Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron FAQ

The Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron was released on Monday, and a number of questions have already come up. Are warforged transformers? Where’s the artificer? Can you get a print version? Let’s look at a few of those issues.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Is the Wayfinder’s Guide official content?

The WGtE is a 176 page book. It explores the general themes of the setting, with a tighter focus on Khorvaire and Sharn. This includes character ideas, story hooks, and optional rules that help capture the flavor of the setting. This is my take on Eberron, but is being considered official content.

The WGtE also includes rules for races and dragonmarks, which I developed with Ruty Rutenberg over the last year. These are the rules *I* use, but we want them to receive a wider round of feedback before they are finalized for the Adventurer’s League. So this material isn’t currently legal for the AL. The WGtE is a living document. If these mechanics change, it will be updated both in D&D Beyond and on the DM’s Guild, so you won’t have to buy a revised version of this content. This is why the WGtE currently isn’t available in print: we want to make sure that it IS final before you commit to a print version. But in getting it now you have a chance to play Eberron as *I’M* playing it.

Where’s the artificer? 

It’s coming. The artificer is already in development at WotC, so it was kept separate. A revised version of the artificer will be out soon in Unearthed Arcana, and Mike Mearls has said that this artificer will be added to the WGtE (which will be a free update for anyone who owns the book.

What is in WGtE for non-5e DMs who already have everything else ever written about Eberron?

The primary goal of the Wayfinder’s Guide is to give someone who knows nothing about the setting enough of a feel for the world to create a character or a story in it. It doesn’t focus on history or geography; it’s not an encyclopedia, it’s a guide to the flavor. It needs to serve the purpose of introducing someone who knows absolutely nothing to the world—but I also wanted it to be filled with inspiration for people who already know everything about it.

With this in mind, there’s generally less focus on exhaustive detail and more emphasis on what does this mean for YOU? It’s aimed both at players and DMs; it doesn’t reveal big secrets (such as, say, which rulers are vampires) but the ideas for what makes an Aundairian feel Aundairian are just as relevant when you’re making NPCs or setting a story in Fairhaven as they are for PCs. There’s ideas and optional rules that deal with capturing the FLAVOR of a pulp or noir story that aren’t in any of the existing Eberron sourcebooks.

As an example of this focus, here’s the entry on the Blood of Vol. In looking at the religions, I’m leaving out the deep details (what’s the church hierarchy like? What’s the history of it?) and focusing on if you follow this faith, what does that actually MEAN? How do you express your beliefs? 

Likewise, the section on Sharn doesn’t provide the district-by-district breakdown of Sharn: City of Towers… because you can get that by buying Sharn: City of Towers, which is available on the DM’s Guild and still entirely accurate aside from the mechanics. So instead it provides ideas for what could bring characters to Sharn or keep them there. One of my favorite elements of the book is the Starting Points: three districts (Callestan, University, and Clifftop) that could be used as a starting point and ongoing hub for a campaign, with each one exploring a different style of story you can tell in Sharn.

Beyond this, the WGtE also explores a few new ideas that arise from the mechanics of 5E: specifically the introduction of wandslingers. If you read this blog you may have already encountered wandslingers, but this refines the idea and provides a variety of arcane focuses to work with.

If you own every Eberron book, you don’t NEED to buy the WGtE. But my goal was to make it interesting and inspiring for even the most experienced Eberron DM.

Has the timeline been advanced for 5e? What year is it considered to be now? Has any lore changed substantially?

I didn’t advance the timeline in the WGtE. 998 YK is a critical moment in time, and moving the timeline forward would require me to make a lot of decisions that could contradict things people have done in their own campaigns. It’s possible that the timeline could be advanced in the future, but I didn’t feel that it was necessary.

The WGtE has already been updated twice, but I don’t know what’s changed.

The current changes have been quite minor, but I’ll keep a running log of changes at the end of this post.

A spellshard is “1 gp per page”. I don’t see in the 5e rulebook how many pages per spell each spell is. I seem to remember 3e being 1 page per level of spell with 0-level spells taking up one page. Should we default to that rule?

Sure, that seems reasonable.

RACES

The Kalashtar ability score improvement reads “Your Wisdom and Charisma scores both increase by 1. In addition, one ability score of your choice increases by 1.” A number of dragonmarks also use this wording, which is different from Half-elves in the PHB which says “two other ability scores of your choice increase by 1.” So could a kalashtar increase the Wisdom score by an additional point, or is the RAI for them to pick another ability besides CHA or WIS?

That is correct. A kalashtar could have +2 Wisdom, +1 Charisma; +1 Wisdom, +2 Charisma; or +1 Wisdom, +1 Charisma, +1 Intelligence (or any other ability). The use of “one ability score” as opposed to “one other ability score” was a deliberate decision to give those races and marks additional flexibility.

I have a question about the Shifters and the Kalashtar. Are they available to other races? Are there, for example, Elven Shifters and Orcish Kalashtars?

Shifters aren’t a human hybrid; they are a unique race. The lived on Eberron before humanity ever arrived. If they are based on any race, it would probably be orcs; they both have a primal nature and strong presence on the west coast of Khorvaire. However, if that’s the case, neither race is aware of it. Shifters are shifters.

Meanwhile, the kalashtar were created by a concrete event: the merging of a group of quori spirits with a group of Adaran monks. Adar is an isolated human-dominant nation. You could suggest that a character is a NEW kalashtar created from a later bond—a different quori exile. But if you want to create a dwarf kalashtar or orc kalashtar you run into the question of why they lose biological abilities of the core race. Why don’t they have darkvision? Why isn’t the dwarf kalashtar resistant to poison? And if you add those abilities, what do you take away to maintain balance? So the idea is possible, but it’s not a simple shift.

DRAGONMARKS

Can a dragonmark be obtained by a Variant Human? And does it still only replace the Ability Score Increase?

NO. “Dragonmarked Human” is a type of variant human, and you can’t take it in addition to the variant human presented in the PHB.

Is there a particular reason that the Mark of Hospitality gets Friends and not the ability to use Purify Food and Drink as a ritual?

The first draft included both, but halflings have very little design space in their subrace; compare to the Ghostwise (one-way, 30′ telepathic communication). I chose to drop purify food and drink because it rarely comes into play for PCs, and can (ironically) spoil some interesting scenarios… it’s hard to have a cool poison plot if PCs routinely purify their meals. Conversely, friends is something you want to be careful about using, but CAN be useful in any social situation. Tied to that, I like it as really broadening the concept of “hospitality.” What we’ve established about Ghallanda is that they aren’t just about food; they’re about making connections, knowing the community, etc. What’s the stereotype of the perfect bartender? They’re easy to talk to. That’s the purpose of the friends cantrip. Everyone KNOWS Ghallanda heirs have a magical ability to set people at ease. As long as they use it in a friendly manner—getting you to talk about your problems—it’s NOT going to cause anger. If you abuse it—using it to trick someone—they’ll be angry. But if you’re just talking to a friend and you turn on the charm, that’s what they EXPECT from you; you’re Ghallanda.

So essentially, I felt they couldn’t have both and that friends did more to expand the role of the house… while purify food and water could be an ability attached to a focus item. Just like…

Concerning the Mark of Scribing, where exactly did the concept of the Arcane Mark go? 

