There is no nation that has made Warlock creation a huge part of their army, Warlocks are just infrequent. Binders are rare, mysterious, and often hunted. Duskblades or Warmages are parts of Aundair's army, while the Brelish have a secret military project creating Lurks. It's not hard to say 'These are all ready here' without breaking consistency. The same could be said for political factions and new players. The Sword of Liberty were always there, as was the Becoming God, without need to advance the timeline to support them. The Anti-Kaius political movement could have been there, just not as vocal, or organized, but the sentiment is there. The Sahuagin Warlord could have been executing piracy and been carving out his niche for some time. Monsters get added every time a new book with monsters comes out. The one thing that I want is that these groups get fleshed out. I am still spinning my wheels over the Aurum. I want these countries over here given attention. Me? I would get fairly frustrated if these new factions are added, and they are little more than a footnote with no further info.
Hellcow 08-20-07, 01:08 PM	Anyhow, I must stop posting at this point, as I could probably keep posting like this for the next two-three years before the truth becomes clear. I think it's vitally important for people to make their feelings known, so hey, go ahead and post, make petitions, do what you feel is best; it's your world too, and again, at this stage nothing is set in stone. I will also note that Eberron is going to be receiving strong support in D&D Insider; one things James said is that there will probably be MORE Eberron support over the next two years than there has been over the last two. Whatever happens with the full transition, I hope that you will at least keep an eye on things over the next few months. So I'll just step out of the thread by saying that I really appreciate your enthusiasm for the setting, and the time and energy each and every one of you have devoted to it. It's my deep and sincere hope that what happens in the future will not drive you away from it. I do believe in James Wyatt, and I expect that I will have some influence in what is to come as well, and I hope that when the day comes you will be pleasantly surprised.
LadyJorasco 08-20-07, 01:23 PM	thanks for sharing your thoughts with us keith im sure we all appreciate it BIG TIME!! :D:D
Edymnion 08-20-07, 01:24 PM	I won't argue the point, because you're entitled to your opinion and because it's going to be two years before you can see if it's as bad as you think it will be.Which is another sticking point for me, but one I can undestand. I plan on sticking around at least until the launch of 4e. Maybe there will be a miracle and I'll get converted, maybe not and I'll officially quit the boards when 4e launches. We'll see. Even if I do end up staying, I fully intend to houserule every last change 4e makes to the setting back OUT of it for my game. I mean, you guys can do whatever you want, you're the ones with the power, just be aware that I will never be putting tieflings in a position of prominence in my game, nor will I be adding "new power sources" that will apparently just pop out of thin air in 2 years game time. I will probably cherry pick a few things I like, but for the whole, my post-4e Eberron is going to look almost exactly like my pre-4e Eberron, either because of not upgrading, or because of houseruling.Likewise, if it turns out that 95% of Eberron players feels as you do, WotC should know that.I doubt it. The bulk of the Eberron players on these boards don't even support the original Eberron anymore, IMO. Back when Eberron first launched I had one of those "Why you should buy Eberron" threads. It included things like being a low level setting, not having high level safety nets, no subraces, etc. It was actually rather disheartening that you could trace that thread getting bumped over the months and years, and the change in attitude that was in it. It went from everyone loving those ideas, to people saying how that wasn't the case, to worse. Many of the things that initially drew me to Eberron are already chipping away. There are subraces, there is more high level support than low level support, and nobody else seems to care, or worse thinks that these are *good things*.This hasn't been handed to some new department who doesn't understand the fundamental ideas behind the setting, and who's going to say "Why don't we reveal the mystery of the Mournland? I'll bet THAT would sell a few books." See, I don't have faith in that either. Even recent books (like Forge of War) have large portions of them written by someone that doesn't seem to understand the basics of the setting (that the Silver Flame isn't a corrupt rag-tag bunch of zealots). I mean, it was annoying with Races of Eberron, because the setting was still new enough that you could concievably be given the job of writing Eberron material without actually being familiar with it yet. Having somebody screw up on something like FoW did, and it going past everybody without being caught, that just does not instill me with confidence. If it suddenly starts happening every year, I'll be the first to stand against it. But that's not what's going on here, and unless I see otherwise, I will stand by this plan.Thats the problem, by the time it starts happening every year, its already too late. Cartman had the basic idea in an episode of Southpark, in the Family Guy episode. He wanted to get one episode pulled for censorship because "if they pull one for it, they'll have to pull another and another as other groups complain, and pretty soon the entire show will get canceled!" I believe in product inertia. Basically, that a product will keep going in the direction it is currently in, and that deviating from the course is easier than correcting it. Hence, the longer it goes, the farther away from the right course it gets, and the harder it will be to pull it back. And honestly, adding new races, new "power sources", and advancing the metaplot to try and cover that up is a hard pull in the wrong direction. I would have been much happier to hear "Yeah, the PHB will have new races in it, but those races don't really apply to Eberron that much, so we won't be using them much" than "We're rewriting entire sections of the setting to try and make a place for these guys."
Rechan 08-20-07, 01:27 PM	Warning. I am about to use some serious political and emotional examples from RL. So, excuse me for being rather malignant here, that amounts to saying that the Mournland will have lost part of its terror and hence its appeal, if people consider it safer to ignore it? There would have been much more time to explore the Mournland, and the nations seem to be quite interested in doing so - again, those two years could change a lot. Allow me to use an example. September 11th. That was a huge event. Immediately afterwards, (and I would say at least two years afterwards), everyone was unified, terrified, and emotionally effected. It caused a lot of tension in this country, and certainly altered the political landscape, from dialogue down to what was important in the country's direction. In 2005, four years after 9/11, I would say that while the Terror of 9/11 was not fresh, it was still clear and present in the country's psyche, and it still effected everything from foreign policy to immigration to how you looked at your neighbors, be they of foreign descent or in the opposite political party. Now. Imagine if instead of two towers in a city, it was an entire state that got wiped off the map. How do you think that would have effected America, four years later? And if America did not know who did it? Initially there would be panic, gut-wrenching frantics to try and find out WHAT caused it. Four years later, there would be paranoia, distrustful caution directed at every other country, and internal strife as groups blamed one another. Because in Eberron? A country was obliterated. If military tensions and political upheavel do not lessen, then the fear of the Mournland will not. In fact, I propose that the fear of the Mournland could be worse, because people are feeling the reprecussions. Areas close to the Mournland (Breland, Thrane, and Karrnath) are seeing resurgence of monsters where none had existed for hundreds of years. Possibly magical repercussions that have taken longer to set in. My question is, how are Cyrian refugees going to be handled? Because I would think after four years, something would be done with them.
DBlizzard 08-20-07, 01:37 PM	Slight advancement is one thing, major advancement is another. For instance, I could see the Dhakaani taking over Darguun, which wouldn't be a drastic change in the setting. But Thrane taking over Karnnath would be a drastic change. On the other hand, Thrane and Karnnath have skirmishs back and forth that threaten to start war again wouldn't be a drastic change. Color me cautiously optimistic. I like the sound of this, but I realize it can be mangled badly if not handled with kid gloves. Given that James is apparently in charge of the 4E story development team, I trust them. And where did they promise never to advance the metaplot? This isn't snarky. They may have said that, I just missed it, I guess. I had a thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=804594) asking this very question. There seems to be some comments about the novels, but all come from an unofficial source (Keith), but absolutely nothing concrete about the game world. My comment from that thread (which I still agree with): I'm not a big fan of some of the effects of metaplots. However, I think no campaign setting is in a better position for an advancement of the timelinel than Eberron, even if it's just in "What if?" type scenarios. Eberron is a simmering pot just getting ready to boil. Not exploring the boiling and possibly explosive elements in some way is, to me, just leaving so much of the area of exploration off-the-table.
