Because so much of Eberron is so integrated to the 3.5e rules, I worry about what will change for 4e. I think there are two conflicting forces. On the one hand, I want everything new to be consistent with what we already have. I like Eberron and don't want massive changes. But on the other hand, part of what I liked was the internal consistency with the rules, and I want 4e Eberron to embrace the 4e rules as much as 3.5 Eberron did the 3.5 rules. Otherwise, if I really like 4e, but Eberron doesn't adapt to the new ruleset, I will move on to a campaign setting that meshes with the 4e rules.
I expect there is some division on this. I'm guessing the majority are firmly in the "Keep everything exactly like it is, and ignore 4e as much as you can" camp. I guess I want to say I'm willing to accept some retconning and timeline advancement if it incorporates 4e rules. The new core races need a somewhat meaningful place in the setting. Saying that there are four tieflings in the world and that the Eladrin are a distant small group on another plane of existence is just sweeping the 4e changes under the rug, and will stop new 4e players from embracing Eberron. There will need to be a balance; I don't want a massive rewriting of history, but I will be happy to accept the idea of 3.5 Eberron and 4e Eberron as two "alternate realities" if it means that the core 4e material is integrated into the setting.
I'm a betting man though, and I bet WotC will make 4E Eberron as great as possible... *Crosses Fingers*
Eberron writers James, Chris, and Bill, are totaly trying to destroy a game they have wrote supplements for. I mean James Bill and Chris really have no clue about what makes Eberron. Except for they each signed my book. James wrote you gain 1 action point if you play a Kalashtar each gaming session, Chris wrote Beware the Lord of Blades and Bill he just silver ink signed it. Bruce has wrote Psionics for D&D, he may be a little on pushing the rules to the limit but he did write psionics. Dave writes all the weekly news for Eberron online. Mike the lead developer runs Eberron games. But each of them are trying to destroy the game.
)I just hope they'll keep up to that promise. After all, I see no problem there. Eberron 3 already took the liberty to reinterpret a lot about the system and the archetype (surface drow, new races, action points, going away from small encounters...) so they'll just have to keep that up and fit 4th edition to Eberron as they did with 3rd edition.
In fact, I'm pretty positive about that, because what I've heard about the new system so far seems to support the certain Eberron look and feel much better than 3rd edition ever did.
And people, no more bull*** about the gnome please.
1. the whole gnome rumour was never official and people just keep that up to have something to complain about. Even if the gnome is shifted out of the PHB doesn't mean he'll be deleted from campaign settings. As if there only ever were PHB core races in Eberron.
2. Contrary to popular belief, there are gnome PCs. The campaign I just played an hour ago has a House Sivis dragonmarked gnome bard. Yes, you read that right. He's the Eberron gnome, it doesn't get any more archetypal. And guess what, the character is absolutely lovely.
No one is trying to destroy Eberron, except maybe for the Lords of Dust, the Dreaming Dark, the Emerald Claw, and the Dark Six. ;)
I think it has been said that they'll try to keep Eberron the same, without any retcon. (No I didn't save a link to that quote
Actually, Keith said that because they're not going to retcon, they're going to future-con -- they're going to add two years of events to the setting to advance the timeline to YK 1000, to explain all the things about the setting that must change in order to make it integrate with 4e the way 3.5 Eberron did with 3.5.
I'm pretty sure this means that something will happen to explain the Eladrin/Elf split, for instance.
I think setting consistency has got to take a front seat. While a certain update is good and probably necessary, a large-scale reworking will almost certainly do more harm then good.
Actually, Keith said that because they're not going to retcon, they're going to future-con -- they're going to add two years of events to the setting to advance the timeline to YK 1000, to explain all the things about the setting that must change in order to make it integrate with 4e the way 3.5 Eberron did with 3.5.
I'm pretty sure this means that something will happen to explain the Eladrin/Elf split, for instance.
Well, Keith only said the 2 year advancement was happening to ease the changeover to 4e and minimize retconning, not that there would be absolutely no retconning at all. It would be impossible to not have any retconning, since massive rules changes have a subtle effect on everything. I personally would rather have a retcon saying "Wizards have always used these three implements and had their spells organized in this 4e style" rather than have a sudden worldwide magical revolution over the course of 2 years where every single old-style wizard in the world transitions to this new style of magic.
Thing is, I think that's actually what Forgotten Realms is going to do (the Spellplague) and it sounds like a terrible idea. But hey, if it can survive the Time of Troubles...
True.
Thing is, I think that's actually what Forgotten Realms is going to do (the Spellplague) and it sounds like a terrible idea. But hey, if it can survive the Time of Troubles...
Maybe, though I get the feeling that the Spellplague's primary purpose isn't to introduce the 4e caster system, but to kill off a whole bunch of good guy uber-NPC's and convert FR into a campaign setting where the PC's are at least mildly needed in some way.
Maybe, though I get the feeling that the Spellplague's primary purpose is to kill off a whole bunch of good guy uber-NPC's and convert FR into a campaign setting where the PC's are at least mildly needed in some way.