It went to the scribe’s pen, a common dragonmark focus item. This comes back to the core idea that focus items are a critical part of many house services. This is a critical point for many of the changes to the mark. Jorasco can cast lesser restoration. You can have a Shadow focus that grants disguise self, and it should be about half the cost of a standard hat of disguise. Essentially, don’t get too bogged down in the concrete powers of the actual mark; the IDEA of the Mark is the key, and its full powers can manifest as class abilities or through focus items.

WARFORGED

The races of Eberron received a development pass from WotC design and have been released as Unearthed Arcana content. Because of this, I’m not the final authority on how they work. I’ll share my OPINIONS, but Sage Advice is the final authority here.

Are warforged humanoids? constructs? both?

Under 5E rules, warforged are  humanoids.

So is the intent that ALL spells work normally on warforged PCs (other than, maybe, unique plot-device anti-warforged spells) including Antilife Shell & Horrid Wilting?

That is correct. Warforged are immune to disease and sleep, and resistant to poison, but otherwise they are treated like other creatures.

From a story/setting perspective, how does magical healing work for warforged?

While warforged are made from wood and metal, the idea is that the magic that suffuses them magic them functionally living creatures. Some of their mass IS organic; we’ve always send that the fibers you can see under their plating are an organic rootlike material. Beyond that, the idea is that their lifeforce is essentially tied to their material form and as they regain energy the body heals. This is tied to the fact that just like other characters, a warforged heals all damage at the end of a long rest. In my mind, this literally involves the body being mystically restored to “factory standard.” You can add cosmetic flavor to this—you can have your warforged hammering out dents in his armor—but the key point is that warforged heal like other creatures.

Warforged Integrated Protection

I would be interested in your thought process in creating the warforged integrated armor.

The warforged went through many different variations and iterations. The original 3.5 warforged set their AC at character creation with a feat and couldn’t change it going forward. The UA warforged wore armor like any other character and just received a +1 bonus to AC. With 5E, we wanted to keep the idea that armor is a part of warforged, while also allowing some degree of flexibility for a character whose capabilities change over time. We tried a version with AC tied to subrace and a version where you set AC at first level, like the 3.5 version. The final version was developed in conjunction with the WotC design team, and led us to the current version where warforged can shift their armor type at the end of a long rest. While this may seem odd, it’s always been part of the idea that warforged are LIVING creatures and can physically evolve; the reforged and warforged juggernaut were 3.5 prestige classes that embraced this concept. This just extends that idea… which is also a better match for the 5E healing model. Essentially, when a warforged completes a long rest it’s able to restore any damage its sustained. If it can do that, it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine it shifting its plating.

In terms of the capabilities of integrated protection, the original Unearthed Arcana warforged had a flat +1 to AC. The WGtE warforged generally start off with an AC equivalent to the best armor a character with the appropriate proficiencies can buy. Composite plating gives a first-level warforged AC 15, the same as half-plate; heavy plating is the same as plate armor. The warforged is ahead because starting characters can’t afford those armors, but the gap closes as other character get access to better armor. At level 5, heavy plating gives you AC 19, the same as +1 plate armor. Conversely, the original UA warforged could get +1 plate armor and have its +1 inherent AC on top of that. As is, warforged are ahead of the curve, but up until the highest levels other characters CAN match their AC with the right equipment. It’s also the case that the warforged takes an opportunity cost in that they gain no benefit from armor—so they don’t get the secondary benefits another character can receive from magical armor.

Does the Warforged Heavy Plating Integrated Protection work with the Fighter’s Defense Fighting Style? Unclear on if (armor) means you’re “wearing armor” or not.

The intent is while you are using darkwood core you are not considered to be wearing armor for purposes of game effects such as Unarmored Defense, while you are considered to be wearing armor when you’re using one of the plating modes. However, as written Integrated Protection doesn’t allow you to benefit from the Defense Fighting Style. This won’t be changed until people have a chance to provide feedback on the race mechanics as they stand.

Composite Plating and Heavy Plating both say “Armored” but do they count as medium and heavy armor respectively? Specifically does a warforged Barbarian in Heavy Plating mode lack access to the benefits of rage?

As written, the current version simply specifies that plating counts as armor, not that it counts specifically as heavy or medium armor. So in this version, a warforged barbarian can rage while in the heavy plating mode… though they will have to acquire the heavy armor proficiency before they can use heavy plating.

Can a warforged using the (unarmored) mode wear a magical suit of armor and get the benefits of it? 

No. Darkwood core leaves you as “unarmored” for purposes of any feature that interacts with being armored or unarmored. But that has no effect on the core Integrated Protection statement “You gain no benefit from wearing armor.” As a warforged, you don’t use armor; instead, you have warforged components.

Is it possible to enchant a warforged’s integrated plating? Would the Integrated Protection of a warforged be considered a “nonmagical object that is a suit of armor” for Forge Clerics?

No on both counts. In 5E, the idea is that a warforged is essentially a suit of magic armor. You can’t add additional enchantments to it. Instead, the strength of its enchantments inherently increases over time—which is reflected by warforged getting to add their proficiency bonus to their AC. So a warforged Forge cleric couldn’t enchant their body, but they could still enchant a weapon.

When a warforged is using the darkwood core (unarmored) mode and have light armor proficiency, can they choose whether they are considered to be armored or unarmored?

No. You are always considered to be unarmored when using darkwood core, and always considered to be armored when using plating.

If I’m playing a warforged barbarian, do I get to add my Constitution to my Integrated Protection? What about a warforged monk? 

No and no. Integrated Protection and Unarmored Defense are two separate features that set your AC, and the Sage Advice ruling on this is that you pick one—you don’t combine them. If you have your Integrated Protection mode set to darkwood core, you are considered to be unarmored and can thus use Unarmored Defense—but you’re always either using one or the other to determine your AC.

Is composite plating necessarily metal? Are warforged druids stuck with darkwood core?

I put this one to Jeremy Crawford, and he said that warforged druids CAN use composite plating. “It’s their body.”

Warforged Integrated Tool

An envoy warforged has an integrated tool that’s part of its body, and gains expertise with that tool. In the PHB, tool proficiencies provided by backgrounds include vehicles. So can I have a warforged with a built-in wagon? 

All things require the approval of the DM. If your DM WANTS to let you have a warforged with a built in boat, that’s great. But the design intent is that this applies to the specifically identified tools listed on page 154 of the Player’s Handbook. This does not include mounts and vehicles, which are detailed on the following page (“vehicles” are on 154, but not detailed). So again, if you and your DM agree, go for it. But it is not the design intent.

Tinker’s tools weigh ten pounds! Can an envoy have a built in tinker’s tools? Or a full dragonchess set? 

Certainly. The intention is that your warforged has a functioning version of this tool. This doesn’t mean that it in any way resembles the tools a human would use to perform the same task. A warforged with an integrated herbalism kit could literally have a garden built into its back, and pull out the herbs it needs when it needs them. Most important, consider that warforged are inherently magical creatures. They CAN physically alter their bodies (as shown by healing and integrated protection) and as shown by the spell prestidigitation it’s possible to create small, temporary objects through magic. So an integrated tool could be fully functional at all times—a warforged with smith’s tools has a hand that can function as a hammer. But it’s just as valid to say that the warforged does either perform a minor transformation to produce these tools or that it literally produces a temporary tool. Your integrated thieves tools could be lockpick fingers, but you could also study a lock and manufacture a key to fit it. Essentially, the FUNCTIONAL EFFECT is that the warforged always has a working version of this tool—but it’s up to you to decide exactly what that looks like.