Remmster 08-20-07, 01:43 PM	Except that this evolution is happening too fast. I can understand and accept "Once every ten years". That's reasonable. Not every 4-8. With that, I totally agree, my friend. And so does my wallet... You might find the complaints here as "OH MY, EVIL MARKETING STRATEGIES!" as silly, but I think it's equally as silly to say "WOTC is GREAT stop complaining they LOVE US!" It's not so much that I find the complaints themselves silly, they're righteous in some way, my point was just more musing about how people get more attracted to complain when they've got a name tag to aim the rotten tomatoes. Heh, sorry, I rant from time to time. If I want to stay current and play with other gamers, I'll either need to isolate myself with people who only play the old edition, suck it up and buy the new edition, or stop playing entirely. Maybe it's just that we come from two very different angles there. I, for my part, have actually never played any "official" game. It's either the group of people I've been playing various games with for years, minus or plus the occassional change in constellation, or now and then with some other hm, "old time" roleplayers who experienced both the joy and the pain since AD&D. I guess with those people, house-rules and variations and not being to strict about rule sets anyway comes pretty natural. ------------------------ As I said above, if that is what Eberron is centered around anyway, than why not offer it as options, possibilities and inspirations? Perhaps the way the Draconic Prophecy functions: it is not a "This will happen on Zarantyr 24th 999 YK", it is a row of events that might happen if certain other things happen first. So it would be consistent with the setting itself that certain things can be described even if they have not happened yet, and even if they contradict each other. The Prophecy does it, too! Maybe that would be too confusing for new players? I have no idea, since I'm pretty much thinking along the same lines, it would have the advantages minus the disadvantages of being chained to a certain development. But ah well, let's see what the future holds, shall we? Maybe these "changes" are really just enhancements and factors filling certain gaps, and probably 90% of all people will totally like what comes around of it anyway. And, furthermore, the whole Eberron-community here so far makes a rather interpretation-happy impression if you ask me from what I've seen browsing various topics. I would have been much happier to hear "Yeah, the PHB will have new races in it, but those races don't really apply to Eberron that much, so we won't be using them much" than "We're rewriting entire sections of the setting to try and make a place for these guys." Call me an optimist, but I think it's rather more of the first than the second. I hope it only sounds like it because someone from the managment made the statement, thus rather viewing it from the Core-series-first! department. Okay, some parts will have to be adapted to suit the new setup, but really, I think the Eberron-staff will keep in mind Eberron first. I mean, Eberron itself has so far made VAST changes to some elements of the PHB (mainly fluff-wise, but still), it would be totally off the role to go the kick-a-dragonmark (which was said will not happen) way. So, I guess we shouldn't worry that much there. I guess you're just a rules-cynic, Edymnion. And I really think I understand how you feel. But, well, rules you can resell, right? Still, I think there's only so and so far they'll go with adjusting the setting. I hope. At least I cannot deny you're right about the different writer contributions for Eberron aspect, but I want to believe you're wrong about the last part. Yep.
Darakhoranon 08-20-07, 01:45 PM	Ok, granted, the (necessary ?!?) changes in Eberron 4E will almost certainly "break" a couple of things. And most of us wouldn´t like it in the least (I´m with you in this...). But if I have to choose, I´ll keep Eberron as I like it - and may the gods have mercy on those ****** who messed with this setting. In other words: While the canon might become "broken", we still won´t HAVE to accept it as "true". We´ll still be able to ignore it. It´ll be less than ideal, but EBERRON won´t go away just because someone with too much free time on his hands forgot to take his medicine...
Hellcow 08-20-07, 01:57 PM	OK, one more post. I would have been much happier to hear "Yeah, the PHB will have new races in it, but those races don't really apply to Eberron that much, so we won't be using them much" than "We're rewriting entire sections of the setting to try and make a place for these guys." Which is not going to happen. Again, under NDA I can't tell you what I do know, and beyond that I don't even know if what I know will be what actually happens. But there's a huge difference between saying that I want a logical place in the setting for new races which are now considered to be core to the rules and saying that I'm prepared to completely undermine the tone and history of the world that I love to do it. The point is that I believe that these things can BE a natural part of the setting. I'm looking to the person who picks up 4E, who has NEVER played 3E. He picks up the core 4E books. One thing that draws him to the setting is Mysterious New Race X, which is prominently featured in the PHB - not something like "Well, there are drow in the MM and they COULD be used as a player race if you really really wanted." He then picks up 4Eberron, having never seen any Eberron product before. I want that new player to have an easy time of things. I don't want to tell him "Well, there's no real place for Mysterious Race X." Remember, he doesn't even KNOW that MRX is new; as far as he knows, it's a fundamental, basic part of the game. I also don't want to say "Mysterious Race X has always been around and you've never noticed it" if that doesn't work with the thing in question. In the case of tieflings, it actually DOES work, and I've discussed that elsewhere. But it may not work with everything. I want to provide a logical role for these new elements that will work for both the completely new player AND the old player. They may HAVE been around and you've never noticed, but where have they been? And why are you noticing them now? That's the key point. If, for example, we were adding the Sulatar as a core race (which I sure don't think is the case), moving slightly forward allows us to say "In 999 YK, an army of Sulatar beseiged Stormreach. After six months of conflict, a treaty established peaceful relations between the two powers. While tensions are still high, a handful of Sulatar have settled in Stormreach and even begun to explore Khorvaire." We haven't completely changed the setting with this. We haven't said "The Sulatar just materialized from thin air." But we have given an explanation for why you might suddenly encounter Sulatar in the streets of Khorvaire when you never have before, and a foundation to understand how people will react to them. Could we just say "Oh, that conflict occured in 997 YK and we just didn't tell you." Sure. But now we are rewriting history instead of having history evolve. Meanwhile, it provides the option of playing out that Sulatar Siege scenario if you want to stay in the past and work your way forward. Saying "You can choose to add group X if you want to" is an easy thing for the experienced DM, but it's NOT easy for the novice. If you've been playing Eberron since 2004, it's going to be easy enough for you to decide not to use tieflings, whatever we say. But if you're a new DM who's picked up D&D because you've seen cool pictures of tieflings, I want the core Eberron book to make it as easy as possible for you to transition into the world. Again, the last thing I will support is sacrificing the core principles of the setting in this process. That's not what I see. From my perspective, we're dealing with people who want to make the setting as accessible as possible to new players, to make the new elements of the core books work without feeling forced, and who still want to preserve the world we all love. A few more points: New Power Sources. People are probably misinterpreting this. I'm not talking about "sources of energy" like "Wow! Nuclear power appears!". I'm saying "new sources of character abilities." If incarnum suddenly became core (and again, I'm making that up), do we just say "It's always been there!" or do we actually make it an evolutionary part of the setting, whether it's a newly developed science or the result of contact with a new culture from Khyber, Xen'drik, whatever. If something like that is core - something any NEW player will expect to be present right from picking it up in the PHB - I want it to be present in the world. But I want a logical explanation for it's presence, not to simply rewrite history and pretend it's always been there. Subraces. Edymnion, you say "There are subraces." Aside from the sidebars in the PGtE, have I missed significant support for subraces in the Eberron books? Did I overlook whisper gnomes or Sun Elves in Forge of War? I still don't use subraces, and I don't feel that there's been a vast change in the attitude of the setting. The only thing that comes to mind to me would be the Umbragen, and the only place they've had any mechanical support is a single issue of Dragon. i don't see that changing in 4Eberron. What's important to me is that the setting supports the fourth edition core books, because that's what newcomers to the setting will have. Unless the 4E PHB is chock full o' subraces, I see no reason to expect a change in the attitude towards subraces. Anyhow, I really can't say much more, so I will try to resist the urge to do so. Thanks again for all of your support for the setting in the past, and I hope you'll at least continue to watch where it goes in the future.