I've already solved the issue of killing off too powerful NPC's in Faerun here . Why advance the game by 10 years when we can jump forward by 3000 years? :D
And so, at least, FR offers threats and all to pair your high level guys.
It's not the setting that matter, but how you use it.
It's amusing how we hear that tired canard again, when Eberron have the opposite problem... not much opposition by high levels, and you start to have a real free ride as very few are of your ranks...
And so, at least, FR offers threats and all to pair your high level guys.
It's not the setting that matter, but how you use it.
There is plenty of high level threats in Eberron, but yeah there is only a little info on them. But there is the Lords of Dust that are trying to release their Overlords that have been trapped in the Silver Flame, Order of the Emerald Claw and Erandis d'Vol herself, the Daelkyr, ect.
Eberron's unique cosmology is unaffected by the changes in the new meta-setting.
Because so much of Eberron is so integrated to the 3.5e rules, I worry about what will change for 4e. I think there are two conflicting forces. On the one hand, I want everything new to be consistent with what we already have. I like Eberron and don't want massive changes. But on the other hand, part of what I liked was the internal consistency with the rules, and I want 4e Eberron to embrace the 4e rules as much as 3.5 Eberron did the 3.5 rules. Otherwise, if I really like 4e, but Eberron doesn't adapt to the new ruleset, I will move on to a campaign setting that meshes with the 4e rules.
I expect there is some division on this. I'm guessing the majority are firmly in the "Keep everything exactly like it is, and ignore 4e as much as you can" camp. I guess I want to say I'm willing to accept some retconning and timeline advancement if it incorporates 4e rules.
Agreed on these points. Eberron was super cool! BUT a large part of that was because its freshness was closely entwined with the current rules. I have to say, as cool as Eberron is, I might not be able to get into it if it isn't as rule coherent, both in terms of world roleplay and mechanics, as it was with the rules when it was first created.
This cannot be said enough:
Eberron's unique cosmology is unaffected by the changes in the new meta-setting.
Keith and James have already told us that's not true. Eberron will be changed so that anything that features prominently in Core 4e will have a fairly prominent place in Eberron. For instance, tieflings and Eldarin will become a somewhat important part of the world. The question is how much they'll change to incorporate 4e smoothly.
I'm leaning towards wanting them to try to integrate closely with 4e, even if it involves some retconning and losing a few things we loved. I'm content to envision 3.5e Eberron and 4e Eberron as two different realities. You know, like how Marvel comics has fifty different timelines that are only vaguely consistent with each other. Consistency with the rules is very important to me, and if Eberron seems kludgy in 4e, I'd probably end up switching to a campaign that is more in line with the base 4e material.
Keith and James have already told us that's not true. Eberron will be changed so that anything that features prominently in Core 4e will have a fairly prominent place in Eberron. For instance, tieflings and Eldarin will become a somewhat important part of the world. The question is how much they'll change to incorporate 4e smoothly.
I'm leaning towards wanting them to try to integrate closely with 4e, even if it involves some retconning and losing a few things we loved. I'm content to envision 3.5e Eberron and 4e Eberron as two different realities. You know, like how Marvel comics has fifty different timelines that are only vaguely consistent with each other. Consistency with the rules is very important to me, and if Eberron seems kludgy in 4e, I'd probably end up switching to a campaign that is more in line with the base 4e material.
4thE may be a good game, and if it is I'll probably buy/play it. But ... I find it hard to believe the new cosmology won't be reflected in the magic & psionics systems, no ethereal plane means a lot of ethereal related spells are going to change and then the spells won't fit with Eberron any more to take the first thing that comes to mind. And my instinct says more 'little' stuff along those lines, whether new takes on elves and Eladrin or whatever, will add up to big problems. Unless they write up ways of taking 3.5 rules consistency and shoe-horning it into the 4e Eberron, Eberron will have to change and possibly by quite a lot. I'll be happy to be proved wrong but I don't feel optimistic, if only because I keep hearing how they aren't done designing 4e - so WotC has no more way than we at present of guessing how much of Eberron they will have to change to be consistent with what features prominently in 4e Core.
It'll be kind of ironic that Eberron's cosmology will be more reminiscent of 3rd ed. that 4th ed, considering how different (nigh imcompatible) it is with the standard 3rd ed. cosmology.
The twelve/thirteen planes of Eberron are too much a part of the setting to fundamentally change them to keep up with the new 4ed. cosmology, it seems to me. Eberron will keep its cosmology with only a tweek or two, mark my words.
It'll be kind of ironic that Eberron's cosmology will be more reminiscent of 3rd ed. that 4th ed, considering how different (nigh imcompatible) it is with the standard 3rd ed. cosmology.
I imagine they'll keep the 12/13 "outer" planes, but they will change the inner planes to match the new 4e. So Ethereal and Shadow will be gone and replaced by Shadowfell. It's not like Eberron really has a huge interesting history of the Ethereal and Shadow planes; it was more like "Well, er, D&D needs these two planes for a bunch of spells and abilities to work, so they're in Eberron too."