Do you think an Envoy Warforged equipped with a disguise kit would also be able to disguise their voice? 

Sure—in the same way that a human with a disguise kit or an elf with a disguise kit could disguise their voice. They don’t have a special automatic success at doing it, but I’d consider it to be part of the ability check. If you want to have perfect Terminator style mimicry, you can get the Actor feat.

That’s all for the moment: post further questions below!

CHANGE LOG

  • 7/23/17. Page numbering corrected on appendix pages.
  • 7/24/17. Introduction text adjusted, kalashtar added to table of contents.

123 thoughts on “Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron FAQ

      • Though on Patreon I went on about wanting to know about several aspects of Cyran culture (because Five Nations didn’t give us much) names would be the top of my request list if I only ever knew one extra thing about Cyre!

  1. Could the Envoy’s ability be extended for “combat casters” or “combat medics”? So having a built in arcane focus or a built in eternal wand for the former, and looking at like a set amount of healing salve produced a day for the latter. The former seems to be more bereft of options as is.

    • There’s a few ways to look at this. First of all, a warforged sorcerer could be presented cosmetically as essentially being a living wand—this is the explanation for their arcane powers. Likewise, if you had a warforged cleric, you could DESCRIBE their healing magic as them secreting healing salves, even though mechanically it’s a spell.

      Looking specifically to Integrated Tool, as written it is explicitly a TOOL. A combat medic would benefit from an integrated herbalism kit, which is a necessary tool to create healing potions. A caster might be interested in alchemist’s tools or calligrapher’s tools; if neither of those appeal, you could always have an instrument or a gaming set. But it’s not intended to grant a permanent arcane focus.

      With that said, this is the purpose of the wand sheath warforged component, so the idea of an attached wand is out there, it’s just not a free option.

  2. Can a warforged using the (unarmored) setting wear a magical set of armor and get the benefits of it?

    Also, I am understanding correctly that it’s possible to enchant a warforged’s integrated plating?

    Now, final question – a warforged using the darkwood setting who has light armor profiency, are they considered armored or unarmored for the purpose of effects that require one or the other to cause a negative effect to a warforged? I know you said for the purpose of class abilities they’re considered armored, but is it pick and choose for other effects or always armored?

    Sorry for all the nitpicking, it’s a bit of a tough ability to parse when it comes to special cases.

    • Pulled from Keith’s comments above:

      No, they can not benefit from worn armor under any circumstances.

      Using the darkwood setting they would be considered unarmored.

      • Which is an enormous drawback, that IMO far outweighs the benefit of the feature.

        I’d go so far as to say that in a normal Eberron game, where basic magic armor isn’t going to be hard to get, it’s a net loss.

        I mean, a normal dex fighter can use Defensive Fighting Style in Light Armor. A Warforged can’t. Definitely gonna be houseruled at my table if it stays that way all the way to the final product.

        • Keith has already mentioned that in the Armored modes, they count as armored for the sake of abilities that key off that condition.

          • You say “already mentioned” or “drawn from above”, when in fact the answers did not appear in the main post until AFTER these questions were asked and approved for moderation.

        • I mean, a normal dex fighter can use Defensive Fighting Style in Light Armor. A Warforged can’t.

          This is true as written. With that said, a warforged with light armor proficiency using darkwood core has a base AC of 13, equivalent to +1 studded leather… so they already have the same AC as a human fighter using studded leather and the Defense Fighting Style. I’m more concerned about having a clear path for unarmored characters (monks, barbarians) than about losing one choice off a list of options for a specific character build; a dex-based light-armor-using warforged fighter can always choose a different Fighting Style.

          With that said, it’s certainly a valid houserule. Essentially, it’s a question of what the “Defense” Fighting Style even represents in the first place; if you’re a Dex-based fighter, why do you actually need light armor to fight defensively? If I was making a house rule, it would probably be to drop that restriction on the Fighting Style.

          As for losing the benefits of magic armor, bear in mind that warforged have access to component items (which no other race can use) and in 3.5 these took the place of the abilities other characters acquired from armor; see, for example, essence of the scout. Essentially, the point is that warforged do things in a different way than others.

          While I believe that the standard rule is that you can’t enchant a previously enchanted item, as a DM I’d consider allowing an artificer to enchant a warforged with an armor PROPERTY. I definitely wouldn’t allow them to get a straight numerical enhancement, because that’s the role of the proficiency bonus and they shouldn’t get an additional bonus on top of that.

          • The enchantment sans numerical bonus certainly makes sense, as does ditching the restriction on the Defensive Fighting Style. Thanks!

          • When I asked my question regarding if the enchantments on magical armor apply on the dark wood setting, I want to clear up that I was not referring to AC bonuses, I was talking about the magical property you mentioned you would allow as a houserule. Sorry for the confusion!

          • Sorry I split this into separate posts.

            I think a lot of the problems my group (and others) has with the integrated armor as is can be easily resolved by either adding a variant that completely removes the integrated armor (possibly giving a simple +1 to AC, or just no bonus and same ac as everyone else),

            or by adding a quick and dirty sidebar that says any magical features (barring +1/2/3 to AC) on all the various magic armors released can be crafted as components /infusions/ whatever that follow all the same crafting prices/times/rules as the corresponding magic armors.

            Otherwise warforged are going to be in the crappy position of having a tiny fraction of the amount of usable magic items as everyone else, because none of the pre existing ones work with them and no new magic items in future material will be compatible with them – only eberron content released, which will be a fraction of the whole.

            Hopefully they come up with a good solution!

          • There will be a survey about the UA content, and you’ll be able to share your feedback there; ultimately, the decision of what to do won’t be up to me. Personally, I wouldn’t remove Integrated Protection because it’s part of what makes the warforged what they are. You don’t wear armor, you ARE armor. But definitely, make sure you share your thoughts on the survey!

          • @Jorsh
            – not everybody plays AL & there is actually a lot of 5e eberron content already.

            – Giving warforged the ability to wear armor is problematic because then their components would need to be balanced around being worn with the same magic armors available to meat based races. Not only that, but it would very much strip away one of the most obvious differences.

            – On the subject of components not being available in older content, with Ravinica being announced you need to take into account the plethora of construct & warforged-like creatures in mtg. Plus with Spelljammer announced, I expect that eberron stuff will eventually become AL legal if that’s a concern. There is also the whole treasure points thing.

            – If you look in the magic items section at the warforged components, they are pretty awesome & if you look through components from prior editions you will see some of those are extremely impressive. The loss of magic armors is part of why warforged are so different

      • Keith’s comments didn’t address that question until I actually asked it.

        The fact that they can’t benefit from ANY magical effects from armor means the entire integrated armor “feature” is actually pretty terrible then, so they can never get any of the magical effects from armor that gives you resistance, or any of the cool non-ac related enchantments on magical armor. Looks like my groups sticking with the warforged from the first UA. I love the stuff like the claws from demon armor or the skill benefits from other magic armors

        I realize I worked by final question there poorly though, and need to think of a better way to state it because none of the answers actually gave me the information I was trying to find out about the dark wood option because of my poor wording.

    • They cannot wear magical armor and get the benefits of it, full stop.

