What to have in the 4th ed ECS - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

What to have in the 4th ed ECS

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
wraithstrike
Jun 18, 2008 23:26:26 What would you as players/DM's would like to see put in the 4th edition campaign setting.

Here is what I would like to see:

I would like for those ruins to have at least a bit of history that I can play with, even if it is something such as it was a Dhakanni(sp?) fortress when they were fighting the Daelkyr. There should at least be a reason(s) as to why it is abandoned.

Some insight as to why the quori fought the giants, if not the full story then something to go on would also be nice.

More applications for action points even if it means taking feats to make them more useful. Maybe the action points in eberron will have to have a different name, but the mechanic should be there.

I just went brain dead. I will post more stuff when it I can remember them.
#2
pumpkingnome
Jun 18, 2008 23:41:59 To me, no Eberron ECS/PHB would be complete without the myriad of uses of the Dragonmark. Perhaps it's just the aspect of Eberron that I have been most engrossed in during my play, but it is fundamental to Khorvairian (sp?) society, and as such, wholly necessary to the way in which Eberron functions.

Addtionally, I'd like to see quite a bit more about the Lahzaar Principalities. I have a deep love of pirate lore, and this setting, combined with some of the more fluffy elements of Stormwrack would be a worthwhile addition. :D
#3
the_ubbergeek
Jun 18, 2008 23:49:25 While I am not really an Eberron player, I would be curious to know more on that 'arctic' continent of Eberron.
#4
wraithstrike
Jun 18, 2008 23:50:21
To me, no Eberron ECS/PHB would be complete without the myriad of uses of the Dragonmark. Perhaps it's just the aspect of Eberron that I have been most engrossed in during my play, but it is fundamental to Khorvairian (sp?) society, and as such, wholly necessary to the way in which Eberron functions.

Addtionally, I'd like to see quite a bit more about the Lahzaar Principalities. I have a deep love of pirate lore, and this setting, combined with some of the more fluffy elements of Stormwrack would be a worthwhile addition. :D

I have yet to use dragon marks. I like the flavor a lot, but they are not worth a feat(mechanically speaking). I might just say the NPC's have them as a trait, but if I did that I would need to handle how PC's got them.

Lahzaar, Qbara, and the group of rich people(Aurum?) need to be fleshed out more. Darguun also needs more history done. They(Darguun) are supposed to have been very powerful before, but their history is unknown.
#5
JohnLynch
Jun 19, 2008 0:19:12 Personally I'd like to see it mostly be a translation of the 3.5 ECS and PGtE books without too much new information. So for ECS:
* In-depth history
* In-depth information on the world including continents, nations, organisations, clans/tribes, religious orders, planes.
* Ancient items
* Section on directions the world might go in the future.
* An adventure or two.

Given that all of that would be significantly less then what's in the 3.5 version, we could see information from lots of the splatbooks (Five Nations, Secrets of Xendrik, Faiths of Eberron, Secrets of Sarlona, etc) reprinted. Sure they won't be as in depth as the splat books, but it could definitely cover more info then the 3.5 one does on these topics.

And for PGtE:
* Races - A few paragraphs to a page on races found in PHBs. Write-ups for any races not found in PHBs.
* Classes not found in the PHBs.
* Dragonmarks
* Player info on Khorvaire including nations, organisations, clans/tribes, religious orders

the Forgotten Realms books coming out in a few months should say for sure what we can expect.
#6
wraithstrike
Jun 19, 2008 0:25:56
While I am not really an Eberron player, I would be curious to know more on that 'arctic' continent of Eberron.

There is information on it in the player's guide to Eberron. There is not really much there to talk about, but it should be reprinted in the 4th ed ECS for those that never played 3.x
#7
pumpkingnome
Jun 19, 2008 22:26:47
I have yet to use dragon marks. I like the flavor a lot, but they are not worth a feat(mechanically speaking). I might just say the NPC's have them as a trait, but if I did that I would need to handle how PC's got them.

I absolutely loved the system in 3.5, though I imagine in 4E it's going to be substantially more difficult to rationalize taking a Dragonmark, assuming it's powerbased, instead of an Encounter power during class level up, or however they choose to do it. Otherwise, if it's purely skill based, I'd have to agree with you, hard to justify their worth in the mechanics.
#8
nerdicus
Jun 23, 2008 10:23:55 I would be into the dragonmarks being handled quite differently in the 4th ed ECS. My players really liked the idea of Dragonmarks, and loved the social prestige that went with it, but felt that the feat was wasted after a few levels. Of course, I did tell them that those dragonmarks are only as good as you make them, ie you need to keep putting feats into them to make them viable throughout a characters career....