I'm not sure about Feywild. I really like the idea of a fey mirror-world, and I wouldn't be surprised if some druidic and other spells relied on it being there. Maybe they will say that after the 2 years go by, a mysterious planar shift has caused Thelanis to become coplanar with the material plane for the first time in 10,000 years.
If they didn't want to retcon Ethereal/Shadow into Shadowfell, they could say the same thing about Dollurh: something weird happened and now Dollurh is also coplanar with the material plane.
Thelanis could just have a "tighter" orbit than other planes... Its orbit might be smaller in diameter than other planes, making it coterminous much of the time, and never remote for very long. Dolurrh might have a similarly "tight" orbit. That's not a huge departure.
That's true, I would like that as well. It's not too much of a retcon, and it makes a certain amount of "sense" even for the 3.5 version. The reason souls go to Dollurh and not somewhere else is because Dollurh has the tightest orbit. Thelanis's close orbit is the reason that fey and fey energy (which is what makes the trees grow, don't you know) cross over into Eberron so much more than beings from Shavarrath or Mabar.
Really, the biggest problem I foresee with Eberron continuity is the elf/eladrin split. That's gonna be a toughie to shoehorn into the setting. The only way I can think of that it could play out without totally sucking is if the eladrins were a race that evolved from the same roots as the elves and drow, then ended up on one of the outer planes, say for instance Thelanis, and are just now returning to Eberron in significant numbers.
If they do decide the Eladrin are from Thelanis, then the introduction of Eladrin would fit perfectly with the idea above of Thelanis becoming concordant with Eberron and mimicking the Feywild.
and the thought of having these two plans closer would make some games concepts funner...
and last i checked Thelanis already says ALL Eladrin come from there... these lesser Eladrin that are becoming Player Races would most likely be from there...
personally Eberron has this issue solved easy... Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk is going to have a hard time to explain this...
If they do decide the Eladrin are from Thelanis, then the introduction of Eladrin would fit perfectly with the idea above of Thelanis becoming concordant with Eberron and mimicking the Feywild.
It would be an interesting and unique to Eberron take on the Feywild if it was partially concordant at the current time, and had not always been that way. Thus Thelanis (as the Feywild) could overlap with the Eldeen Reaches (and maybe Aerenal), but not with other parts of the world.
Fey (including elves and eladrin) would be around in these areas of overlap. Some could have stayed behind during the last concordance (becoming Khorvairian elves or the Valenar)
I don't expect 4e Eberron to slavishly follow the original. I hope the developers don't shoot themselves in the foot be trying to make everything that changes with the rules fit into the old mold. Things are going to be different. 4e dragons are going to be different, 4e fey are going to be different. What Eberron did was take the rules of 3.5 and give it a unique tone and feel.
What I want from 4e Eberron is that again. Take a fresh look at the rules and dramatis persona of 4e and give them a place in the world. Give me a pulp action and dark adventure world for 4e. It can keep the names and places it had, but what rules element fits where may change. I don't need the Valenar to be elves. I don't need House Jorasco to be halflings. I don't need couatls to be responsible for fighting the Demons of that age. If new things appear and some things disappear, I'm not going to sweat it (wether whole continents, planes, or countries). Just don't shoehorn giants into mastery of Xen'drik if they don't fit in 4e. I'm sure something will fit, so use that. Let it be a new setting that is as coherent as 3.5 Eberron.
I don't expect 4e Eberron to slavishly follow the original. I hope the developers don't shoot themselves in the foot be trying to make everything that changes with the rules fit into the old mold. Things are going to be different. 4e dragons are going to be different, 4e fey are going to be different. What Eberron did was take the rules of 3.5 and give it a unique tone and feel.
What I want from 4e Eberron is that again. Take a fresh look at the rules and dramatis persona of 4e and give them a place in the world. Give me a pulp action and dark adventure world for 4e. It can keep the names and places it had, but what rules element fits where may change. I don't need the Valenar to be elves. I don't need House Jorasco to be halflings. I don't need couatls to be responsible for fighting the Demons of that age. If new things appear and some things disappear, I'm not going to sweat it (wether whole continents, planes, or countries). Just don't shoehorn giants into mastery of Xen'drik if they don't fit in 4e. I'm sure something will fit, so use that. Let it be a new setting that is as coherent as 3.5 Eberron.
I think that the better approach would be to use the 4th ed. rules to describe Eberron, and if need be, modify the 4th ed. rules to fit what Eberron already is, rather than changing Eberron to fit the 4th ed. rules.
It's exactly like what they said converting characters from 3rd. ed to 4th. ed. would be like. An exact conversion will be impossible, but the 4th ed. rules should make it easier to describe the character in your head. They same should be true in general for the Eberron setting, but if there's an element that doesn't fit, the 4th ed. rule should probably be the thing that changes, just like they had to do with some of the 3.5 ed. rules for Eberron, in order to describe the world in their heads!!