      It’s not possible to enchant their plating.

      If they are using Darkwood, they are unarmored, full stop. Even with Light Armor proficiency they remain unarmored.

  3. Will the Appendix list of all Eberron source material (sourcebooks, novels, etc.) be expanded to add new DMG materials as they are created, or is it just assumed that you can search DMG for any new Eberron stuff?

  4. The double scimitar is great & very nice for dex builds when you add the revenant blade feat, but for a lot of reasons in 5e dex is very much more valuable as a stat than strength (adds to ac, more useful skills, dex saves much more valuable & common than str saves, etc). Having it finesse does make sense for elves, but the dex>>str is still there unless tou are playing a barbarian

    Have you considered any mechanics for some of of the other weapons that have been mentioned/statted in the past (ie myrnaxe, war troll cleaver, Deneith Honor Blades, etc). that might be a better fit for an interesting strength based boon?

  5. Would the “heat metal” spell work on a warforged armor? Would they basically burn to death, with no way of removing their metal skin? Because if so, as a DM, I’m basically having every enemy spellcaster who expects to deal with heavily armored warforged prepare that spell.

    • It is totally reasonable to assume that a Warforged has enough metal to be affected by the spell. Your description is already how it works for enemies in plate armor, which takes too long to doff to remove it. The spell is still constrained by Concentration, but has always been accepted as being very powerful against foes who have metal on them, especially armor.

    • back in 3,5 the heat metal spell &warp wood (not in 5e) would do baaad things to warforged & a rust monster would send them running away screaming in terror.

      Composite plating & heavy plating are almost certain to be vulnerable to heat metal but I’m not sure how a rust monster would affect them

      • I’m fairly certain that they’re not vulnerable. Above Keith metions that “…In 5E, the idea is that a warforged is essentially a suit of magic armor…”

        In 5e, “The rust monster corrodes a nonmagical ferrous metal object it can see within 5 feet of it.”

        I feel like this makes sense in the world, otherwise one of the nations would have just unleashed hordes of Rust Monsters during the Last War.

        • I agree, specifying that the rust monster only affects nonmagical objects should protect the warforged. With that said, I could imagine Droaam using trained rust monsters in battle!

    • Personally, I would say the following:

      Heat Metal: A warforged using either composite plating or heavy plating is vulnerable to this spell, just like a person wearing heavy or medium metal armor.

      Rust Monster: A warforged using either composite plating or heavy plating loses 1 AC each time it is targeted by the antennae of a rust monster. Composite plating can be reduced by 2 points, and heavy plating can be reduced by 5 points. After this occurs, the warforged is considered to be using darkwood core and there’s no further effect.

      EDIT:Someone else mentions that rust monsters only affect nonmagical armor. If that’s true, then they shouldn’t affect warforged; again, the idea is that warforged are inherently magical. So I’d consider what I’ve suggested above as an OPTIONAL rule that a DM could choose to implement… but by default the logical answer is that rust monsters don’t affect warforged.

    • I’m guessing no, as the text of the spell requires it be a “manufactured object” and the description of warforged armor is that it’s part of your body. In this vein, warforged plating is not an “object” any more than the scales on a dragon (while they’re attached).

    • Based on the RAW interpretation of the spell, yes you can target them with Heat Metal but I don’t believe they would be forced to drop their skin, so to speak.

      Reasoning: Heat Metal deals damage to any creature in physical contact with the target, which in this case would be the Warforged and anyone he’s hugging. “Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage […]”

      However, the second part, I don’t believe they would ever have the option to drop it. They are not wearing or holding the metal, it’s simply part of them.

      “If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it, […]”

  6. Looking at the Mark of Healing in DnD Beyond, it looks like the most under-powered dragonmark of all with Healing touch written as “you can draw power from your dragonmark to spend one of your Hit Dice and revitalize yourself or a creature you touch. Roll the die, add your Wisdom modifier, and the creature regains a number of hit points equal to the total. Once you use this trait, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest”

    Please tell us it was meant to be that the creature touched to immediately spend one of *their* hit dice, and can’t be used on *that* creature again until they have had a short or long rest.

    I can understand no ability to cure disease per the House Jorasco description meaning you need the right dragonshard item, but one Hit Die, from the Mark of Healing’s bearer, per short or long rest seems awfully restricted compared to the other dragonmarks.

    • The Mark of Healing is difficult because halflings have very little design space in their subrace when compared to other races. Don’t compare it to other marks; compare it to other halfling subraces, such as Ghostwise. With that said, my first version of the Mark of Healing gave them spare the dying as a cantrip, and I might add that back in.

      • if you add in spare the dying, it should be bonus action at range like the grave cleric gets. The base version is an identical effect as the 5gp 10 charge healers kit.

        On the subject of the mark of healing though, there is another option. I’ve seen a couple posts here & there wondering why there was no talenta halfling option that let them be good mounted barbarians. If they got the ability to use heavy weapons while mounted & it was hit die+con for the healing touch, a barbarian riding a clawfoot would be both rather scary and rather interesting. Just change thje +1 wis to +1 wis or (con? str?) along with it & they eould be phenominalwithout needing to be typecast as a cleric even if it’s using your hitdice

        • If they got the ability to use heavy weapons while mounted…

          But how does that relate to the Mark of Healing? The majority of Jorasco halflings live in the Five Nations and have never seen a clawfoot. I think it’s a solid option for a variant Talenta halfling, but I wouldn’t attach it to the Mark of Healing.

          • I honestly don’t know how it would relate to the mark of healing in 998 it just seemed like a good combo & using heavy weapons while mounted without the size penalty isn’t much of a boon on its own.
            Looking at the timeline, in -2,000yk when the mark appeared though.. maybe a feat for halflings like revenant blade like this?

            SomeFeatFromAguyBasWithNames:
            “-while mounted, you and your mount
            don’t provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn from a creature that you attack
            – you’ve mastered the art of using your mount’s momentum to gain the full effect of heavy weapons & can use them without penalty using either strength or wisdom provided your mount has moved at least 10 feet before attacking.
            – You can use your passive animal handling in place of your mount’s AC as long as you have moved at least 10 feet in the last round”

            It would dramatically change the game for the (currently) near useless mounted combat without resorting to giving any of mounted combatant’s benefits. It gives part of one of mobile’s benefits with some strings in a weaker version that requires you to hit so shouldn’t make anyone want a refund.

          • I think a feat that fills the role of Revenant Blade for Talenta Halflings (something that reflects a unique cultural fighting style) makes a lot of sense. I’d want to think about it, but these are all interesting ideas.

      • Since the Mark of Healing uses the bearer’s own hit dice as a resource, I don’t think a “once per short or long rest” component is necessary as there is already an inherent cap on the number of times it can be used per long rest.

  7. Is there a place we can submit spelling/grammar errors? Also, for crafting workweeks, is legendary meant to be 20? It’s less than very rare, and the description says it could take a year. I was thinking it might be 50, and the 2 was a typo?

  8. Hi, I was wondering – Composite Plating and Heavy Plating both say “Armored” but do they count as medium and heavy armor respectively? Specifically does a warforged Barbarian in Heavy Plating mode lack access to the benefits of rage?

