I don't expect them to use the 3e fluff for the dragonborn template, but most likely they will be to half-dragons what tieflins are to half-fiendish.
But then, with dragons having such a role in Eberron, having them as player characters might be harder to justify than even tieflins.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212613&page=1&pp=30
How is it harder to justify than Kalashtar?
Well, kalashtar are Human Looking... and where always there... that's how.
Damn... Dragonborn = terrible news
;14425011']How is harder to justify than a Kalashtar?!
Well, kalashtar are Human Looking... and where always there... that's how.
Damn... Dragonborn = terrible news
Always there? Was it a problem for you when Eneko were introduced in Secrets of Sarlona?
As I mentioned before, Dragonborn could easily be explained in Eberron. Read Dragons of Eberron for some inspiration.
It'll be interesting to see what the core flavor for them is. I doubt they will have the same relationship with Bahamut that they do in 3e, it would just be too limiting for a core race IMO. They may be a true-breeding species as I believe tieflings will be.
They could be mainly a race of humanoid lizards that, like kobolds, "think" that they are related/descended from dragons, and sometimes a rare hero/sorcerer might show advanced abilities not unlike those of a dragon (like wings or a breath weapon". Is it trully dragon blood, or is it that the lizardfolk sorcerer just used his own magic to transform himself (maybe without realizing it) ?
Yes, I think it would work perfectly : just have some lizardfolks tribes (or maybe all of them ?) calling themselves Dragonborn with only the puny barbarian, humans and the like, calling them "lizardmen".
Most racial abilities would be simple physical enhancement (scales giving natural armore, bite and claws attacks, bonus str and maybe con), with only some advanced (parangon and epic ?) racial abilities/prestige classes giving access to the more dragon-like abilities (breath weapon, wings ...)
We already have exactly that for kobolds in 3.5, wizards would just have to take the best ideas and give them to medium-size reptilian humanoids.
Kobold would have made a rather frail player race, and are too often too evil to be useable. By giving the draconic heritage idea to medium size lizardsfolks, it would give them the fluff and crunch they lacked in 3.5 to be a good PC race (that, and the level adjustement penalties ;))
Well, if the dragonborn are indeed the new race, they'll definitely have to spell out for players what exactly is the general stance of dragons meddling with mortals is. Right now many seem to think that if you're draconic in the least, dragons will hunt you down and kill you in plain sight.
As i understand the world... only two things will really make this "hunt you down and kill you" One, if you meet an Elf... they will hunt you down.... two if some how you are Half-Elf Half Dragon... then Both Dragons and Elves will hunt you down...
Why do people incest on converting an old race into one of them new ones?
I think you need a dictionary.
However the dragonborn being their own tribe of lizardfolk in Q'barra seems to be a workable solution. You wouldn't have to get rid of the Cold Sun, Poison Dusk, or Blackscale tribes to do so.
Another option is have the various reptilian races be the second children of the progenitor dragons. Dragonborn, lizardfolk, and kobolds are the children of Siberys, Eberron, and Kyber respectively. Where that would put dragonborn in the world, I do not know.
I'm really not sure what they would add to my game.
It's hard to say, since this is still just a rumor with no fluff, mechanical, or pictoral details to go on.
Fluff is maleable, so that seems irrelevant. Mechanically, I'd wager they will bring to the game the ability to play a draconic race, possibly with the ability to acquire signature dragon abilities (tail slap, breath weapon, wings), right from 1st level. It'll also probably bring another particularly non-humanocentric race to the table, which is good IMHO.
I agree with Moribund though, that if they are from Argonsenn, I'd want a decent number of them to have come to Khorvaire, with a suitable background story. Saying the Q'barran lizardmen were "actually Dragonborn all along" seems like a good idea to me as well.
Still, Khorvarian society seems to have such a raging case of dragon-worship (Dragonmarks, Dragonshards, the Dragon Above, the Dragon Below, Dirty Dragons starring Patrick d'Swayze) that it will seem a little out of place that nobody ever mentioned these Dragonborn walking around before.
That said if dragonborn are "spiritually descended" from dragons or dragons in humanoid form, I doubt dragons would take much issue with them. Just as long as it doesn't involve having intimate relations with a lesser species.
That makes the obvious place to put them Q'barra, and I think it'd be a good idea to replace the Cold Sun lizardfolk there with Dragonborn, keeping established fluff and building upon their history as the chosen of dragonkind. We should keep the Poison Dusk and Blackscales, too, though.
They should not be relegated to Argonnessen, it isn't a suitable place for a standard Eberron game. It takes enough explanation to use a Seren PC in Khorvaire, let alone one from the Light of Siberys! Xen'drik would be better than Argonnessen, since it has greater contact with Khorvaire through Stormreach.
- They are made rather than true-breeding, so coming from one land as a unique culture doesn't necessarily work.
- Working for the Light of Siberys isn't impractical. Most members are actual dragons; dragonborn could be the disposable agents that could be easily replaced so long as there is an individual (humanoid only, possibly dragonmarked race only) interested in serving the Light of Siberys and its cause (see Races of the Dragon for sample motives).
- A dragonborn adventurer is much more plausible than a Seren barbarian leaving his home for an unkown world.
The only issue I see is one of discretion. How might a dragonborn hide his appearance in order to more easily blend in without drawing attention? Are there easily acquired dragon-themed items or spells that facilitate this?
I'm thinking the best place for them is Q'Barra, with the Lizardfolk.
You're thinking 3.5 Dragonborn. This post says that 4e Dragonborn are true-breeding, egg-laying kin of Dragons.
I'm thinking the best place for them is Q'Barra, with the Lizardfolk.
Gah! I missed that post.
*sigh* I prefer the 3.5 version. Just one more reason to sit happily on my pile of 3e books and continue playing with what I already own.
Khorvaire doesn't offer much in the way of deserts - the Talenta region is the only one that I can think of (unless you count the Demon Wastes, but that's rather an unlikely home locale). It's possible that this will be where they end up - the lizardfolk were driven into the swamps, but for whatever reason, the dragonborn weren't, and now inhabit the more desertlike portions of that area.
Of course, there's always the yet-another-Xen'drik-race solution, but that's getting a bit worn.
Yes, that means a potentially significant retcon. And thus we see the perils of a non-advancing timeline when new content is added to the game. (Though I still prefer it to an advancing timeline!)
Of course, the portrayal of the Argonessen Dragons, and their role as the primary culture of dragons in Eberron, is the one thing I have disliked about the setting, but there is little to be done about that at this point.
I'm thinking that I'll be advancing the timeline no matter what they say. I mean, sure the starting year will remain the same, but who's to say that six or nine months haven't past since the 3e version of the world was first released? Certainly not me. :D
One other issue with dropping them into Q'barra: They're apparently described as being desert-dwellers in the preview book, not swamp-dwellers. (At a guess, this may be in part so that they *don't* overlap with lizardfolk.)