I think that the better approach would be to use the 4th ed. rules to describe Eberron, and if need be, modify the 4th ed. rules to fit what Eberron already is, rather than changing Eberron to fit the 4th ed. rules.
It's exactly like what they said converting characters from 3rd. ed to 4th. ed. would be like. An exact conversion will be impossible, but the 4th ed. rules should make it easier to describe the character in your head. They same should be true in general for the Eberron setting, but if there's an element that doesn't fit, the 4th ed. rule should probably be the thing that changes, just like they had to do with some of the 3.5 ed. rules for Eberron, in order to describe the world in their heads!!
While there is clearly some adaptation of the flavor presented in the 3.5 core rules for Eberron, it left the rules pretty much alone. There were a few patches, like Monastic Training, but no outright "this rule works differently in Eberron". Elves still had the same abilities and bonuses, even if they didn't behave the same.
So ignoring the flavor of 4e is fine, but if for some reason 4e elves take a penalty to Ride checks and cause horses to attack them on sight, they have no business being the Valenar. Likewise, if a rules element is missing from 4e that isn't critical to feel of Eberron, 4e Eberron shouldn't add it back in. For instance if we don't have dinosaurs in 4e, Eberron shouldn't stubbornly insist on the Talenta plains being as it was in 3e. Maybe something else can fill that role but if nothing can, Eberron is stronger by excising out what doesn't fit.
Essentially I think Eberron should recycle all the things that still work, leave the things that no longer fit, and use what is new in 4e to fill in the gaps.
While there is clearly some adaptation of the flavor presented in the 3.5 core rules for Eberron, it left the rules pretty much alone. There were a few patches, like Monastic Training, but no outright "this rule works differently in Eberron". Elves still had the same abilities and bonuses, even if they didn't behave the same.
So ignoring the flavor of 4e is fine, but if for some reason 4e elves take a penalty to Ride checks and cause horses to attack them on sight, they have no business being the Valenar. Likewise, if a rules element is missing from 4e that isn't critical to feel of Eberron, 4e Eberron shouldn't add it back in. For instance if we don't have dinosaurs in 4e, Eberron shouldn't stubbornly insist on the Talenta plains being as it was in 3e. Maybe something else can fill that role but if nothing can, Eberron is stronger by excising out what doesn't fit.
Essentially I think Eberron should recycle all the things that still work, leave the things that no longer fit, and use what is new in 4e to fill in the gaps.
In general I agree with your points. However, there are a few "this rule works differently in Eberron" examples, (cleric alignments, adepts with domains, etc.) Also, Eberron added some rules, namely actions points. I'd expect the same degree of flexibility when it comes to 4th. ed., but with a heavy emphasis on maintaining the tone and flavor of the setting.
Edit: I could even see them keeping a 3.5 rule or two, simply because it fits with Eberron and 4th ed. better (paladins still just being LG as a rare "point of light" perhaps.)
While there is clearly some adaptation of the flavor presented in the 3.5 core rules for Eberron, it left the rules pretty much alone. There were a few patches, like Monastic Training, but no outright "this rule works differently in Eberron". Elves still had the same abilities and bonuses, even if they didn't behave the same.
So ignoring the flavor of 4e is fine, but if for some reason 4e elves take a penalty to Ride checks and cause horses to attack them on sight, they have no business being the Valenar. Likewise, if a rules element is missing from 4e that isn't critical to feel of Eberron, 4e Eberron shouldn't add it back in. For instance if we don't have dinosaurs in 4e, Eberron shouldn't stubbornly insist on the Talenta plains being as it was in 3e. Maybe something else can fill that role but if nothing can, Eberron is stronger by excising out what doesn't fit.
Essentially I think Eberron should recycle all the things that still work, leave the things that no longer fit, and use what is new in 4e to fill in the gaps.
Yes, some of your examples are pretty drastic, but I agree with the general concept. I think 4e Eberron can take a somewhat middle-of-the-road approach. I wouldn't mind if they retrofit and reinclude some things from 3.5e to keep Eberron similar. For example, if dinosaurs don't show up in any Monster Manuals by the time ECS is released, they could put the stats for dinosaurs into the ECS. And if 4e redefines dragons to be intensely stupid, I wouldn't mind if the ECS statted up new versions called "High Dragons" that fit the original Eberron storyline, as long as they included some back story for what the "Low Dragons" are doing. (Honestly, as much as I like the mystique around dragons in Eberron, I find it hard to use them as monsters that it would make sense for most people to fight; they are too xenophobic and detached. If there were a lesser race of dragons that mostly flew around raiding villages and being a nuisance, then they might actually see more fight time in some adventures, which I think is the 4e designer's intentions.)
