Eberron: Rising From The Last War

Fifteen years after it was first released, Eberron has finally come to Fifth Edition! Rising From The Last War is available at last. I am thrilled to have been involved with this, and especially to have had a chance to work with Jeremy Crawford and James Wyatt again; James was part of the original team that developed the world with me for Third Edition, and it was definitely good to get the band back together.

Now the book is out, those of you who’ve played the setting in previous editions may wonder what’s new? What’s changed? I’m going to give a quick overview of some of the changes. Over the course of the next few weeks I’ll be discussing each of these changes in more detail; in particular, tomorrow I’ll take a deeper look at the evolution of the warforged. Before I dive into the details, I want to thank my Patreon supporters who make it possible for me to maintain this site, and also to call out Olie Boldador for the image above. This was commissioned for Exploring Eberron, the book I’m currently writing for the DM’s Guild. With that said, let’s get down to the details.

What’s Changed?

First and foremost, Eberron: Rising From The Last War brings the world of Eberron to Fifth Edition. It’s been ten years since Eberron was released for Fourth Edition, and the goal was never to change the world, but rather to introduce it to people who might never have encountered it. With this in mind, one thing that hasn’t changed is the timeline. Rising From The Last War is set (by default) in 998 YK, four years after the Day of Mourning and two years after the Treaty of Thronehold brought the Last War to an end. However, what Rising does is to take a harder look at the consequences of that timeline—the fact that Khorvaire is only two years out from a bitter civil war that lasted for decades. In the Gazetteer, each nation has a section that discusses the specific impact of the Last War on that nation. There’s also tables of story hooks for characters who fought in the war, and an extended section on how the aftermath of the war could impact a campaign. So the world is the same; we’re just exploring a corner of it that’s been underdeveloped in the past. But here’s a few things that have changed. I’m going to be very brief here, but I’ll discuss each of these in more detail in future posts.

  • The Mror Dwarves. We’ve expanded on a piece of dwarven history. It’s always been part of the setting there there were ancient ruins under the Mror Holds. In Rising we’ve established that there’s a daelkyr down there—that Dyrrn the Corruptor is below the Mror Holds with a horde of aberrations. Most dwarves are prepared to fight to reclaim their ancient lands, but some are willing to use the weapons of their enemy to fight them. Thus, symbionts—the living weapons of the daelkyr—have become a part of the Mror Holds. Some clans embrace them; others despise them.
  • Races. Rising From The Last War presents the unique races of Eberron—the warforged, kalashtar, shifters, and changelings. If you have been following the Unearthed Arcana articles or used the Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron, you’ll find that these have changed—mostly in small ways, some in larger ways. The core concepts of the races remain intact; it’s purely the mechanics that have been revised. In particular, I’ll discuss the warforged tomorrow.
  • Dragonmarks. Following the precedent of the Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron, dragonmarks are a subrace option. The Greater Dragonmark feat has been removed for now; in the short term, this effect has been replaced by a feature called Spells of the Mark, which allows dragonmarked spellcasters to treat certain spells as being on their class spell lists. I’ll talk more about this in the future, but you may see a few options for non-spellcasters in Exploring Eberron…
  • The Mournland. Rising From The Last War has an extensive section on the Mournland, providing a lot of material for running adventures in the ruins of Cyre. In 3.5, it was asserted that there were a few absolute rules that applied to the Mournland, specifically that healing didn’t function. Rising dials that back to say that nothing about the Mournland is predictable. There may be many places in the Mournland where healing magic is impeded, but it’s not an absolute rule across the entirety of it. This was always how *I* ran the Mournland, and I’m glad to provide the DM with the flexibility to decide on the limitations at play in a particular adventure.
  • Lady Illmarrow. Chapter 6 includes a stat block for Lady Illmarrow, an infamous lich known to lurk in a frozen castle on the edge of the Lhazaar Principalities. Lady Illmarrow has a secret, which I’ll leave unspoiled here. But as she’s an interesting and powerful character who should be known in the world, I wanted to establish her secret identity—an identity that COULD be tied to well-known stories and rumors.
  • Monsters. There’s been a number of little changes to monsters and monstrous lore. To cover these quickly: Doppelgangers are now said to be derived from changelings, rather than the other way around; they are changelings that have been twisted by the daelkyr Dyrrn the Corruptor. Quori are considered to be aberrations. Karrnathi undead are now a single type of undead as opposed to being split between skeletons and zombies—though, of course, the Karrns used many sorts of undead in the war! Another big change is the introduction of Valenar Beasts—the idea that it’s not just Valenar horses that are special, along with an explanation for why these creatures can’t be bred in captivity.
  • Guns. I’m kidding; Eberron’s approach to guns hasn’t changed at all. Some people were worried due to various images that firearms had become a standard part of Eberron; this isn’t the case. The Artillerist artificer specializes in creating ARCANE artillery, and by default the Arcane Firearm of an artificer is a modified rod, staff, or wand. There’s a place for everything in Eberron, and if you use the firearm rules in the DM’s Guide artificers should be proficient in their use. There’s also nothing stopping you from describing YOUR artificer as using a unique firearm they’ve created; but Eberron still focuses on wandslingers, not gunslingers.