The Q'barran lizardfolk used to live in the Talenta plains. They had a whole ancient civilization there. They were forced into Q'barra by hobgoblins back before the Daelkyr wars.
I also question how relevant the "desert" aspect will be. It might not have any mechanical effect and can easily be ignored.
I don't imagine that halflings will suddenly become river-dwellers in Eberron, for instance. So I think it will be a non-issue.
I find it interesting (and a little amusing) how some people are trying to figure out how to change Dragonborn to fit the Eberron Setting when the re-writing process will almost certainly take the opposite approach.
What re-writing process? The TLA for Eberron has been cancelled and they have also already stated that they are not going to rewrite the setting but rather find ways to add things in ... so what are you talking about?
> he wasn't really too keen on giving them a presence in the setting.
He has posted his ideas on the Eberron boards. (Check the Dragons of Eberron/Bahamut threads there.) They just didn't have space to put it into Dragons of Eberron.
What re-writing process? The TLA for Eberron has been cancelled and they have also already stated that they are not going to rewrite the setting but rather find ways to add things in ... so what are you talking about?
Retcon.
Retconning is a method of re-writing. Dragonborn and Tieflings aren't going to be added into the setting, they are going to have been there the whole time.
I just find it interesting that people are trying to fit things in the 3.5 continuity when the continuity is going to change dramatically!
Changes will come, they are inevitable and I do not look forward to the discussions that will arise when the changes are known.
I just think its pointless to try and shoehorn a 4E concept into a 3.5 framework.
They overwrite it.
There was NO orcs in Dragonlance, no more Gnomes, etc... It won't change like this.
I find it interesting (and a little amusing) how some people are trying to figure out how to change Dragonborn to fit the Eberron Setting when the re-writing process will almost certainly take the opposite approach.
I think that it's much more likely Dragonborn will be changed than Eberron. After all, most of the PHB races were changed when Eberron was first written, I see no reason why they won't take the same approach this time around.
I think the ease with which Dragonborn may be added to Q'barra may be a happy coincidence. If they can give Dragonborn a interesting and useable place in Eberron without upsetting the established elements of the setting, then they don't have any reason to retcon and upset people.
If you DO want them, then there are many ways they're "introduced". Imagine for whatever reason, a number of the "dragonmarked" suddenly transform into the dragonborn. Does this mean the others will change as well? Is the change permanent, or is it temporary?
If they can give Dragonborn a interesting and useable place in Eberron without upsetting the established elements of the setting, then they don't have any reason to retcon and upset people.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think it is much more likely that the Tapestry of Eberron will be unwoven and the new elements added that they will be crammed in or patched over.
Adding them in, as you suggest, is a retcon. The two options are "one day they weren't here, the next they were" (aka Timeline Advancement) or "They've always been here" (aka retroactive continuity or retcon).
There's no way to add them in without changing the history of the setting, whether you do it forwards (TLA) or backwards (retcon).
I believe the developers with favor minor changes to the setting over drastic ones. There are good reasons for doing so that have been discussed elsewhere, at length.
Adding Dragonborn in as Q'barran lizardfolk require some minor changes to the setting. Will those changes be retcons? Yes, at least by some definitions. Are they as likely to upset people as other ways to incorporate new elements? No.
Will those changes be retcons? Yes, at least by some definitions.
I don't get your "at least by some definitions" comment.
If you are saying "All Q'Barran lizardfolk have always been Dragonborn" or "Q'Barra has always had Dragonborn in addition to lizardfolk" you are retroactively changing the continuity, hence retcon.
If you are saying "one minute lizardfolk, the next *poof* dragonborn" you have advanced the timeline by the duration of one *poof*.
I guess I'm not understanding how there can be varying degrees of retcon as you seem to suggest.
As for minor vs. drastic, that's just a matter of viewpoint. I'd rather see the new elements blended in carefully, taking the whole picture into account rather than just hearing "They live in Xen'drik" (i.e. *splat* here they are!).
I don't get your "at least by some definitions" comment.
There are multiple definitions of retcon. One is the "classic" definition of retcon in which an inconsistency is explained through adding exposition that changes the interpretation of facts to remove the inconsistency. This is the "it was all a dream" style of retcon. The other definition is the direct contradiction of previously established facts. I believe that is the definition you are operating under.
If you are saying "All Q'Barran lizardfolk have always been Dragonborn" or "Q'Barra has always had Dragonborn in addition to lizardfolk" you are retroactively changing the continuity, hence retcon.
No. The first is a retcon because it makes a change to something existing. The second is an addition to the setting which does not contradict any previously established continuity, so it cannot be considered a retcon by either definition. It is merely a previously unrevealed fact.
I guess I'm not understanding how there can be varying degrees of retcon as you seem to suggest.
As for minor vs. drastic, that's just a matter of viewpoint. I'd rather see the new elements blended in carefully, taking the whole picture into account rather than just hearing "They live in Xen'drik" (i.e. *splat* here they are!).
Adding a whole new civilization in the middle of Khorvaire has a ripple of effects that creates masses of changes throughout the setting. Other ways of incorporating Dragonborn have a good deal more finesse and require few other changes outside their immediate influence; the rest of Eberron stays pretty much the same.
I agree with you. I would like to see them incorporated, but there are more and less heavy-handed ways of doing so.
I'm personally in favor of a few drastic changes, but I'm aware that most other Eberron fans will want their campaign setting to appear consistent. This means subtle and readily accepted changes. Perhaps attempting to alleviate those fan's fears and convince them that some level of change is needed is as futile as arguing a point of view that they will never agree with, but at least it involves fewer flame wars.
"Oh, and here's Frank, who *also* goes to our school, but we've never seen him or talked to him until now, but now we suddenly do, only it's implied we've always done so but our conversations have taken place off-camera and have somehow happened to never affect the main plot!"
"Previously unrevealed facts" *are* retcons, just thinly disguised ones, and the disguise becomes really tacky and obvious if you overdo it.
"Oh, and here's Frank, who *also* goes to our school, but we've never seen him or talked to him until now, but now we suddenly do, only it's implied we've always done so but our conversations have taken place off-camera and have somehow happened to never affect the main plot!"
No they aren't. They can lack in believability, but a previously unrevealed fact is not a retcon by any generally accepted definition.
Yes they can be tacky, but at least call them what they are.
In your example of what is apparently a school drama show like "Saved by the Bell", having characters that weren't integral to the plot of previous episodes is entirely possible and even believable. Now if Frank was introduced as a close friend of a main character, that would be unbelievable and tacky. But his mere existence is not a retcon.
No they aren't. They can lack in believability, but a previously unrevealed fact is not a retcon by any generally accepted definition.