  9. You’ve addressed a lot of questions about Integrated Protection, so hopefully you can answer one more:

    Composite Plating and Heavy Plating require medium and heavy armor proficiency respectively, and they count as armor per your previous answers enough to interact with class features like Fighting Style (Defense). Does Composite Plating count as wearing Medium armor for things like Bladesinger’s Bladesinging (can’t use armor heavier than light) if the DM gave an exception to the race requirement? Does Heavy Plating count as wearing heavy armor for things like Barbarian’s Fast Movement?

    Or do they only count as wearing armor generally, not as specific types?

    • As written, the current version simply specifies that plating counts as armor, not that it counts specifically as heavy or medium armor. So in this version, a warforged barbarian can rage while in the heavy plating mode… though they will have to acquire the heavy armor proficiency before they can use heavy plating. 

  10. in wgte Irian Rosewood/quarts boosts & protects from Radiant damage. Do you think that it’s reasonable for that to also apply to healing magic, or would something else be better applied to that?

  11. the wandslinger & plethora of things like aundair’s mageknights brings up an interesting/cumbersome oddity in 5e. Spell sniper gives the useful ignore half/three quarters cover with ranged spell attacks that sharpshooter grants to ranged weapon users but with some caster relevant benefits instead of the other ranged weapon specific things.

    Crossbow expert is similar in that it grants “Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.” which also applies to ranged spell attacks like a lot of spells/cantrips. Along with that is a pair of crossbow relevant things. Is there any chance for a more caster relevant version?

  12. It really seems like there’s a greater emphasis on the Warforged being more… for lack of a better term, alive. More organic. Specifically with regards to the way healing tends to work in 5e (stuff like Cure Wounds affecting them normally).

    How does this heightened emphasis impact the fiction Warforged are better suited to life in the Mournlands? Is it just that Warforged have access to more mundane ways of repairing damage to themselves and thus don’t need to rely on magical or natural healing?

  13. Statistical implications aside, would it be reasonable to assume there are kalashtar and shifters in eberron that don’t have a human “base”, but instead something like the descendants of a union between a hobgoblin and quori, or an orc and a lycanthrope? Would they still be called kalashtar and shifters? I’m asking because I like the concepts of these races, but I also try to steer away from making my campaigns centered around humans.

    • I don’t see shifters as having a human base. Shifters are shifters; they were present on Khorvaire long before humanity came there. If they’re tied to any other race, my guess would be orcs; they both have a slightly bestial cast and a strong primal nature. But if there is such a connection, it’s buried so deep in the past that niether race knows about it. Shifters are a unique race, not a human hybrid.

      Kalashtar were formed when a group of quori spirits bound themselves to a group of Adaran monks. This was a singular event and Adar is a human nation. There’s also the issue of kalashtar not having the physical capabilities that would come from another base race; humans, dwarves, orcs, hobgoblins should all have darkvision, and it would be both strange to have a kalashtar orc without darkvision or to grant darkvision to a kalashtar without taking something else away. So you COULD posit a kalashtar created in a different set of circumstances, but you’d have to resolve that balance issue.

      • To be fair, in both Eberron Campaign Setting and Eberron Player’s Guide, they’re the descendants of humans and lycanthropes. Obviously, it’s your setting, and… y’know, Eberron is MEANT to be mutable. Still, kinda curious as to why you decided to change it.

        • I don’t agree with everything in the ECS; take a look at how the Blood of Vol is presented in the original ECS and how it’s presented now and you’ll see some of that. To me, the idea that shifters are the offspring of humans and lycanthropes is a THEORY within the world—something some people believe, because they are humanoids with partial lycanthropic traits—but it’s not the only theory. Consider the following article, written in 2005 and considered to be part of canon:

          http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20050404a

          The relevant section: “These shifters maintain that the shifter race is not descended from lycanthropes: Rather, the first lycanthropes were formed from shifters.

          First of all, the actual overlap between lycanthropes and shifters is weak. By default shifters can’t assume a full animal form. If they ARE descended from humans, well, they also can’t assume a full human form; lycanthropes can do both. By default shifters don’t possess rapid healing or damage resistance. Their behavior isn’t influenced by mystical forces. Beyond this, our primary hybrid races— half-elf and half-orc — have a clear relationship with their parent races; we’ve never suggested this sort of relationship between shifters and humanity, instead presenting shifter cultures driven by shifters with no human influence. Furthermore, when and how did this traffic between humans and lycanthropes happen? If a human and natural lycanthrope have a child, will it pop out as a full shifter? Furthermore, as the original question asks, if shifters are the offspring of humans and lycanthropes, what do you get if you cross a lycanthrope and an elf? A lycanthrope and a dwarf? To me, it’s much simpler to say natural lycanthropes produce natural lycanthropes… and shifters are their own thing. I like the idea that there is a CONNECTION between shifters and lycanthropes—reflected in the Moonspeaker and the Weretouched Master—but again, it could just as easily be that the first lycanthropes were cursed shifters as opposed to shifters being descended from lycanthropes.

          Again, to me the “half-human, half-lycanthrope” is a valid thing for people IN THE WORLD to believe. But I don’t feel it’s a logical explanation for shifters as they have been presented over the years, so I consider it to be a myth.

          It’s the same as the idea that changelings are the offspring of humans and doppelgangers, something else that has evolved over the years. As the setting evolved we suggested that this is something people believe, but again, it’s not necessarily true. 4E went so far as to say that doppelgangers and changelings were the same thing; that “doppelganger” was just a term for a sociopathic changeling with telepathic abilities.

    • As written, no. Composite Plating and Heavy Plating are considered to be “armor,” but not a specific type of armor. A previous draft of the warforged specified that composite was considered to be medium and heavy was considered to be heavy, and a DM can houserule that if they wish. But as written they do not.

    • I’m going to side with Keith and say that I don’t think not being able to use MaM with composite plating is a bad thing. There are a lot of things warforged can do that meat races can’t (and vice versa), a raging warforged barbarian in heavy plating or a variant human ranger in MaM halfplate being a couple examples is probably good to keep the dramatic differences in the spotlight across the table. A build that has the dex can get great ac out of the darkwood core, a build that doesn’t have the dex can pickup heavy armor from somewhere (feat/multiclass)

  14. On Warforged and healing magic. Does this account for the Warforged in the Mournland? As I recall part of the big reason why the Lord of Blades and his Warforged are doing well there is because they rely on repair magic instead of healing magic, which didn’t function in the Mournland.

    Should the intent be that Warforged just ignore this limitation? Or are you changing how the Mournland works in this regard (Possibly using the Gritty Realism rules when it comes to resting there?)

  15. Keith, this is a very good book. A great primer for Eberron. I have loved the setting since release. I did have a few questions.

    Warforged Juggernauts who want to be Monks seem to get the short end of the stick with their Hammer Fists. Why don’t those fists would increase their Monk Unarmed Strike a die code or something? Just asking.

    Also, could a Warforged(or an Artificer) modify their own body to add parts to it?
    I love the Envoy’s Integrated Tool but it would be just as cool to have a Warforged with an integrated Explorer’s Kit. Has that been considered?

    • Warforged Juggernauts who want to be Monks seem to get the short end of the stick with their Hammer Fists. Why don’t those fists would increase their Monk Unarmed Strike a die code or something?