But yeah, I think that the dragonmark abilities need to be handled either as at will powers( keeping them light and fluffy on the combat usage), or much more powerful and become encounter/daily powers.

I would also like there to be a bit more free space in the map. Khorvaire was too evenly split for my tastes...especially that the campaign starts just after a 100 year war. The nations should be much smaller, only claiming the lands that they can say they actually hold, leaving tracts of land that are neutral. This is mostly to bring in the PoL concept, but also it made the setting feel....full. Almost too full. Of course, I just house ruled that the nations only truly hold the lands closest to cities and that the borders are often pretty gray in where they are, and who holds sway there.

Otherwise, I would like them to take the best of the info they came up with for 3.x and adapt it to 4th so that no one can sing the blues about how 4th edition ruined their eberron....actually, change that to, include everything(fluff wise at least), and then expand on it. Given that there are going to be three books to cover the info, it should be doable.
#9
igotsmeakabob
Jun 23, 2008 11:16:15 Basically, the 4th edition ECS is going to have to be huge to be a complete CS. You need to keep all the good content from the 3.5 sourcebooks!
#10
madhouse
Jun 23, 2008 12:53:58 The main thing I'd like to see in the new ECS is incorporation of the Dragonborn without making them feel 'tacked on'. There have already been a lot of great suggestions on how to use Dragonborn in Eberron, so I have high hopes that they do justice to one of the best additions to D&D (in my opinion, of course). :D

Cheers!
#11
Dragoloth
Jun 23, 2008 13:31:47 I would love to see a warforged write-up that makes sense for them to live in the mournland. While I like the 4e warforged for a non-Eberron campaign, they have lost their Eberron feel and are just as screwed in the mournland as any other race.
Also I hate the shifter PC write-ups in the MM. They seem forced, as in lets put them in with no thought. I mean the longtooth gets +2 str and the razorclaw gets +2 dex, it just seems wrong to me. Put the cliffwalk or longstride in if you want a high dex shifter.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I want full write-ups of Eberron races that make sense in Eberron, that includes the PHB races flavor in Eberron.
#12
need_a_life
Jun 25, 2008 7:12:20 Personally, I see dragonmarks being handled as an extra "power list..."

So you take a feat called Mark of [whatever], and then get access to that marks power list. Next time you gain a level instead of taking a Wizard/Fighter/whatever utility/at-will/encounter/daily power you can choose to take a Mark of Making/Warding/etc. utility/at-will/encounter/daily power.

I think it would it would be the easiest way to add them without totally reworking things...

---

As for what should be in 4th ed ECS?
Fluff, plenty of fluff.
Nation write-ups (Darguun, Valenar and Zilargo are in particular need of a write-up).
5 Nations [3.5e] will make for a valuable resource (until WotC puts out a similar book, only with 4e crunch), but the countries in Khovaire that haven't been fleshed-out yet should really be focused on first, IMHO.

The book should also be a mix of 3.5 ECS and Faiths of Eberron when it comes to religion. Just a "5 things every Purified knows" would help, but the limited info in 3.5 ECS was hardly anything at all.

Oh, and the artificer (Arcane, Leader)...
Possibly the Necromancer as well (Hell, I can't think of how Karrnath got that lovely reputation without them).
#13
rauric
Jun 25, 2008 7:22:12 I want a little more insight into Droaam and Dargunn. Dargunn especially.

I want goblin, minoataur and orc racial feats. I read the back of the MM and can see how much of an impact EB has had on the game and designers which is great. All of 4E is EB inspired to me because this is how I thought the game should be made like 5 years ago.
#14
igotsmeakabob
Jun 25, 2008 9:41:11 Rauric, I can agree with you. And to me, it seems that we're more likely to get info on Darguun thanon Droaam. Darguun is the fallen empire, they have alot of culture and history to build on. Droaam is more likely to remain a place of mystery, for the GM to sort out.

Then again, such could have once been said about the Argonessen...

And I'd love to see monster racial feats for players, although minotaurs are probably going to be of a lower priority than orcs and goblinoids.
#15
fodigg
Jun 25, 2008 16:17:38 I care less about dragonmarks and more about dragonmarked houses.