What’s New?

Set aside the things that have changed, what does Rising add that you haven’t seen before? Here’s a few things to look forward to…

  • The Artificer. This isn’t new to Eberron, but it’s the first new fully developed character class for Fifth Edition! One of the interesting things about the artificer is that subclass dramatically shapes the role of the character; an alchemist is quite different from an artillerist (and you can expect to see a few new options for artificers in Exploring Eberron…)
  • Group Patrons. One of my favorite additions to Rising From The Last War is the introduction of Group Patrons, essentially backgrounds that can be shared by an entire group. This is an excellent way to establish a basic theme for a campaign. Are you spies? Soldiers? Intrepid reporters for the Korranberg Chronicle?
  • Warforged Colossus. In exploring the Last War, we decide to look at a few new weapons of war. In the last days of the war, Cyre needed something big to match Breland’s floating fortresses; and so Cannith produced the warforged colossi, gargantuan living constructs. All known colossi were lost during the Mourning, but they must still be there in the Mournland, waiting to be found. A colossus can be a bizarre dungeon… and if the Lord of Blades can reactivate one, it would be a terrifying threat.
  • Scary Monsters. Rising provides details on a few of the most terrifying threats in Eberron—the daelkyr and the overlords. It gives statistics and details overviews of two of each of these. The daelkyr Belashyrra is the Lord of Eyes and the master of the beholders, while Dyrrn the Corruptor can make anything into a monster. Rak Tulkhesh is the overlord known as the Rage of War, and the Last War has given him strength. Sul Khatesh is the Keeper of Secrets and the Queen of Shadows, and can be an excellent patron for warlocks as well as a nefarious foe.

I’m going to stop here, but I’ll be writing more about all of these things in the days ahead, and I am of course working on Exploring Eberron, a new book for the DM’s Guild! If you’ve got Rising From The Last War, let me know what you think of it.

90 thoughts on “Eberron: Rising From The Last War

  1. I’m surprised you’re not highlighting how the Daelkyr are much more tightly themed now – bugs, eyes, plants, tentacles (Dyrrn), stone. Sure, these themes existed before, but were a bit hidden away behind the ECS physical description and the vagaries of 3.5.

    • It’s not actually a new concept. All of the daelkyr named in Rising — Dyrrn, Belashyrra, Orlassk, Kyrzin — were mentioned in 3.5; check page 85 of the Player’s Guide to Eberron. I had an article about Kyrzin in Eye on Eberron, and Kyrzin had stats in 4E. The original daelkyr in the ECS was intended as a general template, but the daelkyr have always been presented as artists; the greatest among them have preferred mediums. But I’ll talk about this in a future article.