However, changes that are very prominent in core 4e should be reflected in Eberron, and should not be simply rewritten to fall back in line with 3.5e. If elves now have a bunch of nature powers and are fickle and fey-like, then 4e Eberron should reflect this and explain differences where needed: maybe the Aerenal became long-lived and lost some of their fey nature through overexposure to the positive energy fields of Aerenal, and now they have become something different. But the Khorvarian elves, especially the ones in the Eldeen reaches, become very similar to the new 4e representation. If Eladrin and Tieflings are core races, they need to have a good-sized write up in the new ECS with a few representative NPC's and plot hooks. If there are a bunch of druid spells that make use of the Feywild and assume it's coplanar everywhere, then Eberron should include that and explain it somehow, rather than just ignoring and making those spells nonfunctional.
In general I agree with your points. However, there are a few "this rule works differently in Eberron" examples, (cleric alignments, adepts with domains, etc.) Also, Eberron added some rules, namely actions points. I'd expect the same degree of flexibility when it comes to 4th. ed., but with a heavy emphasis on maintaining the tone and flavor of the setting.
Edit: I could even see them keeping a 3.5 rule or two, simply because it fits with Eberron and 4th ed. better (paladins still just being LG as a rare "point of light" perhaps.)
I think having paladins no longer shoehorned into one alignment will actually work better in Eberron, considering the setting is all about being "alignment-gray." Of course, I understand you're just throwing that out as an example, and I see your point... however if 4E is everything the designers expect it to be, I think the rule set will be able to encompass enough that this type of adaptation will be fairly minimal.
Yes, some of your examples are pretty drastic, but I agree with the general concept. I think 4e Eberron can take a somewhat middle-of-the-road approach. I wouldn't mind if they retrofit and reinclude some things from 3.5e to keep Eberron similar. For example, if dinosaurs don't show up in any Monster Manuals by the time ECS is released, they could put the stats for dinosaurs into the ECS. And if 4e redefines dragons to be intensely stupid, I wouldn't mind if the ECS statted up new versions called "High Dragons" that fit the original Eberron storyline, as long as they included some back story for what the "Low Dragons" are doing. (Honestly, as much as I like the mystique around dragons in Eberron, I find it hard to use them as monsters that it would make sense for most people to fight; they are too xenophobic and detached. If there were a lesser race of dragons that mostly flew around raiding villages and being a nuisance, then they might actually see more fight time in some adventures, which I think is the 4e designer's intentions.)
However, changes that are very prominent in core 4e should be reflected in Eberron, and should not be simply rewritten to fall back in line with 3.5e. If elves now have a bunch of nature powers and are fickle and fey-like, then 4e Eberron should reflect this and explain differences where needed: maybe the Aerenal became long-lived and lost some of their fey nature through overexposure to the positive energy fields of Aerenal, and now they have become something different. But the Khorvarian elves, especially the ones in the Eldeen reaches, become very similar to the new 4e representation. If Eladrin and Tieflings are core races, they need to have a good-sized write up in the new ECS with a few representative NPC's and plot hooks. If there are a bunch of druid spells that make use of the Feywild and assume it's coplanar everywhere, then Eberron should include that and explain it somehow, rather than just ignoring and making those spells nonfunctional.
My examples were drastic on purpose. Obviously some minor changes will take place, but I think it speaks to the strength and adaptability of the Eberron world that even major changes won't make the world feel less "Eberronian".
For instance, I don't think being elves or even related to elves is critical to the idea of who the Aerenal are. To me they are a race of people that escaped slavery in Xen'drick and practice a unique form of ancestor worship. That doesn't have to be an elf. All elf really meant in 3e was pointy ears, high agility, long life-span, and favored class wizard. If, when re-imagined in the 4e ruleset, a different race fits the idea of Aerenal better, that is the race that should be used.
I was actually specifically thinking of the drakes that have been mentioned a couple of times as possibly replacing the dinosaurs of Talenta. While a dino riding halfling is cool, a halfling riding a fire-breathing terrible lizard is really cool. Space in the Eberron campaign setting is precious, I'd really rather it not be used to populate the world with dinosaurs. The 3 dinos in the ECS were fine, but I don't need to see more than that.
Eberron took orcs and made them something very different. Orc druids? Don't they have a wisdom penalty? Some other race in 4e may be more easily stripped of their flavor and recast as the primordial Gatekeepers. Which is assuming they find the Gatekeepers to be a useful piece of 3e Eberron to keep. Maybe aberration-fightin' druids lose there place to a new ancient evil and corresponding crusaders that more readily incorporates the monsters and races available in 4e.
Another thing that bears examining are the Dragonmarked Houses. The idea of Dragonmarks is one that I hope they will keep, but I think the composition and role of the various houses is up for grabs. I only think two houses are really critical to the feel of Eberron: Houses Cannith and Orien. Those two are responsible for a good portion of the "magical technology" that is important to the feel of Eberron. I don't even think the airships need to be considered inextricably tied to a Dragonmarked House, and I certainly don't think that House Lyrandar needs to be half-elf. What changes to the dragonmark houses do you think might happen?
I feel like I'm picking on the elves (which is probably because Eberron took a lot of liberties with re-flavoring elves). So lets look at another race: orcs.