For me, it's just not Eberron without:
Magi-tech
Mapped-out world (not PoL except for designated locations (e.g., Xen'drik))
Intrigue (cold war-style plotting between nations)
Mega-guilds (dragonmarked houses)
Persons defined by country/creed, not by race
#16
igotsmeakabob
Jun 25, 2008 17:15:41 Well, when it comes to houses... isn't that all fluff? Been covered in the 3.5 ECS and Dragonmarked, yes? Of course, its understandable that a person wouldn't want to buy 3.5 books for fluff.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 wraithstrike Jun 18, 2008 23:26:26	What would you as players/DM's would like to see put in the 4th edition campaign setting. Here is what I would like to see: I would like for those ruins to have at least a bit of history that I can play with, even if it is something such as it was a Dhakanni(sp?) fortress when they were fighting the Daelkyr. There should at least be a reason(s) as to why it is abandoned. Some insight as to why the quori fought the giants, if not the full story then something to go on would also be nice. More applications for action points even if it means taking feats to make them more useful. Maybe the action points in eberron will have to have a different name, but the mechanic should be there. I just went brain dead. I will post more stuff when it I can remember them.
#2 pumpkingnome Jun 18, 2008 23:41:59	To me, no Eberron ECS/PHB would be complete without the myriad of uses of the Dragonmark. Perhaps it's just the aspect of Eberron that I have been most engrossed in during my play, but it is fundamental to Khorvairian (sp?) society, and as such, wholly necessary to the way in which Eberron functions. Addtionally, I'd like to see quite a bit more about the Lahzaar Principalities. I have a deep love of pirate lore, and this setting, combined with some of the more fluffy elements of Stormwrack would be a worthwhile addition. :D
#3 the_ubbergeek Jun 18, 2008 23:49:25	While I am not really an Eberron player, I would be curious to know more on that 'arctic' continent of Eberron.
#4 wraithstrike Jun 18, 2008 23:50:21	To me, no Eberron ECS/PHB would be complete without the myriad of uses of the Dragonmark. Perhaps it's just the aspect of Eberron that I have been most engrossed in during my play, but it is fundamental to Khorvairian (sp?) society, and as such, wholly necessary to the way in which Eberron functions. Addtionally, I'd like to see quite a bit more about the Lahzaar Principalities. I have a deep love of pirate lore, and this setting, combined with some of the more fluffy elements of Stormwrack would be a worthwhile addition. :D I have yet to use dragon marks. I like the flavor a lot, but they are not worth a feat(mechanically speaking). I might just say the NPC's have them as a trait, but if I did that I would need to handle how PC's got them. Lahzaar, Qbara, and the group of rich people(Aurum?) need to be fleshed out more. Darguun also needs more history done. They(Darguun) are supposed to have been very powerful before, but their history is unknown.
#5 JohnLynch Jun 19, 2008 0:19:12	Personally I'd like to see it mostly be a translation of the 3.5 ECS and PGtE books without too much new information. So for ECS: * In-depth history * In-depth information on the world including continents, nations, organisations, clans/tribes, religious orders, planes. * Ancient items * Section on directions the world might go in the future. * An adventure or two. Given that all of that would be significantly less then what's in the 3.5 version, we could see information from lots of the splatbooks (Five Nations, Secrets of Xendrik, Faiths of Eberron, Secrets of Sarlona, etc) reprinted. Sure they won't be as in depth as the splat books, but it could definitely cover more info then the 3.5 one does on these topics. And for PGtE: * Races - A few paragraphs to a page on races found in PHBs. Write-ups for any races not found in PHBs. * Classes not found in the PHBs. * Dragonmarks * Player info on Khorvaire including nations, organisations, clans/tribes, religious orders the Forgotten Realms books coming out in a few months should say for sure what we can expect.
#6 wraithstrike Jun 19, 2008 0:25:56	While I am not really an Eberron player, I would be curious to know more on that 'arctic' continent of Eberron. There is information on it in the player's guide to Eberron. There is not really much there to talk about, but it should be reprinted in the 4th ed ECS for those that never played 3.x
#7 pumpkingnome Jun 19, 2008 22:26:47	I have yet to use dragon marks. I like the flavor a lot, but they are not worth a feat(mechanically speaking). I might just say the NPC's have them as a trait, but if I did that I would need to handle how PC's got them. I absolutely loved the system in 3.5, though I imagine in 4E it's going to be substantially more difficult to rationalize taking a Dragonmark, assuming it's powerbased, instead of an Encounter power during class level up, or however they choose to do it. Otherwise, if it's purely skill based, I'd have to agree with you, hard to justify their worth in the mechanics.