Yes they can be tacky, but at least call them what they are.
In your example of what is apparently a school drama show like "Saved by the Bell", having characters that weren't integral to the plot of previous episodes is entirely possible and even believable. Now if Frank was introduced as a close friend of a main character, that would be unbelievable and tacky. But his mere existence is not a retcon.
It is a thinly disguised retcon. It's a retcon in spirit, and the stuff we're asked to swallow to make it not a retcon is really annoying and tacky.
I mean, yes, of course it's not *technically* a retcon. That's the point. It wouldn't be a thinly disguised retcon if there weren't a thin disguise that fanboys insisted on treating as canon.
It is a thinly disguised retcon. It's a retcon in spirit, and the stuff we're asked to swallow to make it not a retcon is really annoying and tacky.
I mean, yes, of course it's not *technically* a retcon. That's the point. It wouldn't be a thinly disguised retcon if there weren't a thin disguise that fanboys insisted on treating as canon.
So what we are really arguing here is that you think Dragonborn are not believable as a subset of lizardfolk before you started attacking my semantics.
I'd like to hear your basis for that belief. Dragonborn look a lot like lizardfolk. The lizardfolk of Q'barra already claim ancestry from dragons and are from an ancient civilization, which incidentally is exactly in line with what we've heard of Dragonborn. Q'barra has not been extensively described, so you cannot claim the canon on it is exhaustive.
So which is better, retcon or timeline advancement?
Meh, they should have advanced the timeline by two years to account for introduction of new material.
So which is better, retcon or timeline advancement?
Neither.
Reimagining/Alternate Universe. Has no impact whatsoever on the continuity or things revealed in the previous edition. No retcons. No asking your players to go back and learn that ABC was actually XYZ. No timeline advancement.
It just asks that your players fall in love with an Eberron campaign all over again, and learn some new fluff and mechanics.
I think that it's much more likely Dragonborn will be changed than Eberron. After all, most of the PHB races were changed when Eberron was first written, I see no reason why they won't take the same approach this time around.
Eberron still takes many influences from the PHB. It's very likely that the Dragonborn in 4th edition, if they're going to be PHB races, are going to be different from their 3.5 origins, since even in Core D&D, a race that exists entirely due to people crawling into Dragon eggs, and highlighting personal relationships with Dragons isn't really going to work.
So the PHB Dragonborn should definately be written in a way that justifies making them as common as other PHB races. That should make it easier to do the same in Eberron. Since their relationship with Dragons in the PHB is most likely to be lessenged, I'd imagine that the same would work in Eberron.
"Real Dragons" simply aren't concerned with these "lesser kin", which they see as simple (veeeeeeeery) distant cousins in the same vein as lizardfolk, kobolds, and dinosaurs. That way, they don't become involved in the prophecy, and -real- Dragons can remain detached from them.
Meh, they should have advanced the timeline by two years to account for introduction of new material.
So which is better, retcon or timeline advancement?
In the end, they're the same monster. The difference is how much new information do you want? Timeline advancement implies much of the setting will be reworked, where as Retcon implies simply inserting things into the setting that were not present at the beginning.
Every Eberron book released after the Campaign Setting has possessed a lot of Retcon-ing. And truthfully, WotC has done a fabulous job retcon-ing thus far. They have explained and expanded every continent in a way most people enjoy. WotC has added new races, given them cultures and histories, with little impact upon the main themes of Eberron.
I prefer Retcon-ing with Eberron because WotC has a proven record through 14 or so setting books.
~~~~
As for Dragonborn, I don't see how they will be a problem. From what I understand they are to be beefy Lizard people who hatch from eggs. That's nothing new; they can call Q'Barra home. I'm sure a fair minority make their livelihood in Talenta, Droam and the Shadow Marshes. Dragonborn don't have to be as common as Half-Elves or Humans to be important and have an impact on the world.
I think it would perhaps be for the best if the 4e Eberron CS had an extensive section on how races are different in Eberron, both flavourfully and mechanically.
I think it would perhaps be for the best if the 4e Eberron CS had an extensive section on how races are different in Eberron, both flavourfully and mechanically.
Well thing is that they really don't difference that much. The PHB is rather vague about the culture of the races. It just gives glittering generalities and tendencies. Settings like Eberron and Forgotten Realms usually only fill in the details, but remain true to these generalities. Changes they make are usually to things like deities, social customs, and superficial things like fashion and hair styles.
Sure, the Elves of Aerenal don't look like the Elves of Evermeet, but they're both still snobby wizard/rangers on a secluded island where they have majestic cities and the like. They're still aloof, contemplative, and not as quick to act as the more impulsive and shorter lived races. Their kind still regularly mingles amongst Humans. They use the exact same mechanics (bonus to dex, low-light vision, favored classL wizard) as the PHB elf.
The ECS (and any campaign setting) tells you exactly what Elves are like. However,they do so by explaining what Elves are, rather than explaining what they're not. It's not that they're so much more "different" from the PHB, as much as they've been given more depth.
If you think about all the racial feats in Eberron, and then think how 4e has some new kind of racial feats, what makes sense for a core halfling is not going to make any sense whatsoever for an Eberron halfling. Probably the same with elves. Even if most of the core stats are the same, the talent trees will probably have to be radically customized.
If you look at the core dragonborn, they are supposed to be closest to gold/copper dragons, right? Well, I think the place to start would be with nixxing that and saying that Eberron dragonborn are more diverse, and live in more diverse environments.
If you think about all the racial feats in Eberron, and then think how 4e has some new kind of racial feats, what makes sense for a core halfling is not going to make any sense whatsoever for an Eberron halfling.
Core Halflings will have talent trees related to trading, luck, and animal training. That should work just fine in Eberron.
Probably the same with elves. Even if most of the core stats are the same, the talent trees will probably have to be radically customized.
It's been mentioned that one the unique Elven abilities will rely on dexterity over strength in attacks, which shouldn't conflict at all with Eberron, or any setting. It's unlikely that they're going to be very specific.
If you look at the core dragonborn, they are supposed to be closest to gold/copper dragons, right? Well, I think the place to start would be with nixxing that and saying that Eberron dragonborn are more diverse, and live in more diverse environments.
It's just been said that they have golden/copperish scales, not that they're related to those Dragons. Like how Kobolds have reddish/copperish scales, but aren't related to Red or Copper Dragons. Also, a great place to put Dragonborn would actually be in the whole Blade Desert/Endworld Mountains/Qbarra area. There's not much there right now in terms of PHB races, but there's a Dragon Graveyard and Lizardfolk (worshipping ruins from the Dragon/Demon ages), which are likely related to Dragonborn as well.