Eberron took orcs and made them something very different. Orc druids? Don't they have a wisdom penalty? Some other race in 4e may be more easily stripped of their flavor and recast as the primordial Gatekeepers. Which is assuming they find the Gatekeepers to be a useful piece of 3e Eberron to keep. Maybe aberration-fightin' druids lose there place to a new ancient evil and corresponding crusaders that more readily incorporates the monsters and races available in 4e.
Another thing that bears examining are the Dragonmarked Houses. The idea of Dragonmarks is one that I hope they will keep, but I think the composition and role of the various houses is up for grabs. I only think two houses are really critical to the feel of Eberron: Houses Cannith and Orien. Those two are responsible for a good portion of the "magical technology" that is important to the feel of Eberron. I don't even think the airships need to be considered inextricably tied to a Dragonmarked House, and I certainly don't think that House Lyrandar needs to be half-elf. What changes to the dragonmark houses do you think might happen?
I don't think that they're going to make so many changes that it makes every Eberron sourcebook obsolete. The changes you're suggesting might happen would do that.
I don't think that they're going to make so many changes that it makes every Eberron sourcebook obsolete. The changes you're suggesting might happen would do that.
That is an interesting point. But it brings up the question: Are the changes that are necessary to have Eberron be consistent with 4e going to obsolesce the sourcebooks already?
I suppose we can look at what we have sourcebooks on already and view those areas as "less mutable" to the changes wrought by 4e. So you don't make changes to the Five Nations, the Dragonmarked Houses, Xen'drick, or Sarlona. But is that not hobbling the game designers? Forcing them to fit changes into undeveloped and tangentially relevant areas of the world.
It is true that changing a Dragonmark is a major change to the game world. But this is the opportunity to do so. Making one of the Houses eladrin instead of elf is probably a pretty transparent change that few would object to. But personally I've never understood why House Lyrander was half-elf and would have no objection to 4e Eberron to having some new race in that role.
The ECS says "the common races living on the continents of Khorvaire and Aerenal developed dragonmarks". The races in the 3e PHB got to belong to this exclusive club. Other arguably "common" races did not. There is no dragonmarked house of goblins or orcs for instance. Do we want to continue the legacy of what races are common or important in the world from 3e? I don't. I want new and exciting material for Eberron.
I'm not concerned if my sourcebooks lose the authoritativeness, I'll deal. I rarely ever look at my 2e sourcebooks. The 3e Eberron sourcebooks will still contain valuable information even if some parts of them are contradicted. My most disappointing RPG purchase ever was the Dark•Matter book for d20 Modern. It was so disappointing because nothing changed from the Alternity book. It wasn't a new take on the campaign in light of what d20 offered, it only contained the bare minimum changes to play Dark•Matter in d20 (and was poorly executed to boot). I emphatically do not want to see that for Eberron.
I feel like I'm picking on the elves (which is probably because Eberron took a lot of liberties with re-flavoring elves). So lets look at another race: orcs.
Eberron took orcs and made them something very different. Orc druids? Don't they have a wisdom penalty? Some other race in 4e may be more easily stripped of their flavor and recast as the primordial Gatekeepers. Which is assuming they find the Gatekeepers to be a useful piece of 3e Eberron to keep. Maybe aberration-fightin' druids lose there place to a new ancient evil and corresponding crusaders that more readily incorporates the monsters and races available in 4e.
Another thing that bears examining are the Dragonmarked Houses. The idea of Dragonmarks is one that I hope they will keep, but I think the composition and role of the various houses is up for grabs. I only think two houses are really critical to the feel of Eberron: Houses Cannith and Orien. Those two are responsible for a good portion of the "magical technology" that is important to the feel of Eberron. I don't even think the airships need to be considered inextricably tied to a Dragonmarked House, and I certainly don't think that House Lyrandar needs to be half-elf. What changes to the dragonmark houses do you think might happen?
Your point about orcs actually serves to illustrate how much things aren't going to change. The Shadow Marches culture has nothing to do with the mechanics of orcs, nor do the cultures of Aerenal and Valenar connect in any way, negative or positive, to the mechanics of the elf race. The Dragonmarked Houses are the races they are because that's how the prophecy made itself manifest in the flesh of the humanoid races, not because the mechanics of the mark of sentinel (for instance) are connected to the mechanics of humans.
Since the cultural aspects of Eberron aren't tied to the game mechanics of the races, a game mechanics change is not a reason to change the cultures. These kinds of changes won't be made. The houses will remain the same races, Aerenal and Valenar will remain elves, and the Eladrin will be given their own unique place in the world.
I just don't think that is the ideal way to treat it. That is just an adaptation of the existing setting. It isn't interesting, it isn't new, it isn't satisfying. They can just copy and paste the flavor text from the organizations chapter from the 3e version, maybe add a new organization of tiefling warlocks or something. I already own the 3e ECS. If the only new stuff in the 4e ECS are rule conversions for warforged and artificers, I'll probably still buy it but I won't be happy.