Rechan 08-20-07, 02:19 PM	Keith was talking about "Power Sources" and how they're not magical batteries, but sources of class abilities. This (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a) article on the website helps explain that a little: Power sources are an important part of 4th Edition. They answer the question, “How does your character do what he does?” Wizards tap into arcane magic. Paladins and clerics call on the power of the gods. For classes such as these, the answer is self-evident. Pose the same question to a fighter or rogue and the answer becomes more difficult. What separates the fighter who marches into the dragon’s lair from the local village militia? In a world of mighty gods and boundless magic, what marks the line between an average guy with a sword and a fighter? In 4th Edition, the martial power source provides the answer. Some people, through intense training, dedication, or just plain old toughness, rise above the rest of the pack. The fighter might walk into the dragon’s lair out of a noble sense of duty or a selfish drive to prove himself mightier than a mere wyrm. He lacks the ability to control arcane magic or the dedication needed to gain power from the gods. Instead, he has his toughness, self-discipline, and supreme mastery of his fighting skills. Other characters seek to master energies from other planes or beings. The martial character seeks to master his potential—to convert it to a fully realized mastery of a fighting form. A martial character is much like a world class athlete. An Olympic sprinter doesn’t have any special muscles or super abilities. Through a mix of inborn talent and supreme dedication, she pushes herself to achieve speeds that no other human can match. In the same manner, a fighter achieves skill with weapons and armor that soar beyond a typical person’s abilities. Like a skilled athlete, a fighter draws on his intense dedication, relentless training, and supreme focus. Potential isn’t enough, as the sports world is filled with talented people who fail to apply themselves, as well as physically limited individuals who use a combination of dedication and smarts to outplay their opponents. A martial character draws his strength from within. In terms of flavor and description, the martial character/athlete analogy guided many decisions about the way martial characters push themselves beyond the limit. At low levels, martial characters have abilities that are impressive but don’t stretch the boundaries of what is or is not possible. Only at the highest levels do we see martial characters verging into the truly impossible acts of agility and strength attainable only in fiction. Weapons and how fighters use them provided a blueprint for their design. A skilled halberdier can hack a foe with his weapon’s blade and spin around to smash a second foe with the haft. A fighter with a longsword disarms her foe with a flick of her wrist, while a battle hungry axeman cleaves through shields, armor, and bone. The design for fighter maneuvers came down to looking at weapons, figuring out how a fighter could use one, and deciding on special effects that felt cool for the weapon and proved useful for the class. Check out the Design & Development column on fighters and their weapons for more on this concept. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b) Rogues have a similar relationship with skills. A nimble rogue dives through the air to tumble past an ogre, while a charismatic one tricks an enemy into looking away just before she delivers a killing blow with her dagger. Just as fighters do more with weapons than any other character, rogues push skills beyond the limits that constrain other PCs. The martial power source is about taking resources and abilities that have clear limits for other classes and demolishing those limits through focus, training, and skill.
Remmster 08-20-07, 02:36 PM	Well, some people were not happy including the kalashtar psionics as a "built-in" aspect of Eberron as to encourage use of psionics. I guess the issue with necessary evolution of the setting to include core elements for new players is the same thing the other way round. At least somehow, the thought behind it feels related. Anyway, compared to the built-in subraces in the FR, subraces have only been a customizable option in the PGtE. Except for the Drow. They're technically a subrace, right? They've been there from the start. (Don't beat me?)
Kaodi 08-20-07, 02:42 PM	Keith, I think it is kind of humourous that the same argument from the 99-01 era is coming back to bite us a second time, :D . For some, 1000 YK seems to represent the beginning of a new era, and for others, it represents the end of an era. I happen to be in the latter group, so 1001 YK is the beginning of the new millenium, not 1000 YK. This is the point at which the advancement pace of most PCs really tends to break with the passage of time. A year is plenty of time to go from level 1 - 20 if all of your days are spent killing things and taking their stuff, but it doesn't lend itself to suspension of disbelief. Hell, three years doesn't lend itself well, but it is at least somewhat plausible. Also, it is a really terrible timeframe for a campaign built on a slower process of building tension before a significant political or world shaking event, especially if the PCs are playing a central role in relations between countries (And they should be, right? They're the heroes.) If I want to build a campaign around the idea that Galifar brokered a deal with Hektula by which the bonds of Sul Khatesh could be broken before the end of the first millenium of his empires founding, or any other ticking clock scenario based around the end of the first millenium, my timeline would be severely curtailed. Though, perhaps in this case it would be better to say " If a new 4e DM wanted to... " , because they are the ones most likely to feel it necessary to begin when the official setting begins, be it Zarantyr 1 998 YK or Zarantyr 1 1000 YK. You just said that the idea was to be able to play D&D right out of the box with Eberron, and from that perspective I can see why we'd want to write in a bigger role for the elements in the new edition, and I completely agree with that aspect. But, I'm also wholeheartedely with the others that point out that we have essentially been adding new elements since the beginning, more new elements that Core 4e could possibly introduce, without advancing the timeline one day.
alder_zeal 08-20-07, 02:44 PM	I really rescpect Edyminion's opiinions in th forums, they are as close to Keith's in a lot of ways. I hope Edy gives a little time and realizes that the possibility of conflict can arise anywhere. Maybe one of those fabled underwater cities arises and attacks X and now you explain X. Perhaps House Cannith developed a secret forge outside Khorvaire. I can go on and on. The fact is advancing 2 years is not time of troubles. Edy you always say ECS is low magic power. P:GtE states only one NPC to makei to EPIC, and we only know of him by name. I can not imagine a nation falling in that time period. I can see the establishment of New Dhakaani Empire. Calm down dont have the Tarrasque attacking your PC's because 4E came out. Of all things in 4E i am worried the most about Artificer, He is the magic tinkerer. If they take magic item creation mechcanics away what its their purpose. Unless they become more specialized and can make items more quickly than others. Another Note the fact 4E was a real surprise. All Eberron books hold more fluff than crunch which is a good thing.
Rekko 08-20-07, 02:44 PM	Eberron Campaign Setting p.8 TEN THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW (about the Eberron setting) 1.If it exist in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron. A monster or spell or magic item from the core rulebooks might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron's tone and attitude (described and summarised from page 7 to 9), but otherwise everything in the PHB, DMG, MM has a place somewhere in Eberron. Also, this is the first D&D setting built entirely from the v3.5 rules, which enabled us to blend rules and story in brand-new ways. A few words on Eberron's tone and style: cinematic, intrigue, heroic characters, dramatic action sequence. Eberron is more about role-play, skills, and fast cinematic combat. Why does Wotc release a 4th edition? To make DM preparation easier and faster. To give better continous support to DM and players via D&D Insider and its Community. To accelerate combat. Spring from the great rules of v3.5 and correct the flaws of the difficult ones. (I grapple the troll........Forget it I slash it with my sword.). Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords and Star Wars Saga Edition are insights of what 4th edition was at their release time (I think it's James Wyatt or Mike Mearls who said that in a Gen Con interview made by Gamer Zero) and they were well received by the Community. So isn't 4th edition purpose matching Eberron's style? I think so. And if it's in core D&D, then its in Eberron. We are having some new core material coming up, so expect Eberron to evolve around and with it. I know absolutly nothing of what 4th edition will look like, and less how 4th edition Eberron adaptation will be. However, being a Community member and Board user, I gladly welcome the changes. I am also a heavy movie fan and Eberron is the right setting for me and my group. While totally ignorant of the coming changes, I am confident that the game will still be what it is: awsome and fun to play. Moreover, if Eberron Designers Keith Baker is still Moo'ing and James Wyatt is happy about his work, I don't see why I should panic. And if ever I stop hearing the Hellcow Moo'ing, I'll simply make a hombrewed world out of what I like of Eberron using either 4th edition or 3.5 which ever I and my group prefer. That's what fun about d20 system, it is simple to create homebrewed material and keep it roughly balanced. Rekko
Edymnion 08-20-07, 02:49 PM	I'm looking to the person who picks up 4E, who has NEVER played 3E. He picks up the core 4E books. One thing that draws him to the setting is Mysterious New Race X, which is prominently featured in the PHB - not something like "Well, there are drow in the MM and they COULD be used as a player race if you really really wanted." He then picks up 4Eberron, having never seen any Eberron product before.And I'm looking at those of us that did play 3e. I play Eberron because of what it was in 3e. If that changes, then to me, its not Eberron, its just something new using the same name. Not saying the addition of one race or whatever would make it not be Eberron, but the point is that to a new player, you could say the Lord of Blades is made out of Jello, and thats the way it would be to them. Its a differance between which is more important, IMO. New players, or your established base. Apparently, the established base isn't quite as important as the newbies.Again, the last thing I will support is sacrificing the core principles of the setting in this process.Thats just the thing, from my understanding, WotC comes to you when it needs something. Your official signature isn't required for anything. WotC keeps you on almost unofficially for material. I mean, sure, you've got plenty of weight to throw around, but if push comes to shove, you're no more capable of stopping something from happening than we are. The worst thing you could do to WotC is not write anything else for them, although if they ever decided to go against you that blatantly, I doubt that would really matter to them. I guess to be blunt, my point is that if WotC just really decides it wants to do something you're dead set against, there isn't a lot you could do about it. You're at the helm only at the whim of WotC, and they could yank you away from it any time they see fit. That's not what I see. From my perspective, we're dealing with people who want to make the setting as accessible as possible to new players, to make the new elements of the core books work without feeling forced, and who still want to preserve the world we all love.There's a rather famous quote about trying to make everyone like you. I think it applies here.New Power Sources. People are probably misinterpreting this. I'm not talking about "sources of energy" like "Wow! Nuclear power appears!". I'm saying "new sources of character abilities." If incarnum suddenly became core (and again, I'm making that up), do we just say "It's always been there!" or do we actually make it an evolutionary part of the setting, whether it's a newly developed science or the result of contact with a new culture from Khyber, Xen'drik, whatever. If something like that is core - something any NEW player will expect to be present right from picking it up in the PHB - I want it to be present in the world. But I want a logical explanation for it's presence, not to simply rewrite history and pretend it's always been there.I realize thats what you mean, but my point still stands. Fairly large chunks of the setting are getting rewritten (in the form of the plot advancement) in order to accomidate these changes. To use your example, I would call "A sulatar invasion of Khovaire" to be a pretty darned big deal. Subraces. Edymnion, you say "There are subraces." Aside from the sidebars in the PGtE, have I missed significant support for subraces in the Eberron books? Did I overlook whisper gnomes or Sun Elves in Forge of War?Didn't Dragonmarked mention the abberant marks on subraces as well? My point being though that subraces are mentioned as being there in official Eberron sourcebooks. They're there in RPGA adventures, they're there in Dragon. I still don't use subracesI don't use them either, but they're still there. Which is rather my point with all of this. *MY* game won't be affected, because I don't plan on using any of this material. I do not like the direction D&D and apparently Eberron are officially going. So, I will not be using official D&D or Eberron anymore. I will keep using my old material. Considering that I agree that 3e is still rather clunky, I will likely convert it over to a system that I find more favorable. Its just that that system will not be 4e.