It works out even better since that would place them right next to Valenar, the nation led by militant Elves who have a history of waging war with Dragons (amongst other creatures). This could help explain why Dragonborn are so martial and why, like Valenar, they saw/see work as mercenaries. All part of an ongoing rivalry with the Tairandal.
I'm also sure you'll see Dragonborn outside of whatever area they originate from in the same way you see Dwarves outside of the Ironroot Mountainous, Elves outside of forests/jungles of Aerenal, and Halflings outside of the Talenta Plains.
So what we are really arguing here is that you think Dragonborn are not believable as a subset of lizardfolk before you started attacking my semantics.
I'd like to hear your basis for that belief. Dragonborn look a lot like lizardfolk. The lizardfolk of Q'barra already claim ancestry from dragons and are from an ancient civilization, which incidentally is exactly in line with what we've heard of Dragonborn. Q'barra has not been extensively described, so you cannot claim the canon on it is exhaustive.
To be honest, I was just replying to the general idea that "retcons" are unacceptable but "it's-always-really-been-here" is okay.
I have no problem with retconning Dragonborn as a subset of Lizardfolk -- or, hell, retconning that they're *all* Dragonborn. But I don't see how that's more or less okay than the much more controversial, say, retconning Aereni as Eladrin.
Keep in mind that the published books on Eberron will need to remain relevant, which does significantly limit the amount of real retconning that can take place.
They don't have to. 3.5 Eberron has enough material to stand alone as its own campaign setting with no more new published books. 4E is going to be totally incompatible with 3.5, with the addition of new classes, races, mechanics, and changes to armor, combat, and other things.
Although they will like to keep as much as possible, they''re in no way forced to minimize or ignore new elements in the 4.0 books simply because they weren't originally in 3.X
I think Dragonborn will have a smaller role in the setting that even the "optional" kalashtar. In other words, if the DM doesn't really want to deal with fitting them in, no one will even miss them. The "lost" 3.5 races and the Eberron-specific races will remain important elements to the Eberron Campaign Setting.
That's really a horrible way to impliment a race that's likely to be amongst the most popular. It's been stated several times, and is pretty obvious, but I suppose it deserves restating. Eberron didn't make the PHB classes the major races in the setting for no reason. For the same reasons, it'd be downright foolish for them to marginalize the newer ones in the 4E PHB.
Seriously though, Dragonborn, Tieflings, and Eladrin are going to be reeeaaally popular races in 4E amongst new players, and they'e going to want to play them. When they buy a WOTC published D&D campaign setting, they're going to expect to be able to play the races described in the WOTC published core book.
Imagine that you're a new player in 3.5 all over again. You have your PHB and see all the core races. You see one that strikes your fancy (most people like Humans, Dwarves, and Elves). Then you open the ECS and see Elves, Humans, and Dwarves are minor races from far off lands that people don't even know existed. That if you want to play these races (if your DM allows it) then you have to come up with some more far-fetched backstory, or be involved in some plot where you're used as a set pieces moreso than the other players.
That's how 4E players will feel if they open the 4E ECS and see the new races get the Kalashtar treatment.
New players purchasing new material and using as much of it as possible (and wanting more) is what's going to allow Eberron to grow and continue on- not older players who already bought their 3.5 books and don't intend on using as much of the new stuff at all.
They don't have to. 3.5 Eberron has enough material to stand alone as its own campaign setting with no more new published books.
Except I made my point based on repeated statements by James Wyatt that they will not be republishing any of the 3.5 Eberron books for 4ed except for the ECS. So there won't be a new Sharn:City of Towers with dragonborn in it, or a new Magic of Eberron with eladrin in it, or Five Nations (though I would dearly love to see a redo of that fiasco) with tieflings in it.
Again, though, that's not to say that there won't be a place for those new core races, they will simply be far less prominent than the legacy core races as they setting goes. But adventurers are by definition the exception rather than the rule, so why not be an adventuring dragonborn? You'll just be one of the few representatives of your race anywhere, especially if you start in Khorvaire, as opposed to a dwarf character from the Mror Holds, or a half-elf of House Lyrandar.
Edit: I just had a thought about dragonborn. I think it'd add a level of tension to their race if they were to highlight the jealously the dragonborn feel towards the races that can manifest dragonmarks!
Except I made my point based on repeated statements by James Wyatt that they will not be republishing any of the 3.5 Eberron books for 4ed except for the ECS. So there won't be a new Sharn:City of Towers with dragonborn in it, or a new Magic of Eberron with eladrin in it, or Five Nations (though I would dearly love to see a redo of that fiasco) with tieflings in it.
They're going to have to print more than just the ECS if they want Eberron to continue into 4th edition. Printing the ECS, and the ECS only sounds like they'd be dropping further support of the setting. That's what happened to Dragonlance when they only printed the campaign setting book for 3.X. You saw no more WOTC published Dragonlance 3.X material, and they instead went on to push other campaign settings.
Or perhaps they'll go the path of Forgotten Realms. 3.X Forgotten didn't reprint 2nd edition books like "Cloak and Dagger", "The Great Desert", "Bloodstone Lands", or "Faiths and Avatars" and others. However, we got all new books that gave us information about the same general setting, places, and subject matter.
So for Eberron, instead of "The Five Nations" we'll get, "The Human Kingdoms of Eberron", or instead of "Faiths of Eberron", we'll get "Faiths and Cults" or something else. New titles, new art, and totally rewritten to incorporate both old and new fluff, along with the new mechanics. Not a reprint though, and not bound by the previous edition.
Again, though, that's not to say that there won't be a place for those new core races, they will simply be far less prominent than the legacy core races as they setting goes. But adventurers are by definition the exception rather than the rule, so why not be an adventuring dragonborn? You'll just be one of the few representatives of your race anywhere, especially if you start in Khorvaire, as opposed to a dwarf character from the Mror Holds, or a half-elf of House Lyrandar.
Dragonborn, Eladrin, and Tieflings shouldn't be less prominent for the reason that none of the 3.5 PHB races were made less prominent than others. That was a deliberate decision on the part of WOTC and Eberron designers. They wanted a WOTC published D&D game that encouraged use of WOTC D&D material (including the races).
It wasn't because they all had this passion for Half-Elves, Gnomes, and Halflings, or that the races were just so interesting that they had to make them the main races of Eberron. It was much more of an attempt at clever marketing and simply good game design.
Sure adventurers are rare, but races like Kalashtar, Drow, and Half-Dragons cause problems because the fact that they're so underrepresented means they can often feel out of place unless you're specifically designing adventures around them.
Many DMs outright ban them, or don't allow them without back stories more demanding than the other races. A lot of DMs, make them hunted down or discriminated against. Others, like in the case of the Kalashtar or Half-Dragons, make them part of intrigues that the player might not want to be a part of. Like every Kalashtar somehow being tied to the war against the Dreaming Dark, or every Half-Dragon being hunted down by the Chamber, or working directly for a Dragon parent who is always wtahcing them and judging their every action. Quite often, a player doesn't want to be unwillingly tied down like that.