What I desperately want is a new setting with the theme and feel of Eberron. I want them to keep everything that is cool about Eberron, but they need not keep the same implementation of it. I think if you really ask yourself what you like about Eberron you will find that it is the broad generalities and not the specifics. Why do you want to keep the specifics?
Here's an example of a way that eladrins could be brought into the setting without stealing another race's thunder or making them a rare race. Numerous manifest zones of Thelanis have been popping up in the Eldeen Reaches and western Aundair over the past 40 years. The eladrins have been gradually but steadily migrating across the weak planar border and forming small communities. No one really noticed at first, because it was just a few of them, and there was a war going on. Now that the war is over, people have started noticing that the eladrin population is now larger than anyone would previously have guessed. Tension starts to occur between communities of eladrins and those of humanoids native to Khorvaire, compounded by the fact that the eladrins prefer to hang together and thus form tight communities even in the cities they settle in. Some Aundairan bully boys try to burn the eladrins out of their Fairhaven ghettos, which provokes incidents of violence in the city and leads many eladrins to flee to the Eldeen Reaches... where they find a cold reception, but at least aren't turned away with violence.
Now you have a race that exists in numbers in populated parts of the world, that has a certain feel to it and that already has a basic story conflict with its involvement in the world. Done like this, the eladrins have a place in Eberron, and they didn't need to steal anyone else's slice of pie to get it. If you don't like the tension of having them be rejected immigrants, you could say that Aundair needed the population boom and has welcomed them with open arms. Even better, you could make it a bit of both; the Queen and the aristocracy are glad for the added population and the magical knowledge the eladrins have brought with them, but elements of the population feel threatened and try to incite civil war over the matter. This doesn't take anything away from the setting or change any of its fundamentals. What it does do is make the eladrins feel like they fit logically into the world, and it adds an element to the politics of the nations involved.
Schism (i.e. separating elves into two races) is another option, but this also has its drawbacks and limitations.
I think that you can like the flavor of what has come before, but also like new flavor in a similar vein. Broad changes can make the world stronger, more cohesive, and more believable. Changes need not be "disruptive" if they are consistent with each other. The only thing they would disrupt is a running campaign. I think the benefits of change outweigh the minor inconvenience of having to start a new campaign (or re-imagine your old one) any more than you would already have to convert to 4e.
Chew a piece of gum for long enough and the flavor disappears. The same happens when a campaign setting is stretched, altered, and run. Obviously people think that Eberron has yet to reach the point where some of it needs be replaced with new flavor. It will still happen eventually. I want to see the point where Eberron becomes bland and familiar put off as long as possible, the answer is change.
Here's an example of a way that eladrins could be brought into the setting...
I like that idea. I could see some eladrin(s?) settling down in Arcanix. I'm not sure about Aundairans wanting to go to civil war over it. Aundair has enough problems; they're still half-heartedly trying to reclaim the Eldeen, while stirring things up in Thaliost. However, I could definitely see resentment from the Aundairans at the bottom of the pile, but they'd sooner burn a few houses than try to get some muckety-muck political backing.
If you leave everything the same there is no room for new major players. Tieflings and eladrin can be rare. Wizard traditions can have no impact on the world scale. Eberron is a flexible setting and everything can fit in that respect. I'm not arguing that point.
I just don't think that is the ideal way to treat it. That is just an adaptation of the existing setting. It isn't interesting, it isn't new, it isn't satisfying. They can just copy and paste the flavor text from the organizations chapter from the 3e version, maybe add a new organization of tiefling warlocks or something. I already own the 3e ECS. If the only new stuff in the 4e ECS are rule conversions for warforged and artificers, I'll probably still buy it but I won't be happy.
What I desperately want is a new setting with the theme and feel of Eberron. I want them to keep everything that is cool about Eberron, but they need not keep the same implementation of it. I think if you really ask yourself what you like about Eberron you will find that it is the broad generalities and not the specifics. Why do you want to keep the specifics?
Those who want to keep the specifics are those who like Eberron, because the specifics are what make it Eberron. You said it yourself above -- "What I desperately want is a new setting with the theme and feel of Eberron." And all the changes suggested thus far would yield a new setting -- not Eberron.
I don't know if I'm the first to say it, but Shadowrun for the 360... Yeah, not much Shadowrun to be found in it, aside from casually tossing in a couple of familiar races and saying "Magic + Guns = Shadowrun". Hollowing out the backstory of the ECS to shoehorn in some half-assed retcon would be heartbreaking, and it would not be Eberron. It would be Action Planet X or some such.
Core can be core -- campaign settings are designed to be different and to add flavor. The fact of the matter is that you alter the core rules to fit the setting, not the setting to fit the core rules. I hope the 4e ECS doesn't pop until they get templates down for the Deathless, explain that Dragonborn had best never, EVER meet a dragon, and that you had better own the 4e MM because Gnomes are a huge part of the history of the world.
explain that Dragonborn had best never, EVER meet a dragon
There is no reason why a Dragonborn should not ever meet a dragon. Hell, they are probably creations of dragons in the first place (at least I imagine they would be, sort of like the black lizardmen created by whatcha-ma dragon in whatcha-ma place... someone help me out here with names).