The Dreaming Duck 08-20-07, 03:13 PM	To use your example, I would call "A sulatar invasion of Khovaire" to be a pretty darned big deal. You're not using his example, Edymnion. Re-read what he said. It's not a Sulatar invasion of Khorvaire; it's a few months seige of STORMREACH, with the net result that now a few Sulatar have traveled to Khorvaire, where people say "Aren't you the guys who tried to take over Stormreach a little while back?" From my perspective, you're worried about massive changes - "Drow invade Khorvaire!!!" while Hellcow has repeatedly said that this is exactly what they won't do. Suggesting a skirmish with the drow in Xen'drik is far different from having the drow invade Khorvaire or having the Thranes conquer Karrnath. Didn't Dragonmarked mention the abberant marks on subraces as well? Sure. Because subraces can be there. Rule one of the ten things you need to know about Eberron - if it's in the core books, it's got a place in Eberron. One of the core books is the MM. THe MM includes subraces. "Has a place" doesn't mean you have to use them, but it nonetheless means that you could. Therefore, "can a elf subrace have an elf dragonmark" is a logical question that deserves an answer. The fact that Dragonmarked provides this information for the people who WANT to use subraces doesn't say that they must be there, and I don't think that there's a single subrace character anywhere else in the book. Eberron never said "THERE ARE NO SUBRACES". On the contrary, rule one there states "THE SUBRACES FROM THE MONSTER MANUAL CAN BE USED IF YOU WANT." It's simply that core Eberron has never embraced subraces, and I don't see the existence of a few sidebars as changing that. When a sourcebook actually provides stats for the chaos gnome tribe or the moon elf Valenar, then I'll worry. Considering that I agree that 3e is still rather clunky, I will likely convert it over to a system that I find more favorable. Its just that that system will not be 4e. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.
Darakhoranon 08-20-07, 03:39 PM	Yes, but then, we DON`T know how "clunky" 4E will be. Maybe, just MAYBE, 4E will be exactly what you want a system to be, Edymnion... Hey, miracles do happen!:D Seriously, what you say you´ll be doing, Edymnion, is exactly what I´ll do. Take what I like and forget the rest. We´re already following that creed, aren´t we? Just because someone puts a "4E"-tag onto it won´t change the way we´ll handle things, will it?
Remmster 08-20-07, 03:44 PM	Therefore, "can a elf subrace have an elf dragonmark" is a logical question that deserves an answer. The fact that Dragonmarked provides this information for the people who WANT to use subraces doesn't say that they must be there, and I don't think that there's a single subrace character anywhere else in the book. Which is kinda an important point on what books say and what they don't say, what they say that is and what is not. Though I would like to point out that sometimes, books say stuff like that a character who's knocked out doesn't get attacks of opportunity when someone's passing next to him. Shocking revelation, no? Point is, that sometimes authors appear to have a tendency of pointing out stuff that should actually go without saying, and others assume some stuff can be measured simply by common sense or some kind of game/setting logic (custom or not), and don't go into detail about a certain element. Which I would gather from the PGtE annotations about subraces or that "abbarant marks can appear on subraces" - add: "if you're using them". That's how I understand it. We're not lawyers, just because some rulebook doesn't say that a giant cosmic cow* falling out of the sky cannot instantly kill a character, that's not saying it's impossible. I admit, it's not as plain as the AoO-thing, but it still remains that sometimes, one shouldn't be too picky about what has been said explicitely in one tiny corner, or what not. (* I wonder who will get that reference. And no, not the Hellcow. Wrong direction.)
Hopeless 08-20-07, 03:47 PM	Those are not WOTC issues. Those are crappy DM issues. A sorcerer's understanding of magic is natural while a wizard has to learn through books, but it never says the sorcerer does not choose what spells he wants to cast. True unfortunately it also doesn't say the opposite and thats where you get burned. And as for WTOC issues, why didn't they just start a thread innocuously enough with how would you promote 4e? No offense but there have been threads here where any one idea could have done just this and might make it a lot more bearable. For example when there was thread about an Eberron movie there was a reply where it leads in with a normal game starting and one player introduces his/her character and this shows that character and leads to the first episode a sort of quick intro like meeting in a tavern for example. And could have alternatives of this scene introducing other characters using recognised options or even settings. Sorry to go on like this but I do hope they shape up. Cheers and take care!
Edymnion 08-20-07, 04:55 PM	From my perspective, you're worried about massive changesMassive changes right now, not so much. Its the slope I'm worried about. If I felt that WotC was capable of doing this just once, and never doing it again, it wouldn't be an issue. Problem is, I don't believe that.The fact that Dragonmarked provides this information for the people who WANT to use subraces doesn't say that they must be thereSee, the problem with that argument is that it applies equally well to having Drizzt or Elminster show up as an NPC in an Eberron book, "Just in case you want to use that". There is a line between "there is room to potentially put anything" and "everything ever written is here somewhere". Like that oft-misquoted line, "If its in D&D, its in Eberron!" that gets dragged up as an excuse to bully the DM into putting something they don't want into the game, when it clearly doesn't say that at all.Maybe, just MAYBE, 4E will be exactly what you want a system to be, Edymnion... Hey, miracles do happen!:DMaybe it will. I've been wrong in the past. I had the same attitude about Eberron when they first started promoting it. Robot people fighting halfing barbarians on dinosaurs on top of a magic train while applying for a credit card at the bank. Its possible that WotC is just showing the absolute worst face it could possibly show me, and that I'll love the system when I finally get to read all of it. I don't know. Thing is though, I can't base my opinion on a product on something that might or might not happen. As is, I haven't seen anything official about 4e or 4Eberron that I find appealing, or even acceptable really.