  2. Pretty much all of the changes seem to make sense. Karrnathi skeletons and zombies were always practically the same. Super glad the timeline hasn’t changed. Also happy for the deeper dwarf lore. I also noticed there’s a new section about the Everice in addition to the Frostfell, nice! I’m surprised at the Quori being aberrants and not their own type though, and living spells being constructs. Also I’m getting the impression some villains have leveled up a bit, aren’t the daelkyr slightly higher CR here than they were in 3e? Are there still nastier things than the daelkyr back in Xoriat? Also the Lord of Blades seems higher CR, seems more intended as a higher tier villain than in previous editions. Curious about the decision to remove Greater Dragonmarks. Also is there a chance for Exploring Eberron content to be available in dndbeyond like WGTE?

    • Also super happy for the TONS of monsters here, collecting monsters from many different sources from previous editions, yay Quori!

    • Also I’m getting the impression some villains have leveled up a bit, aren’t the daelkyr slightly higher CR here than they were in 3e? Are there still nastier things than the daelkyr back in Xoriat?

      The daelkyr in the ECS was always intended to be the “generic” model; the daelkyr that have been named are the more powerful among them. Belashyrra was presented as a level 28 threat in the 4E ECG. There are still definitely nastier things than the daelkyr in Xoriat, but they may not be things that CAN enter other planes – just as il-Lashtavar is the most powerful force in Dal Quor, but it can’t leave because it essentially IS Dal Quor.

  3. The previews have been fascinating and I look forward to having this book in my hands. The group patrons sound amazing and I definitely look forward to reading about intrepid reporters.

    I know some fans are mad about the changes from early drafts of the races, but honestly I like what I see in the Wayfinder’s Guide. It looks like something I’d be comfortable offering my players – now I just need the time to run something!

  4. Honestly that dwarf symbiote revelation is amazing! Love it. Does that factor also into dwarven sense of wealth and style or are symbiotes not a thing one wears in polite society?

    Also could have sworn the Daelkyr were down there already but good to know they are now. Adds punching power to the derro

    • I’ll write more about the dwarves in a future article, and they’re also going to be part of Exploring Eberron. But I’ll note that page 121 of Rising has a newspaper clipping about just that…

      As for the daelkyr, what was said is that the Realm Below was DESTROYED by the daelkyr long ago. They always MIGHT have been down there, but the general presentation was that MOST of the Realm Below was empty and lifeless. The current model simply amps up the activity, saying that both great dangers and treasures (whether dwarf relics or daelkyr symbionts) are there waiting to be found. Again, the basic STORY hasn’t changed; it’s just been magnified and given more importance.

    • WotC doesn’t release PDFs of its main books. If you’re all digital, you can either access the content through D&D Beyond, or get Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron on the DM’s Guild; it doesn’t ahve all the content of Rising, but it does include the new races and the Artificer (or will as soon as it’s updated).

  5. I went and bought the Collector’s Edition of this book first thing today. Even the store owner says it’s the best cover D&D has put out yet, and I agree!

    I’ve got tons of questions about everything already, but everyone above seems to be asking about the daelkyr, so I’ll go with the flow and just ask that one:

    In the book’s art and descriptions, the Daelkyr look a little more normal than I’d previously thought. In previous posts I think I’ve read that their appearance is based on who’s looking at them, but I don’t see a mention of that in this book. Is the older post still the case?

    • OH wait, I’m stupid, there it is in another paragraph. I should read more thoroughly first and then ask questions, not rush and point at the first thing to stand out.

      • Indeed, the daelkyr’s mutable appearance is now part of canon; it’s described on page 284 of Rising.

  6. Re: Drow. I’m noticing that the drow section summarizes as Vulkoori, Sulatar, and Umbragen. I’m surprised you didn’t shift the Vulkoori description to a more general Qaltiar bit.