Push the new races to the sidelines and make them unimportant, or restrict them in that way, and they also see less overall support. Notice the relative amount of information and material we got about Kalashtar and Drow in 3.X compared to the core races. Less money for WOTC because people aren't buying the racial supplements ("my favorite races isn't covered") or even play the setting ("my favorite race is pathetic and too hard to play"). One of Eberron's keys to success is that it made Halflings and Gnomes more than jokes, and Half-Orcs into more than **** babies, encouraging more people to play them, and attracting fans of those races. It made Half-Elves more independent and fleshed out.
The new races should be tied to the setting and done up just as strongly. At the very least, they should be more prominent than creatures in the 4E MM that are not as popular as playable races like the monstrous races, Goblinoids, Orcs, and Gnomes. These all have their own nation.
I think there's going to be a few reasons why WotC is pushing the idea that non-setting specific material is all considered core rules for 4e, and this may be one of them.
I think this is the reason why Eberron is delayed until 2009, with the release of PHB2. Would it be too unthinkable for the 4ECS to 'require' both PHB1 & 2? And if so, would it be too far out of the realm of possibility to make some races in PHB2 very common (gnome & warforged) while shuffling some of the PHB1 races to the sidelines (dragonborn & tiefling) along with the other traditionally uncommon Eberron races (kalashtar, shifter & changeling)?
I think there's going to be a few reasons why WotC is pushing the idea that non-setting specific material is all considered core rules for 4e, and this may be one of them.
I don't know. If this is the case, that's like WOTC saying, "We don't want people playing Eberron to buy all the PHBs, just the ones that contain the most relevant information."
I think they would make the books core, and try to reference them as much as possible in Eberron, so they could say, "We want people playing Eberron to buy all the PHBs, so we'll make sure they all contain equally relevant information."
The latter is simply a much better business model than the former.
That's part of the reason why Eberron referenced Psionics more than other settings. WOTC wanted a setting to drive sales of Psionics books because nobody was playing them, since most Homebrews and Forgotten Realms never use them- so the players never buy them. Put out a book with more references to Psionic material, and more people will buy Psionic books to play in the setting (relatively speaking).
I don't know. If this is the case, that's like WOTC saying, "We don't want people playing Eberron to buy all the PHBs, just the ones that contain the most relevant information."
But they kind of did that already in 3e, stating that one would only need the PHB to play. Didn't stop them from referencing other sources repeatedly in the text, though. The difference here is they might say "Players need the Player's Handbook and Player's Handbook 2." Or heck, they could just say you only need the first PHB (for the basic 4e rules), but it's highly recommended you also get the second one (for all the cool expansion crunch utilized in Eberron). Kind of like a step beyond what they did in 3e "Psionics are optional, but we'll reference them constantly."
Edit: Speaking of psionics, I've had them in my game, regardless of campaign setting, since the XPH was published. I don't think I was the only one...even Atarii put psionics into their D&D:Tactics PSP game. ;)
But they kind of did that already in 3e, stating that one would only need the PHB to play. Didn't stop them from referencing other sources repeatedly in the text, though. The difference here is they might say "Players need the Player's Handbook and Player's Handbook 2." Or heck, they could just say you only need the first PHB (for the basic 4e rules), but it's highly recommended you also get the second one (for all the cool expansion crunch utilized in Eberron). Kind of like a step beyond what they did in 3e "Psionics are optional, but we'll reference them constantly."
Which is why I think they won't do it again: they learned their lesson.
Everyone bought the PHB, DMG, and MM. Not everyone bought the PHB2, DMG2, and MM's 2-5. That's because not nearly enough stuff in other books or campaign settings referenced it or really made them feel necessary. The material they offered was supplementary and nowhere near as comprehensive as the first set of books.
Mostly because they all were afterthoughts. The 3.X PHB was never written with the idea that a PHB2 would be on the way right afterwards. Neither was the DMG1 designed to envision the addition of a DMG2 the following year. Much of the material was just backtracking and expanding over what was in the earlier books. They were treated by players as addons. They sold well, but they could have sold better had players felt they could get more out of them.
Now WOTC has an opportunity to attempt to change this. Now they know that they're going to make a PHB1, PHB2, and PHB3. They're telling us ahead of time they'll all be core. The can intentionally fill each one just as important and relevant instead of an trying to come up with new material after the fact. If you want the PHB2 or PHB3, it will enrich your game just as much as the PHB1. Future material and rules can referenced in the PHB2 just as much as the PHB1, and they won't just be little sidebars or "optional rules", but written right into the game under the assumption that everyone will be using them. It better encourages you to use (and buy) more book, since both are just applicable to your game.
Of course you can still play with just the PHB1, DMG1, and MM1, but it won't feelas complete and official in 4E as it was it did 3.X.
Edit: Speaking of psionics, I've had them in my game, regardless of campaign setting, since the XPH was published. I don't think I was the only one...even Atarii put psionics into their D&D:Tactics PSP game. ;)
Not saying that people never played Psionics before, however, Eberron was an obvious attempt at a WOTC published setting aiming at giving Psionics a much larger part and more options than they had traditionally been given before. Pretty much every Eberron book had additional rules, feats, prestige classes, and other tid-bits aimed at Psionic characters.
WOTC expected more people to play Psionics in Eberron, than in Forgotten Realms, or their homebrews.
Yes, but when the 4ECS comes out, only two PHBs will be published. Unless you're talking about online updating of the book, I don't see how they're going to reference PHB5 as equally as the first two.
They'll do so in later books. The Eberron expansion that gets released immediately after the PHB3 can reference the PHB3 just as much as the PHB1 and PHB2, and so on and so forth. Like how Faiths of Eberron and Player's Guide to Faerun referenced the Complete X series of books... only better. No little sidebars in corners, but full write-ups comparable to the ECS's entries regarding races and classes in Eberron.
I certainly don't think they're going to ignore all previous PHBs, by concentrating on the PHB2 (or PHB3) and marginalizing the PHB1 as you suggested in the previous post.
I certainly don't think they're going to ignore all previous PHBs, by concentrating on the PHB2 (or PHB3) and marginalizing the PHB1 as you suggested in the previous post.
Alright, I didn't mean to suggest that. Here's what I meant originally: PHB1 will have obvious mainstays like elves and humans; PHB2 will have others like gnomes and warforged. They'll both have 'fringe' races as well, such as dragonborn & changelings. Combined, however, they will probably make up what we now consider 'core Eberron' as far as races and classes go (though I expect Kalashtar will remain Eberron-specific and only in the ECS).
This may make the first two PHBs more 'important' than future PHBs, but I tihnk that's pretty much unavoidable, saying as the bare basics will be found in them.