      Warforged aren’t the first race to have an improved unarmed attack; lizardfolk, tabaxi, and tortles all have an imporved unarmored attack that provides no benefit to monks. I personally like the idea of an option for monks with natural weapons to get some sort of benefit to reflect that, but the status quo is that it doesn’t… just as natural armor doesn’t stack with Unarmored Defense.

      In terms of adding body parts, I’d consider that to be a form of warforged component item (from chapter 5 of the WGtE). I could certainly see a pack that can be attached to a warforged.

  16. Does the changeling gain the 2 skills plus the tool proficiency bonus, plus the skill/tool proficiencies from background, plus the skill/tool proficiencies from class? Or do the racial proficiencies supplant the background proficiencies at character creation?

    • As written, these benefits are in addition to background. There will be an opportunity to provide feedback on the races through Unearthed Arcana, and this is something that could change.

  17. Can my Warforged Cleric of the Forge ever benefit from:

    Soul of the Forge
    You gain resistance to fire damage.
    While wearing heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

    Saint of Forge And Fire
    While wearing heavy armor, you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical attacks.

    • AS A HOUSE RULE, I would allow a warforged Forge cleric to gain those benefits while using heavy armor plating. As currently written, heavy armor plating is simply considered “armor.” To me it is logical for composite to be considered medium armor and heavy plating to be considered to be heavy armor, but that’s not how it is presented at the moment.

      So *I*’d be willing to let you do it because I like the idea of a warforged Forge cleric. But as it stands, it would be up to the DM.

    • NO. “Dragonmarked Human” is a type of variant human, and you can’t take it in addition to the variant human presented in the PHB.

  18. Under Dragonmarks it says that you can increase the Inuition bonus by feats and items, but the only feat is Greater mark, and no example items, what kind of rarity would be appropriate for one step up, and is this something we might see in the next book?

    Also extremely happy to finally have some 5e Eberron, already dm’ed a oneshot using the «create a Sharn adventure» tables and it was perfect.

    • Under Dragonmarks it says that you can increase the Inuition bonus by feats and items, but the only feat is Greater mark, and no example items, what kind of rarity would be appropriate for one step up, and is this something we might see in the next book?

      I think an uncommon or rare item could include a bonus to an intuition die along with a secondary effect, with the power of that secondary effect being related to the rarity of the item. And yes, Ruty and I are working on a book that will have a relevant set of feats.

    • I don’t remember if this was canonical or homebrew, but I do remember seeing items called Channeling Rods that functioned similarly to Metamagic Rods but for dragonmarks, and were powered by Siberys dragonshards. Certainly seems reasonable, within the fiction, to bring those into 5e as a way to boost the Intuition die as well.

  19. While the majority of the dragonmarks look fine to me as is, some strike me as having off notes…

    Is there a particular reason that the Mark of Hospitality gets Friends (which is a very short-term benefit with significant long-term drawbacks) and not the ability to use Purify Food and Drink as a ritual (which was always presented as one of the House’s biggest selling points before)? I’d honestly prefer they got the latter rather than the former.

    Is there a particular reason why there’s no Lesser Restoration option included in the Mark of Healing (likely earned at a level later than 1 if so)? This does seem like something that on the face of it reduces House Jorasco’s relevance to non-military and non-adventurers.

    Concerning the Mark of Scribing, where exactly did the concept of the Arcane Mark go? While it’s understandable that it’s too specialized to still be around in the PHB, it’s pretty important to House Sivis’s role in the world.

    The disappearance of Disguise Self from the Mark of Shadow’s powers strikes me as a loss of some of its original edge in the entertainment business… and the disappearance of its divinations at higher tiers seems like a significant shift in how it works too. I’d be interested in hearing some of the reasoning for the changes there.

    • Keith talks about friends in the manifest.zone podcast the other day & his reasoning is sound. Create food & drink 1/day is of minimal use but an uncommon/rare dragonmark focus might be more like the speaking stone or there could be a ritual version for it. There might even be an improved version that makes something more like what we would call a “continental breakfast” type of thing with more time

      You aren’t wrong about some of the dragonmark options being subpar though, but I think we are missing part of the puzzle, lets say that a halfling with the mark of hospitality could ritually cast rope trick, tiny hut, magnificent mansion, & other mark of hospitality related spells… the value of the mark goes up significantly.
      -I think that shifting the mark of passage’s shared passage from 1/long rest to 1/long or short rest might help a lot with that one. Even if they got to ritually cast spells like teleport circle later, those are very situational spells even when they are useful.

      – Mark of handling is a bit questionable in value too, but I think that being able to simply add find familiar & find steed as class spells (for whatever class they take) with the result being type:beast instead might go a long way towards making it interesting

      – I have to admit that the mark of Scribing is pretty iffy, comprehend languages is already a ritual spell making its inclusion rather iffy. message is thematic yes, but a bit odd unless it’s given a range bump of a quarter mile or so like how grave cleric takes spare the dying from touch to 30 feet…. but that along with nearly any scouting type situation with the default 120′ range runs into “1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood blocks the spell. ” Changing the spell to telepathic bond or having an uncommon/rare focus item that grants it at will though could dramatically change things on the value front.

    • Answers in the main article. And there will certainly be time to provide feedback on the marks in an official survey.

    • While this may go without saying, it’s important to recognize that the marks aren’t all balanced against one another. The Mark of Making IS more powerful than the Mark of Scribing, because the gnome with the Mark of Scribing already has Darkvision and Gnome Cunning. So compare Scribing to the Forest Gnome. The Forest Gnome gets Natural Illusionist (minor illusion) and Speak With Small Beasts. The Rock Gnome gets expertise with a narrow slice of History and Tinker (largely cosmetic). Scribing provides Whispering Wind (message), Gifted Scribe (two tool proficiencies and an insight die with their use), AND comprehend languages on top of that. Rather than being concerned that Scribing is underpowered, I’m more concerned that it may be OVERPOWERED. Likewise for Healing: consider that what you should be comparing it against is the Ghostwise silent communication ability (which is in many ways more limited than message, having a shorter range and not allowing your target to communicate with you).

      Because the marks AREN’T equal, this is a reason to emphasize the role of dragonmark focus items… which can be common items. Thus, scribing doesn’t automatically give you arcane mark, but it allows you to use the scribe’s pen, which is a common item. The idea has always been that the TOOLS are the primary source of the houses power, and one of the critical features of the marks is that they provide access to the tools.

  20. In the podcast Manifest Zone you talk about a sun and eberron being like a “solar system” in respect to the planes.
    What is the sun called in Eberron?
    I personally play a game in which Irian is the sun.

  21. Hello,

    Firstly, thank you for all your hard work!

    I had a question about the balance aspect of Changelings, given they have so many active abilities (alter self, 2 skills, Uncanny Visage, *and* a tool expertise.) Could I ask what was the thought process behind, or alternatively, how to balance for a home game? Adding an elemental weakness, ex lightning or psychic to ‘disrupt’ their inherently malleable forms, or to downgrade the tool Expertise to proficiency and give 1 racial skill?

    Thank you, and have a nice day!

    • Hi! There will be an official survey soon where you can provide feedback on the Changelings as written. In terms of a house rule, any of the things you’ve suggested could work. You could easily eliminate Divergent Persona and only provide one racial skill if you feel it’s a better match for your game.