  7. It’s such a small thing, but I absolutely LOVE how the new logo includes three dragons instead of one. Is there any way we could get a bigger version?

  8. Its awesome to see rak tulkhesh and sul khatesh. If I was a betting man I would have bet on Bel Shalor being in the book. Any chance it might be present in Exploring Eberron? Or perhaps any other world ending evils?

    • Bel Shalor was given statistics in the 4E Eberron sourcebook, and we chose to focus on a few new threats this time around. Exploring Eberron doesn’t have statistics for Bel Shalor, but I’ll tease that it does have statistics for a sinister being of similar power…

      • Hey Keith, big fan. Quick question: which sinister being of similar power, because I had the book for a while now and can’t figure it out.

        • I don’t think you have this book! The question is about Exploring Eberron, which hasn’t been released yet. The previews on the current post show the daelkyr Valaara, who’s one of the sinister powers in the book. But there’s a few more tied to the planes that have yet to be revealed.

  9. Hey Keith, thanks as always for your time and the contents you bring us here.

    I’ll get Rising from my FLGS when shipment arrives by the end of the week. Meanwhile, I’m wondering, why was the Greater Dragonmark feat removed? It looked like a flexible, non-class-dependent (unlike Spells of the Mark) way to model growing dragonmarked power.

    • Feats are an optional rule in Fifth Edition and the goal was to have a core system that didn’t rely on them; the balance of a feat granting a high level spell was also always shaky. I will be presenting an (unofficial) approach to greater dragonmarks in my upcoming book Exploring Eberron.

  10. I really like the section on recurring villains, but it doesn’t talk about how to have a villain escape after a tough combat without frustrating players. How have you managed recurring villains in your campaigns, Keith?

    • Should I get a game going, I’ll ask the players. “How did Zilargotron, War-Forged Tiny Assassin, escape your fireball?” etc. Make players part of the story-crafting, as opposed to making it feel like their kill was stolen. I’d also make sure to note this trope up front at the beginning of a game – perhaps even go so far as to have the players decide after 4 or 5 adventures which of their adversaries should be their “recurring nemesis” who then gets the “hard to kill” treatment.

    • Excellent question! That seems like a great topic for a short article – I’ll post something in the next few weeks.

    • In my own experience, the biggest obstacle to the recurring villain is players who are extremely persistent due to defensiveness — the sorts of players who think more in winning-a-game terms than telling-a-story terms. These are the same kinds of players who tend to create unconnected orphans so the DM can’t use their backstory “against” them, and will kill any NPC who has ever been an enemy on the assumption that mercy is for suckers and any ex-enemy will inevitably betray or take vengeance against them (and, of course, that this is 100% downside).

      I get the distinct sense that in addition to 5e’s Background mechanics trying to pull players away from this “murderhobo” style, Eberron’s 5e treatment is fighting very hard against it as well. The trick, though, is finding enough players who’ll cooperate…

      • Amusingly enough, Eberron actually has three ways, two outright encouraged to a degree, to have everyone your character knew be dead.
        1: Be a Cyrian
        2: Be a Warforged (who never knew anyone in the first place)
        3: Have them otherwise slaughtered in Last War.

        Outright handing the DM the ability to make characters someone a player knew in the Last War, which many materials have encouraged use of, does wonders to alleviate this, particularly since the two characters don’t even need to particularly like eachother. Reminds me of WEG’s Star Wars recommendation of making players be related (because no-one gets to pick their relatives) to force them to stay together.

        • Looking to point 1, I like Cyrans because it’s so much easier to bring friends or family into play — because if they survived, a) the player character may legitimately not know about it and b) they could be anywhere. Normally, if you came from a small Brelish farming village it might be weird for your sister to show up in the Mror Holds. But if your Cyran sister shows up, it’s because your home was destroyed; the question is how she survived and what she’s been doing since then.