#8 nerdicus Jun 23, 2008 10:23:55	I would be into the dragonmarks being handled quite differently in the 4th ed ECS. My players really liked the idea of Dragonmarks, and loved the social prestige that went with it, but felt that the feat was wasted after a few levels. Of course, I did tell them that those dragonmarks are only as good as you make them, ie you need to keep putting feats into them to make them viable throughout a characters career.... But yeah, I think that the dragonmark abilities need to be handled either as at will powers( keeping them light and fluffy on the combat usage), or much more powerful and become encounter/daily powers. I would also like there to be a bit more free space in the map. Khorvaire was too evenly split for my tastes...especially that the campaign starts just after a 100 year war. The nations should be much smaller, only claiming the lands that they can say they actually hold, leaving tracts of land that are neutral. This is mostly to bring in the PoL concept, but also it made the setting feel....full. Almost too full. Of course, I just house ruled that the nations only truly hold the lands closest to cities and that the borders are often pretty gray in where they are, and who holds sway there. Otherwise, I would like them to take the best of the info they came up with for 3.x and adapt it to 4th so that no one can sing the blues about how 4th edition ruined their eberron....actually, change that to, include everything(fluff wise at least), and then expand on it. Given that there are going to be three books to cover the info, it should be doable.
#9 igotsmeakabob Jun 23, 2008 11:16:15	Basically, the 4th edition ECS is going to have to be huge to be a complete CS. You need to keep all the good content from the 3.5 sourcebooks!
#10 madhouse Jun 23, 2008 12:53:58	The main thing I'd like to see in the new ECS is incorporation of the Dragonborn without making them feel 'tacked on'. There have already been a lot of great suggestions on how to use Dragonborn in Eberron, so I have high hopes that they do justice to one of the best additions to D&D (in my opinion, of course). :D Cheers!
#11 Dragoloth Jun 23, 2008 13:31:47	I would love to see a warforged write-up that makes sense for them to live in the mournland. While I like the 4e warforged for a non-Eberron campaign, they have lost their Eberron feel and are just as screwed in the mournland as any other race. Also I hate the shifter PC write-ups in the MM. They seem forced, as in lets put them in with no thought. I mean the longtooth gets +2 str and the razorclaw gets +2 dex, it just seems wrong to me. Put the cliffwalk or longstride in if you want a high dex shifter. I guess what I'm trying to say is I want full write-ups of Eberron races that make sense in Eberron, that includes the PHB races flavor in Eberron.
#12 need_a_life Jun 25, 2008 7:12:20	Personally, I see dragonmarks being handled as an extra "power list..." So you take a feat called Mark of [whatever], and then get access to that marks power list. Next time you gain a level instead of taking a Wizard/Fighter/whatever utility/at-will/encounter/daily power you can choose to take a Mark of Making/Warding/etc. utility/at-will/encounter/daily power. I think it would it would be the easiest way to add them without totally reworking things... --- As for what should be in 4th ed ECS? Fluff, plenty of fluff. Nation write-ups (Darguun, Valenar and Zilargo are in particular need of a write-up). 5 Nations [3.5e] will make for a valuable resource (until WotC puts out a similar book, only with 4e crunch), but the countries in Khovaire that haven't been fleshed-out yet should really be focused on first, IMHO. The book should also be a mix of 3.5 ECS and Faiths of Eberron when it comes to religion. Just a "5 things every Purified knows" would help, but the limited info in 3.5 ECS was hardly anything at all. Oh, and the artificer (Arcane, Leader)... Possibly the Necromancer as well (Hell, I can't think of how Karrnath got that lovely reputation without them).
#13 rauric Jun 25, 2008 7:22:12	I want a little more insight into Droaam and Dargunn. Dargunn especially. I want goblin, minoataur and orc racial feats. I read the back of the MM and can see how much of an impact EB has had on the game and designers which is great. All of 4E is EB inspired to me because this is how I thought the game should be made like 5 years ago.
#14 igotsmeakabob Jun 25, 2008 9:41:11	Rauric, I can agree with you. And to me, it seems that we're more likely to get info on Darguun thanon Droaam. Darguun is the fallen empire, they have alot of culture and history to build on. Droaam is more likely to remain a place of mystery, for the GM to sort out. Then again, such could have once been said about the Argonessen... And I'd love to see monster racial feats for players, although minotaurs are probably going to be of a lower priority than orcs and goblinoids.
#15 fodigg Jun 25, 2008 16:17:38	I care less about dragonmarks and more about dragonmarked houses. For me, it's just not Eberron without: Magi-tech Mapped-out world (not PoL except for designated locations (e.g., Xen'drik)) Intrigue (cold war-style plotting between nations) Mega-guilds (dragonmarked houses) Persons defined by country/creed, not by race
#16 igotsmeakabob Jun 25, 2008 17:15:41	Well, when it comes to houses... isn't that all fluff? Been covered in the 3.5 ECS and Dragonmarked, yes? Of course, its understandable that a person wouldn't want to buy 3.5 books for fluff.