The Dreaming Duck 08-20-07, 05:24 PM	See, the problem with that argument is that it applies equally well to having Drizzt or Elminster show up as an NPC in an Eberron book, "Just in case you want to use that". How? I know how that line is misquoted and misinterpreted. In this case, it's being used precisely in context. A monster or spell or magic item from the core rulebooks might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron's tone or attitude, but otherwise everything in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual has a place somewhere in Eberron. Subraces are in the Monster Manual. Duergar on page 92, all the elves on page 103-104, and so on, and so on. Using Drizzt is entirely different, unless Drizzt is in the PHB, DMG, or MM and I didn't notice. Does this mean you have to use subraces? Of course not. Which is why Forge of War doesn't have an entry on Zilargo's forest gnome commandoes. They don't have to be there if you don't want to, but the setting promises that there is a place for them if I want them. And if that's true, then I have every right to expect the writers to address the question of whether they can have dragonmarks. Personally? I violently dislike subraces. I hate them with a terrible passion. I really appreciate the fact that Eberron HAS kept subraces at arms length. There's no mention of subraces in Five Nations, Sharn, or Forge of War. I've yet to see a subrace (aside from drow) in a novel. The setting does not encourage the use of subraces. Dragonmarked could have introduced entirely new dragonmarks only for sun elves. It could have introduced a whole whisper gnome branch of House Sivis. It didn't. All it did was say "If you use subraces, they can't have true dragonmarks, but they can have aberrant marks." In my opinion, that's just living up to the promise of page 9. They aren't encouraging you to use subraces; but they are taking into account that these things exist in the core three books and that some people will choose to use them. I hate subraces. But that's exactly why I think it's unfair to say "Eberron has completely changed its stance on subraces!" Nowhere in the ECS does it say that there are no subraces; on the contrary, it says that if you want them, you can find a place to use them. "No subraces" has never been a promise of the setting. Instead, without ever promising to do otherwise, they have focused on making the core races so interesting that people shouldn't NEED subraces. But the fact that they have provided the most basic mechanical support to the people who want to use them is trivial compared to what they could have done if they had truly embraced them. There have been mistakes, like the Silver Flame bit in FoW. But I just don't see this "They've thrown it all away! They've abandoned low-level characters! They've drawn in subraces!" Taking Forge of War, it reasserts that most soldiers of the Five Nations are low-level commoners and warriors, and I don't think there's any subrace mentioned anywhere in it. Yes, one of the authors is confused about the CotSF. But unless there's a squad of 20th-level svirfneblin commandos that I missed, I don't see the rest of your concerns being born out there.
Remmster 08-20-07, 05:38 PM	See, the problem with that argument is that it applies equally well to having Drizzt or Elminster show up as an NPC in an Eberron book, "Just in case you want to use that". There is a line between "there is room to potentially put anything" and "everything ever written is here somewhere". Like that oft-misquoted line, "If its in D&D, its in Eberron!" that gets dragged up as an excuse to bully the DM into putting something they don't want into the game, when it clearly doesn't say that at all. Sticks and stones, huh? Did you have some bad experiences with some of your players pulling that one off? In that case, you should include the houserule I name "Let me demonstrate what impact a 300-page hardcover book can have, literally". It does work. And it relieves a lot of tension. No, seriously. I think your FR-Characters example is stretching it a little, that's as good as saying Daelkyr will be replaced with talking pigs, who are all 15th level sorcerers. It's not very likely (though not impossible, if you want to in your campaign!) Still, c'mon, if people keep pushing around some sentences around like that, giving single words the weight of gold, the whole fun's drained out of the game anyway. Be it D&D and Eberron, or whatever. If some players need to grab a line and misquote it to bully the DM into putting something they don't want into the game, then cleary there's something really, really wrong with the mentality of the gaming group. That's in no way the designer's fault, that's just people on the other end being stupid. Somehow, I get the impression that you're more worried about giving people stuff they might missunderstand or intentionally misinterpret than actually worrying about the changes for yourself? Just my reflection on that. EDIT: And there you go, like mhacd--- ... that guy below me pointed out, if you get rid of the mechanical side, you don't have the "subraces" as center of this arguement anymore. Just the subraces in the culture-sense, which have been there in Eberron all along. And this time, I'm actually not even refering to drow! Whoo! Problem solves! (Actually, this is good news, I like that). Well, in case you dislike those... then again I guess Talenta halflings and Khorvaire Halflings, and Valenar and Aerenal will pose a problem (which is btw. why I don't understand the whole anti-subraces arguement anyway. But maybe I'm thinking to void of rules there generally.)
mhacdebhandia 08-20-07, 05:54 PM	I watched the video long before I made the comment. I'm aware of what James Wyatt said. James Wyatt is a member of the Story department, not the R&D or rules department. You're mistaken. You're not mistaken that James Wyatt is the lead story designer for Fourth Edition, but mistaken in that the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards of the Coast isn't separated out like that. James Wyatt is also one of the lead designers of the entire Fourth Edition system - his name is on the cover of the core rules alongside those of Andy Collins and Rob Heinsoo. The only real separation, as far as I can tell, is between "design" and "development" (Mike Mearls is the lead developer for Fourth Edition, for instance). Designers come up with the rules, developers tinker with them so that they run smoothly and don't break anything else. Subraces. Edymnion, you say "There are subraces." Aside from the sidebars in the PGtE, have I missed significant support for subraces in the Eberron books? Did I overlook whisper gnomes or Sun Elves in Forge of War? I still don't use subraces, and I don't feel that there's been a vast change in the attitude of the setting. Hell, it doesn't actually matter that much anymore, if you ask me. Per the Forgotten Realms seminar, Fourth Edition will no longer differentiate between subraces on a mechanical level - even in Faerun, it will be a matter of culture and not statistics.
itraylor 08-20-07, 09:48 PM	Well one thing that I have to look forward to in 4th Edition is the capability to play from Iraq with folks stateside which is neat. I think the online applet and the voice capability will be something useful for me in finding a group, playing over distance etc. Still not looking forward to the investment though ha-ha.
Vael 08-20-07, 10:58 PM	It's probably a good thing that Eberron 4e won't be coming out for 2 years, I'm hoping that'll give the design team time to figure out a working ruleset for the creation of magic items, because otherwise, what's to become of the Artificer? This is my only concern for 4e Eberron, Artificers are a vital part of the tone of the world, and they need to be there.
davethebrave371 08-20-07, 11:04 PM	Hell, it doesn't actually matter that much anymore, if you ask me. Per the Forgotten Realms seminar, Fourth Edition will no longer differentiate between subraces on a mechanical level - even in Faerun, it will be a matter of culture and not statistics. Wow. That makes me really happy about 4e. No subraces. Officially. All culture. Also, I really like the race article I read on the Dragon site. I mean, race actually having an impact beyond 1st level? Whoddathunk? ...I have to say, I'm being slowly swayed from doomsayer to...well, I'm not quite saying hallelujah yet. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Joni-san 08-20-07, 11:14 PM	...I have to say, I'm being slowly swayed from doomsayer to... *Looks at current avatar* Signer?
Kalanth 08-20-07, 11:38 PM	WoTC has had a natural slope with all it's gaming worlds. Before passing Dragonlance off to Soverign Press they basically put the world on a slope that was roughly straight down. It's there nature, and that comes with being a major corporation run by an even larger corperation. TSR was better about it, as it was run more by people loyal to the game and not the product, but even they had their moments in the past. It is, in fact, all a matter of product and bottom line. I am skeptical of 4e, as is any person who fears change. As I was called out in this very thread, I expect the books to be released chock full of errors so they can yank in more dollars. Whoever the editors are over there, they barely do their jobs any more. How many books are released with errors? But then there is Eberron, and the things that made it great. There are things that I understand won't change. We won't see the reason for the Mournland, leaving that to the DM's to decide. We won't see Xen'drik become fully fleshed out (a nice splat book filled with nice ideas, but still). There are plenty of spaces in the world for the plot to move and shake. Ok, there are Tieflings now, made readily available to you in the new PHB. Do you have to use them? Are you forced, with hands tied behind your back, a pencil in mouth and dice in your.... Are you being forced to use the Tieflings? No. Can you come up with a place to put them? Gods I would hope so. So where is the major change to include them? Is it so hard to say that, maybe, Tieflings crawled up from the Black Pit or that the roamed the Demon Wastes or that maybe they work for the Hag Sisters of Drooam? Not really. But what other changes do you really expect? We loose half-elf, for example. Is it so hard to simply modify whatever rules may be for either human, or elf, slap a Lyrandar dragon mark on them and call it a band-aid until 4Eberron does come out? The stubborness I have seen the past few pages, the I hate change attitude is concerning. I shut up for a while after being told to grab my tinfoil hat, and while I write this I happily wear the hat in paranoid glee. D&D has been a part of my life since I was 6 years old. I have lived to every single eddition if you count birth. In that I have balked at each change in the game. 2nd ed frieghtend me, but I found I enjoyed it. 3rd edition made me think D&D was becoming PnP Final Fantasy, and yet I loved it. The changes made in 3.5 made sense, and I continued on with my favorite game. And 4th edition has promise. It could be worse. WoTC could be doing to Eberron what another company did to Shadowrun. Or would you like to see 9 different, rather conflicting editions each with worse rules than the last and none of them solve the problems they were created to make? Lets allow the product to come out, look at it, rip it apart and learn from it. Lets actually let 4Eberron hit the table top and flip through those pages. Timelines advance, games move forward. Are you telling me that even in your Eberron it is still the exact same year, much less month and day, that the game started on? I would hope not. Besides, if you don't like what they put out in terms of fluff in a new book, who is to say you have to use it?