      • Chiming in on the orphan murderhobo problem, in my experience there are two cases of this. Case one are simply players who approach D&D like a board game and enjoy high challenge, tactics-heavy OSR dungeon crawls far more than narrative games. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I doubt most Eberron material is written with them in mind.

        The second breed seems to be the kind you’re addressing, an I find that too often they’re the result of bad experiences. DMs who railroad, punish mercy, randomly kill off family members, etc, are unfortunately common. The best way to correct them is to instill a “fail forward” GMing style. A villain getting away might be a failure, but make sure the players still gets something important out of it anyway. Maybe it’s information to permanently defeat another villain. Maybe it’s capturing the villain’s right hand man as a hostage. Maybe their doomstay weapon gets destroyed. Maybe it’s simply a massive amount of loot.

        Similarly, family hooks should be a risky complication that comes with potential for big reward. Make them into personal plots and players will jump at the chance to write personal NPCs…and actually make your job easier.

  11. I love Eberron but am massively underwhelmed by the “final” Warforged changes. Integrated Protection made far more sense than armor (though I shouldn’t be surprised after WotC removed Redemption Paladin unarmored defense ability – they seem to hate anything that doesn’t need armor). Removing Juggernaut and Skirmisher (and even removing some flexibility from Envoy/final) is also a let-down (they could have at least left the integrated tool).

    Most other races also lost minor bits but nothing as extensive as Warforged (and some shifters did get interesting additions/enhancements).

    If I’m reading it right, Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron only includes part of the Artificer class? Or did WotC change it (even in Rising from the Last War) so the only option is Alchemist? If only part, why?

    • To start with dropping proficiency to AC would have solved the awkward scaling issue and using integrated protection should have counted for wearing armor of the type you’re mimicking. If you went heavy then mechanically it should have counted as heavy for all effects that key off you wearing heavy (or shut off when you do). At which point you get a max AC 15 with good dex for medium armor or you top out at AC 16. Which effectively would be on par for what other races have when it comes to alternate AC options.

      I’m really disappointed in how warforged got treated.

      • I disagree that proficiency should have been dropped from Integrated Protection. The first time I saw it, it just clicked – that has been the problem with every unarmored defense option in 5e so far – they don’t scale. I almost never seen Barbarians not wearing armor. AC is a complaint for every Monk in 5e. Rather than removing proficiency from Warforged, they should have added it to every unarmored defense type option (and lowered the base number to account for +2 proficiency at first level).

    • Wayfarers contains only the Alchemist subclass. Rising contains all three subclasses. In some ways Wayfarers is a more basic document when it comes to setting specific rules, and like the Basic Rules PDF it only contains part of the full material.

      • That feels like a major slap in the face by Wizards. Wayfinder’s has all of the player mechanics from RftLW (ignoring the mostly identical or very slightly tweaked Volo’s races). We bought Wayfinder’s (and it is a WotC product) and now we’re effectively being told to also buy RftLW in order to play an Artificer? The official statements comparing the books said that the fluff would be different but the mechanics would be the same (which apparently doesn’t apply to the Artificer). I’m quickly losing what respect I had left for WotC.

        • The Artificer was never in Wayfinders Guide before. The Artificer is a new addition with RftLW.
          They have not taken away the artificer class from Wayfinders, they have given you new access to it, so you have the base artificer and one archetype.
          The Mechanics will be the same, the class and races will be update to that effect. you just have less options.
          But the old UA doc is still there online, and completely free.

    • I think that the Warforged change is good overall; it lets warforged more simply take advantage of magic armors without fiddly extras. Now, any magic armor is just as good for them as anyone else.

      I think taking out a little uniqueness for a lot of ease of play has been a good thing about the 5e approach. And for those of us that prefer the UA version (which I also like), we can always use it in our Eberron.

      Artificer is there with Alchemist and Artillerist – Sadly, no mystics – I don’t miss psionics, but it does seem like something missing.

