There too the rumor that planescape would be the 2010 campaign setting.
Which then lead to my question, if everything is D&D now, does every setting will have the same cosmology and will it change Eberron cosmology?
does every setting will have the same cosmology and will it change Eberron cosmology?
The deities won't be changed (even WotC wouldn't go that far ;)), however I fully expect to see the planes to be changed.
The deities won't be changed (even WotC wouldn't go that far ;)), however I fully expect to see the planes to be changed.
And that stitches it, I'm not switching to 4e. I like that the planes in Eberron are unique and completely different. I'm not going anywhere near a new edition that strips away from the game I love playing rather than adding to it.
And that stitches it, I'm not switching to 4e.
If you enjoy 3.5e then sure, stick with it.
I'm not going anywhere near a new edition that strips away from the game I love playing rather than adding to it.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I disagree that streamlining the planes (one of the aspects that has had very little mentioned on the topic) "strips away from the game I love playing rather than adding to it." Personally I think with the making Dragonborn, Eladrin and Tieflings more established in the setting (along with, hopefully Goliaths and possibly a new race from the PHB2) is adding rather then removing. But different strokes for different folks.
I don't know where I saw this though and it could be that I'm making things up in my fervent hope that they don't p*ss about with the planes.
If you look at the Eberron conversion document for Keep on the Shadowfell, it explains that that 'plane' is actually a convergence zone between Dolurrh and Mabar. Presumably, therefore, the other core 'planes' will be much the same. It's just to make sure that people can use non-Eberron-specific published adventures that involve the planes without having to do too much conversion. Nothing unreasonable there.
What he said!
The Feywild will probably be a convergence between Thelanis, Eberron and/or Lammania.
But... what do you guys are complaining? The planes of Eberron are potentially interesting, but we have very very very little information about them.
I'm hopping is that one of the first books we get for Eberron is the Planar Manual.
I have the feeling some of the planes will be bundled (ie: Mabar & Dulurh together are the shadowfell) into planar groups that roughly work together like the basic D&D workup of Natural, Shadow, Astral, Elemental, Fey & Far Realms
Some planes need major changes to make sense anymore anyway, since like... no capital G good angels etc anymore, no implied bloodwar anymore etc.
As for the Planar Orrery, I don't really mind the change they are announcing since they never really developped the planes in 3.5. Even if the Planar Orrery is gone, I guess there will still be manifest zones and coterminous and remote phases. They might even give us tools to use that more often. Who really keeps track with a calendar to know when will be the next coterminous phase of Dolurrh anyway?
In the Eberron conversion of Keep on the Shadowfell (or discussions about it) it was said that the Plane of Shadows could be known by different names, one of which would be the Shadowfell. It was also said that the Shadowfell was a transitive plane that could make travels to Mabar and Dolurrh easier.
So, maybe the Feywild will be used as a transitive plane to Thelanis and Irian. The Elemental Chaos could hold Fernia, Risia, Lamannia, Syrania and lead to Khyber. The Astral sea could be reached by crossing the Ring of Siberys and could hold Dal Quor, Shavarath, Daanvi, Kythri. The Far Realm could be another name for Xoriat.
I also think we'll either have some DDI articles on Eberron's planes or a better section on planes in the Campaign Guide. Though a section on Ebron or FR specific planes in the Manual of Planes would have been nice too, however, Eberron comes out after that book.
Rekko
So, for example, if you've read The Gates of Night, there's nothing that happens there that couldn't happen in 4E Eberron just as easily as 3E.
What James Wyatt specifically said is that there will be some changes in the cosmology, but that the thirteen planes will remain. The concepts of the Shadowfell and the like will be incorporated into Eberron, but not at the expense of the existing concepts.
Huh. That's a bit hard to imagine. I have no idea how you will change the cosmology while keeping the existing concepts. I'm guessing we'll see Thelanis, and only Thelanis, turn into the Feywild, Kythri (and again only Kythri) turn into the Elemental Chaos, Syrania will turn into the Astral Sea.
I thought it a good chance to clean up the planes a bit (IMO having Fernia, Kythri and Risia as separate planes is unnecessary and superfluous).
Although regardless of what you do plan to do, there are certain planes (such as Daanvi) where if you change it at all, I won't be using the 4e Daanvi, but instead will use the 3.5e one.
But then again I'm more then happy to do my own thing regardless of what the latest books say. For example if I had started playing 3.5e Eberron back in 2004, I would have gotten the Races of books so I'd have incorporated Illumians, Aasimar, Mongrelfolk, Sharakim, Skulk, Centaurs, Killoren, Spellscales into my Eberron setting. When I did eventually switch I'd have used my own explanation on where Dragonborn, Tiefling, Goliaths are within Eberron, rather then the 4e explanation.
Huh. That's a bit hard to imagine. I have no idea how you will change the cosmology while keeping the existing concepts.
I'm really not at liberty to say, but personally I think it works quite well. As I said, the point is that it shouldn't FEEL like things have changed to the people playing in the world. Nothing that's been said in any of my novels is going to be invalidated by the changes that have been made. The orrery map presented in the ECS is still one valid interpretation of the planes, derived from the manner in which the come in and out of alignment (IE, Coterminous/Remote phases) - however, you could also draw a different sort of map that presents different relationships.
Overall, I think that we ARE cleaning up the planes. That's one of the main goals of the 4E ECS. How can we take core concepts to the world that have never quite clicked - like dragonmarks, which are central to the setting but often not that exciting for players - and get them to work the way we always wanted? I like Eberron's planes, and none of the planes are going away; but there are things we can do to make them easier to use, and that's the goal here.
I'm really not at liberty to say
I know I wasn't trying to get more information, just musing out loud ;)
I like Eberron's planes, and none of the planes are going away; but there are things we can do to make them easier to use, and that's the goal here.
I'm looking forward to the planes articles in Dragon and the 4e ECS to get me more excited over the planes that haven't grown on me
I'm just wondering why everyone seems to be arguing with Hellcow. You guys do realize that it's Keith Baker, right? And that kinda means he knows what he's talking about.
I didn't mean to be arguing so sorry if I was. I was simply saying what I thought on the issue (not to make him change it or anything, just discussing and talking).
I'm just wondering why everyone seems to be arguing with Hellcow... he knows what he's talking about.
While I appreciate the vote of confidence, Discar, it doesn't really bother me. These are discussion boards, and in this particular case I can't give a clear and specific answer to the topic; I can only say that there is an answer and that I'm satisfied with it. If people want to speculate about what that answer might be, what they might do regardless, or even say "I can't imagine how you could have come up with such an answer" - well, this is the place for them to do it.
Mind you, there've been OTHER topics where there have been some strange arguments, but there's nothing here that I've taken as any kind of personal affront.