davethebrave371 08-20-07, 11:49 PM	*Looks at current avatar* Signer? Well, I didn't say from Doomguard to something else, but I'd have to say from Signer to Mind's Eye is perhaps more accurate. :p
ArcTan 08-21-07, 12:30 AM	My worry is that D&D 4th edition is going to become like Star Wars SAGA edition and frankly I can't stand that. SAGA edition represents a lot of what I loathe about the direction D&D was taking when I first left it. It, frankly, killed by love for Star Wars D20 and sent me back to D6 Star Wars produced by West End Games. They may not have the license anymore but I've managed to complete my collection of its supplements. Here's what I want to avoid at all costs. * The Super-PC: I don't want to see PC classes becoming, by nature, ridiculously badass. I want PC classes to represent elite training and skill rather than a "PC" halo. If I wanted to play that game, I'd play Feng Shui. Given that much of what makes Eberron Eberron is based on this conceit (as opposed to, say, Forgotten Realms, where NPCs can be Epic-level Wizards just as easily as PCs), what are you doing here? * Don't crimp the Single Classes: I love Multi-classing but I personally don't think there should anything wrong with encouraging the straight Fighter/Barbarian. * Don't screw with the class-ics: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Thief are the stalwarts. Removing them is pretty much like removing a part of what makes it D&D. "Thief" was never separate from "Rogue" -- "Rogue" replaced "Thief" -- and "Ranger" used to just be a variant of "Fighting-Man", just so we get our facts straight. * Don't mess with the Beloved Races: Half-Elf, Elves, Dwarves, Half-Orcs (even though they disappeared in 2nd edition), Humans, Half-Elves. Why did Half-Elf get listed twice here? Look, everything from Thieves to Half-Elves to Bards started out as a "variant rule" for D&D way back in the prehistoric 1970s. Nothing is or ever has been set in stone.
ArcTan 08-21-07, 12:35 AM	Except that, you know, they actually did. FRCS was 3.0, the PGtFR was the 3.5 update. PGtFR didn't replace FRCS. You still need the FRCS to play Forgotten Realms.
ArcTan 08-21-07, 12:37 AM	You watch the seminar and there is one thing that grabs you right off the bat. 1st edition - 1978 2nd edition - 1989 3rd edition - 2003 4th edition - 2008? 11 years of 1st ed, 14 of 2nd, and only 5 for 3rd? Oh how Wizards has changed the face of D&D since taking over for TSR. There used to be a time from for a game to thrive, develop, and be played. No longer. 5 years is not long enough for the game to really have scratched the surface, and then take in that we lost some of that time with the rushed 3.0 version of the game. Er, 2e lasted from 1989 to 2000, not 2003. 2003 is the 3.0->3.5 transition. And 11 years probably is too much time, given how 2e spend the last 5 years of those 11 dying a slow, painful death.
ArcTan 08-21-07, 12:39 AM	Euangelion, Arryn. Yes, WotC is a business. But part of smart business practice is to not alienate your loyal customers. And part of it is to realize when alienating your loyal customers is inevitable to attract new customers. Granted, usually the people who get disgruntled about New Editions are those people that buy every book that comes out, only to find their entire collection turned obsolete. I consider this a dysfunctional attitude anyway. It's what breeds the idea that you have to have every damn book because the books are, collectively, "the game" or "the canon", rather than *tools* you use to make your own game better.
ArcTan 08-21-07, 12:50 AM	Except that this evolution is happening too fast. I can understand and accept "Once every ten years". That's reasonable. Not every 4-8. You might find the complaints here as "OH MY, EVIL MARKETING STRATEGIES!" as silly, but I think it's equally as silly to say "WOTC is GREAT stop complaining they LOVE US! :D :D :D :D :D" Saying WotC are evil backstabbing moneygrubbing liars is unfounded and unfair, and equally it is unfair to trust them completely and say criticism of them and their business practices is unnecessary. I don't trust them implicitly. I think, though, that 4e is a change that needs to happen and has needed to happen for some time. (Honestly, I think we'd've been better off if 3e had been shot in the head and replaced with 4e right off the bat without the 3.5 transition.) I disagree with criticisms of it. I don't think this makes me a "lapdog" or a "shill".
Identitystolen 08-21-07, 01:29 AM	Eh, I'm officially keeping a 'wait and see' stance on this. Eberron is the reason I play D&D (played D&D before, but didn't do to much for me), so any major changes are kind of threatening to me since it does set precedent for more. Mr. Wyatt may put his foot down on the subject several "realm shaking" events this go around, but will he be able to do so or even be there next edition or a dreaded 4.5? Then again, if nothing changes, the IP might stagnate. But some of the new story lines may be good (Drow siege of Stormreach? Happened already in my game :P), but I'm sure I'll run into a couple 'WTF?' moments. Still, I've yet to see much of anything on 4e outside of the bullet points on the thread (insider login keeps screwing up on me and sending me in as guest) and I haven't the time to trawl the internet for every morsel of data. May be good, may be bad, may be meh. I'll pick up the core books with Eberron when that all comes out and keep an ear to the ground on the general satisfaction on 4e. Pity about all the Eberron stuff coming to the online store/content thingy. I've never been much for those and I doubt I'll start now, but I'm very much in fear that one of my players will go 'well in the download suchandsuch it says this' and I'll be left in the dark. But considering I've never been much for the magazines either and that issue with the magazines never came up I doubt I'll have much to fear. Worse case scenario I'll stick to 3.5 Eberron as long as somebody will play it :D I still have a pretty good amount of time to wait out yet.
Hellcow 08-21-07, 01:32 AM	Worse case scenario I'll stick to 3.5 Eberron as long as somebody will play it :D I still have a pretty good amount of time to wait out yet. That you do. And let me reiterate that the "Drow siege of Stormreach" was something I made up - I don't have any reason to believe that will happen.
Rechan 08-21-07, 01:46 AM	I will say I fully anticipate a re-printing of the ECS. Namely because when 4e comes out, they aren't going to look at people and say "Buy the campaign book from the LAST edition, and here's the conversion tool." That just doesn't make a lot of sense, business wise, to encourage new people to buy the obsolete rules version just for the fluff.
Creature_Mastermind 08-21-07, 01:47 AM	That you do. "Drow siege of Stormreach" was something I made up - I don't have any reason to believe that will happen. And here I was about to find out the drow's weakness then buy all possible weapons against them and we're in Stormreach at the moment for an adventure in my group.jk.:P
Beavisfett 08-21-07, 02:05 AM	[QUOTE=Alex_;13459441] Ranger and Paladin weren't introduced as core classes until 3.0. I doubt they're going to lose Cleric/Fighter/Wizard/Rogue though. The Divine caster, Arcane caster, Warrior, and Skilled classes are too central to the core idea of most RPGs. WRONG WRONG WRONG Ranger and paladin have been core classes since what the orignal greyhawk suplement to the orignal dnd game in what was it 76 or 77 and if you dont want to count that they were core classes in 1st edition.
Beavisfett 08-21-07, 02:06 AM	While rangers and paladins were listed as sub-classes of the fighter (with druid being a sub-class of cleric, illusionist being a sub-class of magic-user, and assassin being a sub-class of rogue), they were in the 1st ed. PH, right there with all the rest. If you want, I'll get out my well-worn copy and look up the page numbers! ;) Edy, tieflings could simply be the primary race of the Carrion Tribes, and it would hardly make a dent in what makes Eberron what it is. Heck, 25% of the population of the Demon Wastes are fiends, they could simply be the most common type. Don't panic. Or at least, not yet. They came about even before the 1st ed phb in the original greyhawk little brown book have mine on my book self.