    • Count me in as another person disappointed with the final, official Warforged. The earlier drafts were too strong, but this version feels like overcompensating to make them not just too weak, but undermined in flavor.

      4e-style armor rules may be more friendly to the default D&D playstyle of treasure accumulation, but to me it undercuts the idea of a being built with war alone in mind. I liked the idea behind the shapeshifting between armor modes and how it fit with other, older ideas of how a warforged’s body could grow and change; I would have much preferred an iteration on that instead, even if it ended up much weaker than before.

      I’m guessing the free skill and tool proficiency is in the final version as some kind of token nod to the whole “three pillars” idea that 5e nominally aspires to? While mechanically useful, it strikes me as wrong for a combat-centric race to be better for building less-combat-focused characters than many other races. I could have lived with those being the only benefits left for the “envoy” concept, though, and having similarly pared-down juggernaut and skirmisher subraces.

      • The earlier drafts were too strong, but this version feels like overcompensating to make them not just too weak, but undermined in flavor.

        I personally preferred the previous approach to armor as well. But I am curious about the general assertion that they are “underpowered.” The WGtE version of the warforged was largely designed to have the best Armor Class available to a character of that level. Per WGtE, a 1st level warforged using heavy plating has an armor class of 18. They get an early jump on plate armor, but a human with plate armor could match their AC. This was true throughout. They automatically got +1 plate at 4th level… but another character COULD get +1 plate. And if that other character found +2 plate, they’d actually be better off than the warforged. Essentially, under the WGtE rule, the idea was that the warforged had an AC matching the best equipment available to a character of that level. But the Rising Warforged can actually have a BETTER AC, as they ADD +1 on top of whatever armor they acquire. The WGtE warforged could have that 18 AC at 1st level with heavy plating, but a human could as well. Now, the warforged can have a *19* AC if they can acquire plate; the human can’t match that. I don’t like the FLAVOR as much, but they have the potential to be MORE powerful than the Wayfinder ‘forged, as I do the math. There are exceptions, largely stemming from classes being allowed to wear armor they normally couldn’t (such as a warforged druid having a significantly higher potential AC than a druid limited to non-metal armor), but again, that wasn’t the intent of the WGtE design; it was that they should match the best armor usually available to a character with their proficiencies, whereas the Rising warforged can actually exceed it.

        Continuing the question of being underpowered, I see a lot of people talking about Specialized Design as if it’s their primary benefit. To me this ignores the many things that make the warforged different from other creatures. You’re immune to disease and resistant to poison. You can’t be put to sleep and you remain fully aware during a long rest. You don’t need to eat, drink, or breathe; you can walk across a river if you need to. Can a half-elf do that? Your armor can’t be taken from you, and if you incorporate an armblade, your weapon can’t be taken from you either. And yes, on top of that, you also get a skill proficiency, tool proficiency, and language. I don’t think the tool proficiency and language are necessary for general warforged; I personally liked the idea that most warforged only speak common, because they have no tie to any culture and thus no need for another language unless it’s part of a specialized purpose. But again: to me, being a warforged means that I don’t eat, sleep, or breathe. It means that my armor is a part of me; perhaps I can modify it, but you can’t take it away from me. It means that I will never become sick, and that I am immune to the ravages of time. To me, the actual mechanic of the armor is less important than all of those ideas—that as a warforged, I still experience life in a very different way from other creatures.

        • Warforged: I am naturally more resilient to damage. A river will not impede my progress. I don’t eat, drink, or feel the effects of age. I am tough to poison, and I don’t suffer from disease. What can you know of my life?

          Level 15 Monk: *exists*

          (Sure, there’s more to being a Warforged, just like there’s more to being a Monk. But there is just so much overlap there that it bears paying attention to.)

          • It is funny! Though to take the side of the Traveler, a) 15th level characters are quite rare in Eberron and b) a 15th level monk still has to breathe and sleep, don’t they?