Alright, I didn't mean to suggest that. Here's what I meant originally: PHB1 will have obvious mainstays like elves and humans; PHB2 will have others like gnomes and warforged. They'll both have 'fringe' races as well, such as dragonborn & changelings. Combined, however, they will probably make up what we now consider 'core Eberron' as far as races and classes go (though I expect Kalashtar will remain Eberron-specific and only in the ECS).
This may make the first two PHBs more 'important' than future PHBs, but I tihnk that's pretty much unavoidable, saying as the bare basics will be found in them.
I probably might have believed something like this myself before learning that Gnomes, Warforged, and Shifters were all going to be in the MM.
And I don't think it'd be a good idea to make MM races more important in a setting than PHB races.
Forgotten Realms never use them- so the players never buy them.
Small note - FR is a psionic world. The Mind Power was just never very proeminent and common - it's more common in the hands of some freaky monsters like Illithids.
Ed Greenwood remarked that he use them, since the start - and even, Elminster used to have psionic powers too.
And I don't think it'd be a good idea to make MM races more important in a setting than PHB races.
You'd sell more MMs if you did. ;)
They'd already done this in 3.5, anyway. Despite being in the MM, the goblinoids are very important in Eberron. They've done more historically than the half-orcs and halflings combined. They're not only viable PC choices, but compelling ones, too. They also gain a cool, vaguely exotic vibe just by not being in the PHB. Adventurous players will want to play them, and they'll want to get all the information they can on them. Thus, more Monster Manuals sold.
I don't think WotC will chain themselves to only making the races in the PHBs important. Will they play them up and talk more about them? Yes, definitely. Will they cut themselves off from giant swaths of campaign setting design space by having no other important races? I don't think so...
Small note - FR is a psionic world. The Mind Power was just never very proeminent and common - it's more common in the hands of some freaky monsters like Illithids.
Ed Greenwood remarked that he use them, since the start - and even, Elminster used to have psionic powers too.
I'm sorry. A couple of monsters, and 1 or 2 Psionic prestige classes that use them, as well as a PC that used to use the material.
Still hardly enough to justify purchase of the EXP and Complete Psionics, especially when compared to Eberron, which has an entire continent and several nations ruled by Psionic outsiders with enclaves and colonies throughout the world.
I probably might have believed something like this myself before learning that Gnomes, Warforged, and Shifters were all going to be in the MM.
Well, I'd be willing to bet that dwarves, elves, eladrin & halflings will be in the first MM as well. A playable MM entry doesn't prevent a fleshed out PHB entry.
Well, I'd be willing to bet that dwarves, elves, eladrin & halflings will be in the first MM as well.
Everything I've read over in the 4E Races section makes it look like they're set to be PHB races. They're very fleshed out, and have just about as much art and concept work behind them as Humans, Elves, Dragonborn, and Tieflings.
A playable MM entry doesn't prevent a fleshed out PHB entry.
Prevent? No. However, it does provide more evidence against it than for it. A PHB race will get a MM entry, but it doesn't usually work the other way around.
I'm sorry. A couple of monsters, and 1 or 2 Psionic prestige classes that use them, as well as a PC that used to use the material.
Still hardly enough to justify purchase of the EXP and Complete Psionics, especially when compared to Eberron, which has an entire continent and several nations ruled by Psionic outsiders with enclaves and colonies throughout the world.
Still, it's canon - just not very common and not much emphased. But it's a psionic-holding world, and if anybody say otherwise, it's wrong. Heck, there IS a (slumbering) God of Psionics, and a gone empire of psionics. And with the Spellplague....
BTW, Eberron is not really hugely better - the psionic things are all quite optional, made to be easily removed/changed to magic, and the continent is distant and affar. Eberron hardly is as psionic as Dark Sun, the most psychic-friendly setting was.
Mind you, i am pro-psionic.
Everything I've read over in the 4E Races section makes it look like they're set to be PHB races.
Y-yeah...that goes without saying....
I'll try again. In 3e, every PHB race other than humans were found in the MM. Later, when an appropriate book would come out, they'd take other races found only in the MM and give them the full PHB-style treatment (Aasimars, Aquatic Elves, Centaurs, Doppelgangers, Duergar, Githyanki, Githzerai, Gnolls, Kobolds, Tieflings, etc). I expect this sort of thing will happen again with 4e, only these races will find their homes in future PHBs rather than 'Races of' books.
Basically, if things go the way I expect them to, for some races you'll just have to use the barebones playable stats found in the Monster Manual until WotC publishes a fully-fleshed out version in a PHB (along with a bunch of racial feats to bring out each races' uniqueness).
Still, it's canon - just not very common and not much emphased. But it's a psionic-holding world, and if anybody say otherwise, it's wrong.
Yes I acknowledged that there existed Psionic material in my last post (I had readily forgot it). However, to argue that it's a Psionic setting? Well then I think that's something of a deceptive way of selling it.
BTW, Eberron is not really hugely better - the psionic things are all quite optional, made to be easily removed/changed to magic, and the continent is distant and affar. Eberron hardly is as psionic as Dark Sun, the most psychic-friendly setting was.
Dark Sun is not a WOTC published setting.
Relatively speaking, Eberron is leaps and bounds ahead of Forgotten Realms in its implementation of Psionics. The Psionic elements are just as easily left out, if not more easily left out of Forgotten Realms. Virtually every Eberron book has material relating to Psionic characters (unlike Forgotten Realms), and there are continents devoted to Psionics instead of magic (unlike Forgotten Realms).
You're seriously arguing, as someone who is Pro-Psionic, that 3.X Eberron hasn't given you more material for your Psionic campaigns than 3.X Forgotten Realms? You would rather see Psionics continue to get the treatment they received in Forgotten Realms this edition instead of something more like Eberron?
Y-yeah...that goes without saying....
I'll try again. In 3e, every PHB race other than humans were found in the MM. Later, when an appropriate book would come out, they'd take other races found only in the MM and give them the full PHB-style treatment (Aasimars, Aquatic Elves, Centaurs, Doppelgangers, Duergar, Githyanki, Githzerai, Gnolls, Kobolds, Tieflings, etc). I expect this sort of thing will happen again with 4e, only these races will find their homes in future PHBs rather than 'Races of' books.
Basically, if things go the way I expect them to, for some races you'll just have to use the barebones playable stats found in the Monster Manual until WotC publishes a fully-fleshed out version in a PHB (along with a bunch of racial feats to bring out each races' uniqueness).
Ah, I see what you're saying now. Of course, the "full PHB" writeups these MM races got were coupled with even more involved chapters devoted to original PHB races, still making them relatively less important.
If the race isn't in the original PHB, I tend to be under the impression that the designers/publishers don't believe it's appropriate (for whatever reasons) for it to receive as much attention (let alone more) than PHB races.