DBlizzard 08-21-07, 03:40 AM	WRONG WRONG WRONG Ranger and paladin have been core classes since what the orignal greyhawk suplement to the orignal dnd game in what was it 76 or 77 and if you dont want to count that they were core classes in 1st edition. Actually, they were considered subclasses in OD&D and AD&D (I'm not 100% sure about 2nd edition). It's pure semantics, but his is technically correct. I don't think the point is relevant though. Right now I'm looking forward to 4E with cautious optimism. I didn't think I would, but it seems the changes are worthwhile now (compared to 3.5, which weren't worth the hassle they caused). I'm even more optimistic about 4E-berron. With James at the reins and Keith heavily involved I trust it. I hope to see Nicolas Logue, Ari Marmell and Jason Buhlman working on the future products.
rampant 08-21-07, 04:09 AM	I'm going to be honest, I buy alot of the books, not all but a good chunk. I'm gonna keep doing it for 4e, 5e, 6e, and hell if i live that long 20e. Eberron rocks, but it can be improved, I whole-heartedly believe that 4e will do this. If that makes me a shill or a lapdog so be it. I just hope we don't have to wait too long for the 4e artificer.
Joni-san 08-21-07, 06:24 AM	http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/8548/pedopeekry1.jpg Advance the Timeline? Advance the Timeline!? Do you realize what you have done? You have turned my sweet little Jaela, my little lolipope, into an old hag!
Rauric 08-21-07, 09:01 AM	If the timeline is advanced, why can't DMs just keep running games that start 998? Just curious what the hysteria is about? If I like running campaigns from 998, and I have already run 3 or 4 in my DM career, how is advancing the timeline stopping me from doing that? How does it interfere in any way? Unless you are a continuity purist, or have a little DM OCD, this shouldn't really break a game right? Timelines will always be advanced in most games since it probably does not hurt the sales of books much when they do it. Again it is only the vocal minority who might boycott the book, the majority of gamers either will ignore what they dislike and use what they want. I played in Deadlands and liked playing the begginning, middle and end of that games timeline. I played so many games from the "beginning" even after the sourcebooks came out that progressed it's story/timeline. I just guess I am used to it.
Identitystolen 08-21-07, 09:50 AM	If the timeline is advanced, why can't DMs just keep running games that start 998? My issues is with it is the canonical fiend players (I've known a few, played with one.) To them, if you aren't up with the latest happenings in the setting you are wrong. They get very annoying about it too, which is why I don't play Forgotten realms.
Kaodi 08-21-07, 09:51 AM	Timelines will always be advanced in most games since it probably does not hurt the sales of books much when they do it. This does go both ways. Where is there proof that you must advance the timeline in order for a new edition to sell? In any case, it is a testement to how cool a setting Keith, and later James, made that some of us feel so strongly about it.
Lord_Tirian 08-21-07, 10:38 AM	I'm going to be honest, I buy alot of the books, not all but a good chunk. I'm gonna keep doing it for 4e, 5e, 6e, and hell if i live that long 20e. Eberron rocks, but it can be improved, I whole-heartedly believe that 4e will do this. If that makes me a shill or a lapdog so be it. I just hope we don't have to wait too long for the 4e artificer. Same here - my biggest concern is: Where do I get my artificer? Cheers, LT.
Fabius Maximus 08-21-07, 11:41 AM	Same here - my biggest concern is: Where do I get my artificer? Cheers, LT. Probably through a talent tree. Which won't be in the 4th ed PHB, I wager.
Rauric 08-21-07, 12:44 PM	My issues is with it is the canonical fiend players (I've known a few, played with one.) To them, if you aren't up with the latest happenings in the setting you are wrong. They get very annoying about it too, which is why I don't play Forgotten realms. Yeah is always a pain. I just got into Eberron a year ago so I tell my players I probably don't know as much as they do and don't bust my chops too much if I goof up. That seems to work for me, but I am lucky my players are pretty cool people.
rampant 08-21-07, 12:46 PM	I've two words for people trying to "correct" the DM: Blue Lightning
Kreistor2 08-21-07, 01:43 PM	With Eberron support being pushed out so far, there's something that should be a bigger concern: could WotC drop Eberron altogether? Eberron was created in order to be a place for new DM's that couldn't gather old sourebooks to easily start a campaign, and a place for tired DM's to go for new inspiration. Eberron has served its purpose well, but the older it gets, the harder it becomes to say that it is still serving the new DM. Every sourcebook adds to the list a new DM feels he requires, and as they go out of print, they become harder to find. It may still suppotr the old DM, but FR already does that job. In two years, when it comes time for them to decide how to re-spin Eberron, I'm not going to be surprised if some smart marketter says, "Well, why? Let's run another competition and start fresh with a whole new game setting. We take the philosophy that inspired Eberron and do it all over again, and we're serving the same purpose. If we re-do Eberron, we're not supporting new DM's, only the old ones. At the same time, we inspire new interest in creating DnD product." It is, ultimately, the same philosophy that created Eberron in the first place, and it is proven to have done its job. That we are here discussing this matter proves it. And he'd be correct. As popular as Eberron might be now, in two years and one edition later, all old product becomes somewhat irrelevant or, at best, in need of DM revamping in order to make it compatible with 4e. A new setting for a new edition makes so much more sense. Sell off Eberron and let someone else go through that work. Start fresh with a new setting using the same core philosophies that made Eberron work: 1) A fixed starting point 2) easily modifiable to the DM's desires (includes unsolved mysteries) 3) uniqueness that distances it from previous settings and concepts Look at all of the settings that have gone by the way-side from WotC. Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, etc. Only FR remains, because it is just too big to kill. Nothing is sacrosanct in the end. I tell you, I'd rather see FR get tossed than Eberron, but I just don't see that happening. FR remains too profitable to release, and Eberron is just too replacable.
Rauric 08-21-07, 02:24 PM	Interesting. Most people in my game store play Eberron and have been since it came out or got converted. I had to play it a year ago because it was the only D&D game happening at the time and I did not want to DM FR after doing it for a year and a half. I am not saying Eberron is the dominant campaign, just that I think it is a pretty solid world with "legs". I see it outlasting most other TSR campaign worlds and running along with FR for a long time. Besides, WOTC has got to milk this campaign world for everything its got right?:)
Remmster 08-21-07, 02:27 PM	I don't think so, Kreistor. While the FR still remain the merchandising flagship, I doubt they will abandon Eberron anytime soon as it's by now the only established "true" (e.g. officially D&D-proved) alternative. Since now from what I've heard 4E will be non-setting-specific, new players will be attracted to either FR or Eberron. Kalamar's no longer an official D&D setting, so what else is there to concentrate on? Maybe a new campaign world, which might really be needed as a supplement if 4e is setting-neutral, aight, but I think until that one proves some success (if it's coming at all), both the FR and Eberron serve as a security net. No, I don't think they will drop Eberron yet. They have been pushing it for a while, established a solid customer and fan-base with it, and that source is long from being drained. While the FR still remain more mainstream, I think Eberron already outweighed the popularity of "alternative" settings like Dark Sun, Ravenloft or Planescape - all those adressed a certain populace with certain elements that some totally dig (gotta love Planescape), others totally hated (not everyone agrees with me on Planescape). You could say that about Eberron too, I guess, but it retains a whole lot more of the classic mainstream elements and thus attracts a wider audience. Furthermore, it doesn't have the "sidekick"/addon character short-lived alternatives like Dark Sun had, or the tie-in aspect of Planescape as an all-setting-quantisizer. And all these things aside, here we are, the loyal fans, hissing and snarling because we don't want them to hurt our Eberron as it is, which makes it clear: We care a lot, and since we care a lot, we will certainly buy update material for 4E to keep caring about our beloved setting. We're the generation that you can still profit from. The next? Not so much, I guess. Then, well, at one point, Eberron will most likely be replaced or dropped (while the FR probably still continue to be updated, sounds plausible to me) but I don't think 4E will be the end of Eberron. Since Eberron was born from/for 3.5, it will most likely continue to exist over 4E and be abandoned on 5E, because then it's a whole new generation, like I mentioned above. After that, the official license will be sold to a third party or remain for claiming, while fans continue to expand on the setting via "unofficial official fansites". Which isn't bad either, right?