      • Wonderful, thanks!
        Can I ask in addition, how would you say Changeling interacts with the Actor feat? Specifically the mimicking sound? Can a changeling already do this with their shape shifting their vocal chords, or would that method only approximate? What do you think? (I am unfamiliar with Changelings in the setting and their limits)

        • This is a question for Sage Advice. Given that 5E generally embraces a principle of simplicity, I tend to think that when you employ a magical disguise—including the shapeshifting ability of a changeling—it includes replicating the voice of the target. We’ve certainly never called it out as a LIMITATION changelings have to overcome.

  22. Here’s a practical question: if I buy the ebook now, do I need to pay the full price a second time for the print-on-demand version when it’s eventually released? Or merely print + delivery fees? I’m not familiar with DM’s guild… Thanks!

    • I’m not a DM’s Guild expert and you might want to check with customer support there, but my understanding is that the option will simply be ADDED to the existing document, so you would simply pay the additional cost of printing and shipping – it wouldn’t be a new product on its own.

      • Thanks Keith for your answer; DM’s guild support also replied, here’s what they say:
        “The print pricing will depend on the publisher. If you purchase the PDF now, you will be able to purchase the print version for whatever the print/PDF combo price is minus what you have already paid. If you do decide to purchase the print edition, you would need to contact us with your original order number and we could get you a discount code for the printed one based on your previous purchase.”

        Maybe other people would be interested by this piece of information. The good thing is: I can support you right away!

  23. Not a mechanics question, but where did the “Tyrants” conspiracy originate? I remember something similar in earlier Eberron materials, but I believe it was called the Cabinet of Faces (a more fitting name for a changeling conspiracy IMO). Did the one become the other or are they separate ideas?

    • They’re different things. The Tyrants were first mentioned in Sharn: City of Towers (primarily page 155). They’re a local criminal organization. The Cabinet of Faces operates across Khorvaire and is driven more by the faith of the Traveler.

  24. Can the Warforged use the benefits of worn wondrous items (boots, rings, goggles, etc.) or do they count as armor for the integrated protection feature? Thanks!

    • Warforged can gain the benefits of any item that is not explicitly armor. So rings, boots, and goggles can all be used.

  25. For Warforged components, you could make it a feat. Have a list of 10-15 components, and have a feat “Modified Warforged’ where you can pick 2-3. To balance different components, you could assign the components points (1, 2 or 3) and the feat grants you 3 points to spend on components. 1 point integrated weapon or arcane focus. 2 points for +1 to an ability score (+1 ability score and minor boost is typical for a feat). 2 points for better legs (bonus to speed and jump distance). Just an idea I had.

  26. I love the book, but I have one suggestion: On page 8, would it be possible to change “archlich Erandis Vol” to “the Lich known as the Queen of Death.”? I would like my players to read this book, but that one line gives away a LOT of one of the biggest story arcs. Thank you!

  27. I am very happy to see this book come out. I’ve been running an Eberron campaign in Stormreach from 4E into 5E and I’m thrilled to have more mechanical rules to make things a bit easier and more consistent than my own adaptations of things. So far I’m liking the new book and have already printed it out with plans to punch it for zip-bind combs so pages can be removed and added.

    I really hope there is more in store as I would love to see monster entries for Eberron specific foes such as Vulkoori Drow, Quori, Daelkyr, etc. Oh btw how have you been running Glyphbooks? I’ve been doing them as requiring proficiency in Intelligence(History) to use but the check being a Wisdom(Insight).

  28. I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this, but:

    How would you design a non-Ranger, non-Druid character that could take advantage of the Mark of Handling? What role does Vadalis have other than ‘rancher’?

    Primal Connection and The Bigger They Are are such a beautiful package together that make a Valadis character feel like a beastmaster. You go out into the world, and get really excited when you feel new monstrosities and beasts that you can feel as pets. This is the first time the mark really seemed exciting to me.

    But what do you don’t want that to be all there is to your character? Tharashk is about inquisitives, but also about hunting deals and getting control of supply chains. Lyrandar has airship transports, selling the weather (!), and lightning power. Vadalis has the power to… make better animals over the course of years, outside the scope of the game? Looking to the Greater Mark doesn’t add any more ideas. If they had something like a Beast-only Geas, you could tell that they’re about making animals better behaved. If it were Commune with Nature, they’d be about exploring to find manifest zones for specific breeding projects, or if it were Find Greater Steed, they’d definitely be about magical pets. But they’re about… controlling an animal for combat-relevant amounts of time, and a bit of scouting?

    Expert Handling doesn’t really help inform me either, because when was the last time that your animal was making a skill check on your behalf? Outside that time when you need your pet monkey to pick a lock.

    In the end, I guess I’m asking this. When does someone look at a problem and say “We need to get a Vadalis on this”? Where does my character come in?

    • I would suggest talking to your GM about possible dragonmark focus items that are related to the mark & could be useful to $classYouLike. That might be an easier discussion after morgraves misc (or whatever has them) comes out. Is there a class or concept that you have in mind beyong !druid !ranger mark of handling human?

  29. Not sure what happened to my previous comment so let me try again.

    I’m really ecstatic to see this PDF come out. I’ve already printed it and am planning to cut it fro a comb binding and put a GBC zipbind spine in there so that pages can be easily added or removed. (So I hope when updates come they’re easy to make. Perhaps the layout might benefit from “buffer” pages between each section so each section can be pulled out and replaced easily.)

    I’m really hoping that we’ll see crunch and monster stats for things like Quori, and Daelkyr. More signature weapons would be good too, such as the Vulkoori’s favored chain. (Though I imagine that’s just a spiked chain.) Some conversions for things like item materials would be nice too.

    Also while I’m asking, how have you been handling Glyphbooks in 5E? I’ve been running them that you need proficiency in Intelligence(History) to use them but the check was Wisdom(Intuition).

  30. In the WFGTE, the section talking about races mentions Gnolls as playable from a lore standpoint. A whole paragraph about playing them.
    However, the only published content on gnolls right now is in Volo’s Guide to Monsters and the Monster Manual. Both of which restrict them to being mindless, unplayable slaves to Yeenoghu, and providing no racial stats for players to use.

    Is WotC going to publish a book that says “You can play gnolls here!” but then not give a player a way to do it without duck taping some homebrew together? There isn’t even an UA article. Will the Wayfinder’s Guide update eventually to provide playable gnolls?

    • I’m afraid you have the wrong idea about what the WGtE is, Chris. The WGtE doesn’t provide every possible mechanical detail that you could ever possibly need for every possible Eberron scenario. It’s a high-level OVERVIEW of the setting, providing only the most critical mechanics. The gnolls of Eberron are dramatically different from Yeenoghu’s savages. Knowing this is important to understanding the role they play in Droaam. But the ability to play a gnoll isn’t a critical must-have aspect of the setting. If and when someone releases rules for playable gnolls in the setting, whether that’s WotC or someone else (I’ll do it when I write a Droaam sourcebook, if it hasn’t already been done by then), this lore will apply to them. But WGtE provides only the lore; it’s not going to include rules for playable gnolls in a future update.

      I’ll point out that gnolls were playable in 4E, but the rules for playing them weren’t included in the 4E Eberron sourcebooks, or in ANY 4E sourcebook; they were included in an article in Dragon magazine, which I wrote. The lore presented in the WGtE applies to any edition, even if the rules haven’t yet caught up with it.