For instance, if Gnomes get a write up in MM bumping them up to the status of Dragonborn in the PHB2, I wouldn't be surprised to see Dragonborn receive more information, still keeping them a "step ahead".
If the race isn't in the original PHB, I tend to be under the impression that the designers/publishers don't believe it's appropriate (for whatever reasons) for it to receive as much attention (let alone more) than PHB races.
For instance, if Gnomes get a write up in MM bumping them up to the status of Dragonborn in the PHB2, I wouldn't be surprised to see Dragonborn receive more information, still keeping them a "step ahead".
*shrug* Until it's proven otherwise, I'll take them at their word that the yearly core book addenda will be just as core as the mark one rulebooks. Assuming that the mark two core books are out before the ECS, I fully expect that the races and classes in PHII to receive just as much consideration as the ones in PHI.
I'll take them at their word that the yearly core book addenda will be just as core as the mark one rulebooks. Assuming that the mark two core books are out before the ECS, I fully expect that the races and classes in PHII to receive just as much consideration as the ones in PHI.
Me too. I just don't think that will apply to originally MM creatures that are retroactively added to PHBs.
Since if they really wanted them to be main races, they would have just stuck them in a PHB to begin with.
Me too. I just don't think that will apply to originally MM creatures that are retroactively added to PHBs.
Since if they really wanted them to be main races, they would have just stuck them in a PHB to begin with.
Three years down the line who'll care where the race first appeared? If it's in a Player's Handbook, it will be a fully fleshed out player option like any other.
You're seriously arguing, as someone who is Pro-Psionic, that 3.X Eberron hasn't given you more material for your Psionic campaigns than 3.X Forgotten Realms? You would rather see Psionics continue to get the treatment they received in Forgotten Realms this edition instead of something more like Eberron?
More like, its not quite as psionic-friendly as stated - it was deliberatly built to be removed and changed if wanted. More material, but it's kind of like Baker stopped to the anti-psionic segment of the base and wouldn't make it really core to the setting. It's kind of an afterthough.
But yes, more material. Still, far from at the core psionic much; removes the kalashtar and it's even more obvious.
Relatively speaking, Eberron is leaps and bounds ahead of Forgotten Realms in its implementation of Psionics. The Psionic elements are just as easily left out, if not more easily left out of Forgotten Realms. Virtually every Eberron book has material relating to Psionic characters (unlike Forgotten Realms), and there are continents devoted to Psionics instead of magic (unlike Forgotten Realms).
If you ignore Psionics entirely in Eberron, you're ignoring one of the major worldwide struggles that determines the overall fate of the Eberron universe, and one of the really, really big power groups that affects geopolitics in Eberron. Which you're allowed to do for your game, sure, but the feel is different. It'd be like running an FR game that entirely ignored the existence of the Underdark -- nothing *wrong* with that, and many games do, indeed, never involve the Underdark at all -- but if you keep on doing it you get the feeling you're missing out on a big part of the setting.
With FR, on the other hand, ignoring Psionics in FR means ignoring a bunch of people and a deity and whatever who mostly seem to sit around not doing anything.
It is, in other words, not a big deal. It has the same "effect" on FR that ignoring that one island off the coast of Xen'drik where all the Incarnum users live has on Eberron.
Neither.
Reimagining/Alternate Universe. Has no impact whatsoever on the continuity or things revealed in the previous edition. No retcons. No asking your players to go back and learn that ABC was actually XYZ. No timeline advancement.
It just asks that your players fall in love with an Eberron campaign all over again, and learn some new fluff and mechanics.
Hear! Hear! You know, technically a Time Line Advancement is a reimagining/alternate universe where the starting date is arbitrarily moved forward in order to reassure players that they can still keep playing "in the previous time period." But you know what? They can still play with the old setting and books even without a time line advancement, and it forces all that "past history" to become baggage for players only interested in the new version of things. As long as the designers go about the reimagining with the intent to highlight the same themes and ideas and primary characteristics (such as the Five Nations, Warforged, etc.), and to use the new system to do it as well as possible (and hopefully even better than the old system), it wins hands down over retcon or TLA.
My suggestion for the Dragonborn would be to have them come from Argonessen (or maybe somewhere else. Kobolds come from Zilargo, after all.) but have them be prominent in Khorvaire through mercenary service through Deneith and/or Tharashk. And once they're done with their service, that doesn't mean they have to go home, so starting dragonborn characters could be descendants of immigrant dragonborn mercenaries if they didn't want that to be part of their backstories.
I actually think that, from the internal logic of how Eberron is set up, the Q'Barran Lizardfolk *should* be a much more major player in Khorvaire than they're curently treated as, and that they've been glossed over a lot because, well, people don't play Lizardfolk. Making them the Dragonborn could be a big step toward changing that.
This makes a ton of sense to me. Right on, ArcTan!
Assuming that 4E lizardfolk don't have that problem (along with all of the others which are supposedly going to be handled as standard-equivalent) then they're liable to be used more often, assuming that the dragonborn don't steal their player base.
My experience to date is that people don't play lizardfolk (in Eberron or elsewhere) because no matter how interesting the idea they have for one, the ECL 3 (for relatively lousy racial benefits at that, other than the natural armor) is a showstopper in terms of actually making the character effective.
Assuming that 4E lizardfolk don't have that problem (along with all of the others which are supposedly going to be handled as standard-equivalent) then they're liable to be used more often, assuming that the dragonborn don't steal their player base.
Simply making the Lizardfolk *be* Dragonborn is an automatic solution to that problem, since Dragonborn are being developed as a PC race from the get-go.
We can even change their name in Eberron and call them "Lizardfolk" instead, if you really want -- although the flavor of Q'Barran Lizardfolk means that their calling themselves "Dragonborn" makes a great deal of sense.
although the flavor of Q'Barran Lizardfolk means that their calling themselves "Dragonborn" makes a great deal of sense.
Well, one tribe out of thousands, sure. The Blackscales with Rhasshak or whatever his name is could say so, but I don't think there is anything in any of the books about lizardfolk/dragon relations or even myths.
This suggestion means no dragonborn/lizardfolk retcon which would be a little messy. Plus hopefully 4E lets us play lizzies like it will orcs and kobolds.
I should have just posted this here :Maybe dragonborn could be agents of the dragons? All were on Argenossean all this time that is why nobody ever saw one before. The dragons do not wish to move about Eberron themselves so they can use dragonborn. Plus they can use the dragonborn to fight their dragon on dragon wars agaisnt each other without bringing Tiamat out of her prison.
This suggestion means no dragonborn/lizardfolk retcon which would be a little messy. Plus hopefully 4E lets us play lizzies like it will orcs and kobolds.