Your mileage may vary. I'm not going to say 4E is going to be all games to all people. But the fact of the matter is that I not only prefer it as a system, I feel that it's a BETTER system for the Eberron setting than 3E - that it plays to things that I consider fundamental themes of the Eberron Campaign Setting
http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/
So it seem that Eberron will be better in 4e. So i don t expect massive retcon.
However, I will head off one point. I'm sure some people will say "Keith has to say that or they won't let him work on the books."
But I don't. Even if I didn't want to stand on a soapbox and criticize the system, I don't have to say anything. Given that I'm under NDA and any time I talk, there's a chance I'll let something slip WotC doesn't want me to say, the most politically correct thing for me to do would be to not say anything at all. The fact of the matter is that I like 4E as a system, and in particular, as a system for Eberron. I don't think that massive changes are required to make it work with the system; on the contrary, as pointed out in those posts, many things (such as rituals and the inclusion of action points in core) make it a stronger system for Eberron. Eberron was designed for 3E, but even there it made changes to fit the themes of the world - changes like action points. It emphasized that PCs were special. The changes in 4E reflect many of these same ideas - simply integrated at a level beyond what a campaign setting could do.
So far from being worried about it, I love it. I'm running two 4E Eberron campaigns, and look forward to being able to play in one ASAP. I'm certainly not burning my 3E books - it's still a good system, and some companies will continue to support it. But if it's up to me, I'll be playing any future Eberron games in 4E.
Given that I'm under NDA and any time I talk, there's a chance I'll let something slip WotC doesn't want me to say, the most politically correct thing for me to do would be to not say anything at all.
That's particularly interesting. Would you like to expound on the difficulties of avoiding letting 4E secrets slip, in more detail, with specific examples and possibly charts?
Given that I'm under NDA and any time I talk, there's a chance I'll let something slip WotC doesn't want me to say, the most politically correct thing for me to do would be to not say anything at all.
That's particularly interesting. Would you like to expound on the difficulties of avoiding letting 4E secrets slip, in more detail, with specific examples and possibly charts?
That said, the things that are not fundamental to the setting are not necessarily compatible. I think the planes are the best example we have so far. Some mechanical aspects of the planes are not going to be completely compatible with Eberron's planes as they are described. Will making the necessary changes to Eberron's planes destroy some fundamental aspect of Eberron? I highly doubt it.
As we've seen more and more of 4e, I'm pleased by how adaptable it seems. Orcs can probably fill the role of Gatekeepers perhaps better than they did in 3e, heck the Orc Raider has a Wisdom bonus. Demons seem perfectly feasible to be the children of Kyber, aberrants are well-suited to being the creations and servants of the Daelkyr, and elves fit both the valorous Valaner and the reverent Aereni.
Some things will be different or new. Leaving Formorians out of Eberron seems like a waste. Dragons are no longer powerful sorcerers, so their relation to magic on Eberron may need to shift.
What Keith said is that 4e better at representing the fundamental themes of Eberron, not that every specific element is the same. 4e Eberron will be very familiar, it will let you be a hero is pulp action world with ancient mysteries and intrigue. The vast majority of elements will probably hold up to a direct conversion. But tweaks to old elements and the incorporation of new ones will mean everything isn't quite the same. I encourage you to embrace that change. The designers will surely make changes that make Eberron more like what it is supposed to be on a fundamental level.
Dragons are no longer powerful sorcerers, so their relation to magic on Eberron may need to shift.
While I see where you're coming from overall, I wouldn't bet the bank on this point. I think it's far more likely that Eberron will change the dragons to fit the Chamber than throw out the Chamber to fit the default dragons. Remember that Dragons of Eberron - with the Chamber, Sovereign archetypes, Eyes of Chronepsis, etc. - is supposed to be one of the books that will receive 4E support; I don't think they would have written the book as it is if they planned to remove all magic from dragons.
I don't expect dragons to have powers that necessarily mimic those of HUMAN sorcerers, but I'll be very surprised if Eberron strips them of magic completely. The dragons of Eberron have always been different from dragons of core. They not only have a nation, but the oldest nation on the world. They are the source of the magic that destroyed the giants. They are the children of Earth and Sky. I'm sure the flavor of their power will change to a form that makes sense with the system - but I suspect that they will still have a tie to magic.
It is just that in the paucity of information we have about the specifics of 4e, it is difficult to find good examples about what won't convert almost seamlessly.
There are bound to be a few things that aren't trivial conversions, but so far these seem to be parts that are not at odds with Eberron's fundamental aspects.
For instance, magic item creation will be very different in 4e. Will this prevent the designers from developing a class that still feels like an artificer? Probably not.
The mechanical differences between 3e and 4e will lead to a few differences in exactly how everything fits together, but it won't change how Eberron feels. Just because dragonmarks don't have exact analogs for the 3e spell-like abilities doesn't mean they won't have the same place in the world.