Euangelion 08-21-07, 03:00 PM	Eberron will not be dropped during the 4th ed. era. Its future beyond that will depend on sales, plain and simple. If sales are great (or even just good) during 4th ed., it'll be around for 5th ed. If not, it probably won't. The same goes for FR, no matter what anyone else may say. If FR's sales tank, then after 4th ed. it's gone too. I think it is likely there will be another setting released during 4th ed. I have some doubts they'll have an open call, unless the "prize" also includes a position with WOTC. I sense some early frustration by some within WOTC and other freelancers that an "outsider" was seen more as the "owner" of the Eberron setting by the fan base, especially when some of the early sourcebooks were so off the mark from the ECS and the Dragonshard web articles were often far above the quality of the early sourcebooks that Keith didn't work on. But if there is a new setting, what we can assume is that the new setting will be very different from both FR and Eberron. It may even take the form of a discontinued setting, reworked for 4th ed.
Hopeless 08-21-07, 03:38 PM	That you do. And let me reiterate that the "Drow siege of Stormreach" was something I made up - I don't have any reason to believe that will happen. Doesn't really matter either way since i plan on picking up as much eberron as i can and for me the novels make marvelous extras! And as for 4e I still don't understand why they didn't just use Dragon and Dungeon to promote it as they did 3rd edition, putting it solely on the internet only limits access not broadens it! Unlike some apparently I don't believe the internet is all! I'd like to see something released outside of some preview books in december, is there absolutely any chance they couldn't just have a discussion of a play test to gauge reactions? Or will it be restricted to some unknown number and their peccadillos without making use of their largest resource... us!
Hopeless 08-21-07, 03:48 PM	Actually, they were considered subclasses in OD&D and AD&D (I'm not 100% sure about 2nd edition). It's pure semantics, but his is technically correct. I don't think the point is relevant though. Right now I'm looking forward to 4E with cautious optimism. I didn't think I would, but it seems the changes are worthwhile now (compared to 3.5, which weren't worth the hassle they caused). I'm even more optimistic about 4E-berron. With James at the reins and Keith heavily involved I trust it. I hope to see Nicolas Logue, Ari Marmell and Jason Buhlman working on the future products. If memory serves Paladins and rangers were core with ad&d first edition, the paladin became a sub-class of the cavalier as of Unearthed arcana or some such title. It also introduced the Barbarian and the Thief-Acrobat i believe. The bard was the hardest character class going, you had to gain levels as a fighter then thief before even getting to 1st level which is why a certain "Storm" of the Seven Sisters was so powerful. Agree with caution, its a bad sign that they've gotten rid of their best diplomatic tool and I'll stay with d&d insider until I figure out how to unsign. Keeps coming up with guest at the moment but give me time... I hope they're on the level but as I'm one of the few who abhored the warlock and despised the favoured soul as its proof they nerfed the sorceror so they could create a second power option when all they had to do was increase the hd to d6, give them 3 bonus class skills of choice and the option to select their spells from either arcane AND divine given it a unique standing and an interesting class to boot! Well lets see what unfurls and i hope for the best but expect the worst... That way I can be pleasantly surprised but I doubt it. At least I'll have a year to buy up any remaining Eberron stuff I suppose that is the bright side of things... and no I don't run FR, I did play in it but that was dm specific, enough said...
davethebrave371 08-21-07, 08:48 PM	http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/8548/pedopeekry1.jpg Advance the Timeline? Advance the Timeline!? Do you realize what you have done? You have turned my sweet little Jaela, my little lolipope, into an old hag! http://pics.livejournal.com/davethebrave/pic/00001315
Euangelion 08-21-07, 11:25 PM	Considering the emphasis on character roles within the party, including that of Healer, I'm guessing that one aspect of advancing the timeline of Eberron is that House Jorasco is going to lose its monopoly on the healing business. In the section on Jorasco in Forge of War it was hinted that as a result of their emphasis towards the end of the Last War of healing only the officers and other elites and the current lack of Jorasco healers in most small communities that Jorasco may lose its monopoly. But if the healer role is going to be expanded beyond clerics in clever and creative ways, having the traditional role of healer within the setting restricted to a small number of halflings might be seen as being too limiting. Just a thought.
Alex_ 08-21-07, 11:38 PM	Considering the emphasis on character roles within the party, including that of Healer, I'm guessing that one aspect of advancing the timeline of Eberron is that House Jorasco is going to lose its monopoly on the healing business. In the section on Jorasco in Forge of War it was hinted that as a result of their emphasis towards the end of the Last War of healing only the officers and other elites and the current lack of Jorasco healers in most small communities that Jorasco may lose its monopoly. But if the healer role is going to be expanded beyond clerics in clever and creative ways, having the traditional role of healer within the setting restricted to a small number of halflings might be seen as being too limiting. Just a thought. If the Healing role amongst PCs spreads to other classes, House Jorasco will still remain on top of the healing business. They held it long enough using almost nothing but non-cleric, and even non-spellcasting classes. Even if core PC classes other than Cleric, Druid, Bard, and Paladin gain magical healing, these are a virtual minority in the the population. A level 1 Expert, or even commoner, with their highest ability in Wisdom, maxed out skill ranks in Heal, and related skills, and Skill Focus while taking 10 or 20 on a check, can do plenty in a world where over 90% of the population is made up of low level characters.
Kreistor2 08-22-07, 12:13 AM	They held it long enough using almost nothing but non-cleric, and even non-spellcasting classes. Even if core PC classes other than Cleric, Druid, Bard, and Paladin gain magical healing, these are a virtual minority in the the population. Well, I guess it's overlooked that the Adept has healing on its spell list. And the Artificer can create items for Conjuration(Healing) just as easily as Evocation.
davethebrave371 08-22-07, 01:19 AM	Considering the emphasis on character roles within the party, including that of Healer, I'm guessing that one aspect of advancing the timeline of Eberron is that House Jorasco is going to lose its monopoly on the healing business. In the section on Jorasco in Forge of War it was hinted that as a result of their emphasis towards the end of the Last War of healing only the officers and other elites and the current lack of Jorasco healers in most small communities that Jorasco may lose its monopoly. But if the healer role is going to be expanded beyond clerics in clever and creative ways, having the traditional role of healer within the setting restricted to a small number of halflings might be seen as being too limiting. Just a thought. I think people with the Healer role will still be as rare, demographically, as clerics and paladins already are. I don't think all of a sudden Commoners are all going to get a Party Role and Power Source. I'm fairly sure that's exclusive to PC classes, and NPC classes constitute over 90% of any campaign world (not counting monsters).
Euangelion 08-22-07, 01:29 AM	As I see it, the metagame purpose of House Jorasco was to free the cleric class from its prison-like role of being just the party healer, to give the people playing a cleric the role-playing option of saying "Heal you? Do I look like a halfling will a healing kit? My spells are for the purposes of my sovereign/the Flame/the divine within, not to fix your boo-boos whenever you start whining." But if 4th ed. broadens what type of character can provide healing to the party, the almost exclusive hold on the healing role in the setting belonging to House Jorasco might actually be a liability rather than a strength, roleplaying-wise, to Eberron. But I'm certainly willing to be dead wrong.
Mr_Miscellany 08-22-07, 03:17 AM	At the D&D Saturday Seminar, James Wyatt indicated WotC does not use the term "4.0"....they call it 4th Edition only. He also indicated 4E was not a precursor to '4.5'.
Yadot 08-22-07, 03:52 AM	. I think it is likely there will be another setting released during 4th ed. I have some doubts they'll have an open call, unless the "prize" also includes a position with WOTC... ...But if there is a new setting, what we can assume is that the new setting will be very different from both FR and Eberron. It may even take the form of a discontinued setting, reworked for 4th ed. Well, the Other Worlds boards are up in a stir because Wizards have promised to release one of the old campaign settings per year. The old worlds aren't likely to subsume new Eberron source books though; what will probably happen is there'll release a Players Guide to Dark Sun type book and leave it at that.
Yadot 08-22-07, 03:59 AM	At the D&D Saturday Seminar, James Wyatt indicated WotC does not use the term "4.0"....they call it 4th Edition only. He also indicated 4E was not a precursor to '4.5'. This has also been repeated by WotC_ScottR, the Senior Brand Manager for Dungeons and Dragons.
ORC_Paradox 08-22-07, 07:20 AM	Sorry to be the bad guy here, but all 4e discussions are on the 4e board. There IS an Eberron thread there. http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=686