  31. I have a question about ability scores as written. Several Dragonmark characters and Kalashtar (maybe others) have something like this written: “Your Dexterity and Wisdom scores both increase by 1. In addition, one ability score of your choice increases by 1.”

    This wording is different from, say, Half-elves in the PHB which says “two other ability scores of your choice increase by 1.”

    So in my example above, could that player increase the Wisdom score by an additional point, or is the RAI for them to pick another ability besides DEX or WIS?

    • Excellent question—I’ll answer it above.

      Your reading is correct. A kalashtar could have +2 Wisdom, +1 Charisma; +1 Wisdom, +2 Charisma; or +1 Wisdom, +1 Charisma, +1 Intelligence (or any other ability). The use of “one ability score” as opposed to “one other ability score” was a deliberate decision to give those races and marks additional flexibility. 

  32. Not so much a question as a nitpick: in addition to the already-mentioned limit on Augury that makes it only able to see 30 minutes into the future normally, which you recommend making a week for an NPC oracle-type magewright, there’s one other detail about the 5e version of the spell that makes it untenable as something one does for a living: the cumulative 25% failure rate when used more than once a day. It seems to me as though both removing that AND extending the spell’s reach into the future would normally make it no longer a 2nd-level spell — or else would make some tables angry because of perceived unfairness in how ostensibly the same game mechanics apply to different characters. Personally, I’d be afraid to call it “Augury” when it breaks more than one rule about how Augury is supposed to work, and I’d fully expect to be facing down demands for an explanation.

    To that end, an actual request: perhaps include some proposals for downsides to heavily modified spells otherwise available to PCs, with an aim towards making it make sense that PCs getting the same benefits would be completely impractical? For example, perhaps the specific building that the oracle operates out of was designed to confer such benefits to that single spell, and would require finding a suitable artisan and quite a bit of costly materials to replicate and costs 5 gp a month to maintain besides.

  33. Have you thought about making the FAQ a pdf like the sage compendium? I appreciate this web FAQ but I have been in stores and conventions where Wifi/LTE doesn’t work.

    Thanks!

  34. I had a question about Schemas on page 47. It says the following:

    An arcane spellcaster uses Arcana to create
    schema. A divine caster uses Religion, while
    a druid or ranger relies on Nature. You must
    have a minimum skill bonus—your proficiency
    bonus plus your ability score bonus—in order
    to develop a schema.

    Does the Cleric use Intelligence + Religion, as per normal Religion checks? Or do they use their Wisdom, their casting stat? Normally, all three skills key off Intelligence, so the wording of “your ability score bonus” makes me think the latter…

  35. I have a question about Envoys, which is similar to a question asked above.

    Given the rules text:
    “Two different ability scores of your choice increase by 1.”

    Beyond allows you to pick the same ability score twice, e.g. CON and CON, but do the rules dictate that they cannot be the same ability, e.g. they must be CON and (STR|WIS|INT|DEX|CHA)?

    • The envoy has a +1 bonus to CON from their core race, and then can apply an additional +1 bonus to two ability scores; but they cannot apply this +1 envoy bonus to the same ability score twice. So they CAN have +2 CON, +1 DEX (+1 CON base race, +1 CON and +1 DEX from envoy). What they can’t have is +3 CON (applying both of the +1 bonuses from the envoy subrace to the same ability score). This is the intent of “two different ability scores increase by 1.”

  36. Hey, I’m new here, and despite being a long-time D&D player, I’m only passingly familiar with Eberron (being a Greyhawk fan). I’ve gotta say that WGtE is the best introduction to a campaign setting that I’ve ever seen–it gives a feel of the setting without inundating you with an overload of detail. So, great job there! I hope all subsequent 5e campaign source books follow this example.

    Also, the setting is is really cool. I wish I hadn’t ignored it during 3.5.

  37. Really enjoyed reading WGtE and loved how dragonmarks replace subrace! Definitely inspired me to make a Halfling Oath of Redemption Paladin who just wants everyone to feel at home.

    My question is about the Mark of Hospitality intuition die.
    “When you make a Charisma (Persuasion) check or an ability check involving Brewer’s Supplies or Cook’s Utensils…”

    Does the intuition only kick in if the Persuasion check involves Brewer’s Supplies/Cook’s Utensils? Or do you always intuit on Persuasion checks?

    • They are two separate things. You always add intuition to any Charisma (Persuasion) check. You also add intuition to any ability check involving brewing or cooking. If you somehow do both at once—you’re baking a cake in order to persuade someone—I’m afraid you only get the bonus once.

  38. “Under 5E rules, warforged are humanoids.”
    Changeling’s Change Appearance: As an action, you can transform into any humanoid of your size.

    Could a changeling appear to be a warforged? Would her skin feel like wood or metal?
    i don’t think I’ve ever read lore about a warforged being actually a changeling, but it could have been the fact that 3.5 didn’t support this possibility.

    Thank you.

    P.D.: I’ve been in love with the setting since the first day I put my eyes on it, over 10 years ago. I cannot thank you enough for its existence.

    • As a DM, I’d personally say no. In my opinion, the decision to make warforged “humanoids” comes from a desire to keep things simple—not granting them immunity to a large range of spells that only affect humanoids, for example—but there are places where the DM has to decide what feels logical to them.

      Changelings can’t use their natural gifts to create functional armor. To me, this implies that a changeling can’t make its skin feel like wood or metal, because if it felt like wood or metal it should be tough enough to provide an AC benefit. A DM could decide that a changeling can LOOK like a warforged even though they don’t FEEL like it if you touch them… but this then opens the door as to whether a changeling can look like a person wearing metal armor. In the interests of simplicity, I as a DM would say no.

  39. Does a warforged benefit from master of heavy armor while in heavy armor mod if he gets the feat (A fighter who has the heavy armor profiency)

  40. 3rd level war forge cleric juggernaut (heavy plating) + shield AC 20, + shield of faith spell (concentration 10 minutes, up to 4x a day!) AC 22!

    Lots of virtual ink spilled on this, suggest it’s a little high. I’ve read other posts where people have crunched the numbers but it still feels off!

    From a DM perspective, unless I use pack tactics, prone, stunned etc constantly most critters with even rudimentary intelligence are going to know not to attack WF with melee or ranged attack that requires a roll. This leads to an arms race type situation, and more work for the DM.

    AC for WF needs some tweaking. Dig out the old pit fiend chestnut AC 19 ;-)!

    • The big issue here is that this model of warforged doesn’t account for DM choice in distribution of rewards. A 3rd level human forge cleric could have the exact same AC, if they’ve acquired a suit of plate armor. If a human fighter somehow gets a suit of +1 plate at 3rd level they’ll have a BETTER AC than the warforged. The issue is that the DM can decide when to make that armor available to the human, while there’s no ability to make that decision for the warforged. Did you share your feedback on the UA survey?

      • I think the growing AC is just fine and DMs can reward other players according to it
        Still dont get the hyle about it being broken…seens unreasonable to me.

        • +1 plate for 3rd level haha that would be the day! A player would love that.
          Seriously though I guess I was feeling grumpy the day I posted original… I get it.
          As a sidenote, old Greyhawk grognard really digging Eberron, well done!
          Looking forward to AL season, going to loot it for ideas for my home game. Hope it takes off and more to come!

  41. I got word that an update occurred and that Dragonmarks saw some change, but I can’t figure out what was altered. Any insight?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.