This, quite honestly, is my preferred insertion of them into the setting. I don't mind a minor retcon to say that they have always been agents of the dragons and so people would recognize them as Argonessen natives the same way a barbarian human from Seren would be recognized as from that continent. An oddity, questions would be asked, but in general no more or less common than, say, Kalashtar in Khorvaire (or if anything, maybe slightly less common). Then discuss impending things which would cause them to be unleashed to greater degrees in the near future, giving DMs a toolkit of options to include them to a greater degree in the setting, should they need or want to.
I don't think "they're agents of the dragons" would work very well, frankly. It all but locks them into a particular story role and in turn forces that story role into any campaign in which one appears. It would be the equivalent of saying, "All elves are agents of the Undying Court." - only worse, because the Undying Court doesn't carry nearly as much weight as the dragons do.
Is every Kalashtar, to a one, a servant of the cause of the Path of Light? No. But does it make them somehow a cliche or impossible to play because the majority of them do? If you want to go into the myriad possible ways that a Dragonborn could possibly not be related to the Dragons, sure. And I'm sure many of them leave of their own accord to advance what they see as what the dragons would want, and some don't like being under their clawed heels, and I'm sure still others would be part of families or communities that serve a particular dragon's interest over the Chamber or any other group, and some might serve the Eyes of Chronepsis specifically, or some dragon or another in the tapestry, and with the new fluff that doesn't make them opposed to the Tiamat-spawn dragoncreatures and Tiamat specifically, it removes that sort of emphasis of chosen warriors called by whoever into being a scaled version of their previous race, so you could even put them in the service of a dragon secretly serving the rajah Tiamant, or maybe rebelling against a clan of dragonborn serving Tiamat, or maybe even an "orphan" in the way of some Kalashtar in Khorvaire, or maybe even a family from Xen'drik or even Sarlona!
Of course we can go over these million other options, but Aereni elves are, in general, followers of the Undying Court. To go over the exceptions seems sort of meaningless.
"His race are agents of the dragons."
"His race are agents of the Undying Court."
Which one of those is going to catch the attention of Khorvaire a whole lot more? That's right - the first one. Being an agent of the Undying Court (even *if* you assume that all elves are believed to be, which they aren't) just doesn't carry the same room-falls-silent-when-he-walks-in-the-door weight that even being thought an agent of the dragons does.
That's why it won't work. Being considered "agents of the dragons", even if not all of them are, simply plants a great big Argonessen-shaped footprint on any situation where one is involved.
Notwithstanding the fact that most people don't know what's really going on with the Kalashtar, and that not every elf *is* associated with the Undying Court (especially those who aren't from Aerenal), it still leaves the fundamental problem:
"His race are agents of the dragons."
"His race are agents of the Undying Court."
Which one of those is going to catch the attention of Khorvaire a whole lot more? That's right - the first one. Being an agent of the Undying Court (even *if* you assume that all elves are believed to be, which they aren't) just doesn't carry the same room-falls-silent-when-he-walks-in-the-door weight that even being thought an agent of the dragons does.
That's why it won't work. Being considered "agents of the dragons", even if not all of them are, simply plants a great big Argonessen-shaped footprint on any situation where one is involved.
Firstly, there are still some who believe that dragons are myths despite the alleged appearance of a dragon or two in a couple battles in the Last War. Secondly, I suppose this "agent" thing is being a little more emphasized for you than it is for me, since I suppose I see it in the same way an Aerenal elf is an "agent" of the court. Some are just in Khorvaire for personal reasons, and in fact I'd wager most are in Khorvaire for personal reasons, or for reasons not related to a task set before them by the Undying Court. Maybe a task set before them by their family at large, or at best their family's representative on the UC (if their family in particular even has one). To me, I guess it's more or less the idea of them being from Argonessen, and having the myriad background possibilities I put forth in my initial response to you. It's like when Seren barbarians say they are emissaries of a particular dragon, only turned up a notch by them looking draconic and (likely) toned down another few notches by what I would imagine would be their stony silence, if not placid denial, on the subject of their affiliation with Argonessen, the Chamber, or what have you. The ones who say they serve Argonessen more than likely actually serve Tiamat and are master manipulators trying for that reaction, or else it's part of a dramatic reveal. Yeah, they're scaled, but so are lizardfolk, troglodytes, sahaugain and kobolds, and kobolds claim to be of the same divine spark as dragons and coautls. So I think it's not unrealistic for a race that likely isn't called "dragonborn" in Eberron to not be associated by necessity to Argonessen.
Though even then I'd honestly prefer something which doesn't tie them to Argonessen, both to keep Argonessen in its current mysterious state (which it won't be if the dragonborn are regularly visiting Khorvaire from it) and from a creative standpoint it just seems like a bit of a cop-out - Eberron managed to put an unconventional spin on all of the 3E PHB races, so turning around and just saying, "the dragonborn are agents of the dragons" is a bit... weak.
Giving them some other background would actually add a new wrinkle to things, though. If they're natives of Khorvaire or even of Sarlona (exiled like the humans), but so obviously draconic... what *is* their connection to the dragons? It ends up being an open question, and that suits the mood of the setting much better.
If you're positioning them as simply related, that's fine - when I see "agents of the dragons" that implies that they're actually operatives working directly on behalf of the dragons though. It's the difference between being Brelish and being a member of the Citadel.
Agreed. That's why I'd prefer they be Brelish, in that analogy. Though a more apt analogy might be Khorvairian, i.e. from Argonessen. Someone from Khorvaire could be Brelish and hate their country, Brelish and love their country, Brelish and serve their country, a barbarian from the Demon Wastes, a Lhaazar pirate, a Lhaazar cobbler's son who gets seasick, a Q'Barran war criminal in hiding, a Karrnathi Blood of Vol devotee, a Karrnath Kaius loyalist, etc, etc. And a dragonborn could be all of these things, but replace any location or loyalty or religion with the various places, factions and even individual dragons or fiends of Argonessen. Some might not even have ties to dragons at all despite coming from Argonessen.
Though even then I'd honestly prefer something which doesn't tie them to Argonessen, both to keep Argonessen in its current mysterious state (which it won't be if the dragonborn are regularly visiting Khorvaire from it) and from a creative standpoint it just seems like a bit of a cop-out - Eberron managed to put an unconventional spin on all of the 3E PHB races, so turning around and just saying, "the dragonborn are agents of the dragons" is a bit... weak.
Giving them some other background would actually add a new wrinkle to things, though. If they're natives of Khorvaire or even of Sarlona (exiled like the humans), but so obviously draconic... what *is* their connection to the dragons? It ends up being an open question, and that suits the mood of the setting much better.
Argonessen is hardly any more or less mysterious to most of Khorvaire than Sarlona, and Kalashtar are much more monolithic in their loyalties.