            The main issue to me is the warforged monk who reaches 15th level.
            Rules: “You’re immune to the effects of aging.”
            Warforged: “To the what now?”

        • Hi Keith!
          Regarding the power level of Wayfinder’s Warforged, it might get below other characters if the DM would give them magic items.
          However when that’s not the case, the WF would always be pretty hard to hit.

          And it was a clear distinction of the race from other “well protected” races like Turtle-man and Beasthide Shifter. In the end, rules implementation have relation to “flavor”/lore.

          Also, I think “being a warforged” is both what you listed (don’t sleep, eat, drink; no disease, resist posion) *and* be a living weapon, with armor as part of it’s own skin.

          So… I’m extremely frustrated that WotC decided to go the way they did. And that I’ll have to homebrew the race in order to make it the way it was supposed to in D&D Beyond.

      • For the tool proficiency, one can easily find a task that would be needed in military setting but not in battle. It’s a mistake to assume a soldier did more than go to battle, wait for battle and engage in battle.

        At the very least a soldier could justify Perception (Stay alert, stay alive) or athletics. Stealth (sneaking up on the enemy), Investigation (Where is the enemy? Alternatively your Warforged was an MP.), nature (“recall lore about terrain, […] the weather. and natural cycles.”), Insight (What’s the enemy going to do?), Medicine (Medic!), Survival (like Nature) and Intimidate (Scare the enemy.) are easy enough to justify. Deception is more of an officer thing, but also doable.

        Tools are the harder one. Most of them are specialized and only need a few in a group. Carpenter’s supplies (make fortifications, mend wooden objects), Calligrapher’s supplies (make maps, since conditions can change quite quickly in total war. Actually reading maps is also undervalued as a skill and it was a specially trained skill as late as WW2.), Cook’s utensils (Feed meatbag allies and meatbag animals), Mason’s tools (more fortifications), Smith’s tools (mend equipment and yourself) are all reasonable enough.

        • You make an excellent point with the skills. I could see it both working that way in a war situation and actually working out that way in character creation often. Though it still feels like it could use a couple of sentences of lore to steer it — something like, “In choosing your racial bonus skill, consider how you used it during wartime. If you can’t think of any kind of military application for your skill choice, perhaps you are an ‘envoy’ model — a rare, specialized design with an unusual purpose — rather than one of the soldiers that make up the vast majority of warforged.”

          The range of tool options that would fit this approach seems too limited to work quite the same way, though. Really, it feels vestigial to me without the Integrated Tool…

  12. I think I’ll stick with Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron. The changes which seem to be a result of Wizards’s meddling all seem pretty lame.

    • Agreed. I had been looking forward to RrtLW to get into an official AL Eberron game. Now, I have very little interest and will be using slightly tweaked Wayfinder’s versions in home Eberron games…

  13. I have only done a quick scan of the new hardcover, but I failed to notice a section on PC’s acquiring symbionts although it’s entirely possible that I missed it. I was really hoping for Daelkyr half-bloods as well as Impure Princes to make it into the book, there’s something uniquely frightening about them. It is my understanding that with space limitations and conversion difficulties being what they are, accommodating these particular items on my wishlist was always destined to be a remote possibility at best. Their absence aside, it’s still a great purchase, and I can always use my old 3rd Ed. Sharn book for more detail if I need it. Besides, I don’t play AL so I’m sure I can cook up something adequate if need be. Thanks for all your hard work on the setting throughout the years, Me. Baker, and congratulations on another great iteration of your world. Can’t wait to throw some devious Dreaming Dark agents at my players 🙂

    • Symbionts are mixed in with the other magic items in Rising. I’ll be discussing them further in Exploring Eberron.

  14. Just wanted to point out two typos:

    In the Guns paragraph: “Therte’s a place for everything in Eberron”

    and under “What’s New”:

    “Wargforged Colossus.”

  15. Hi Keith!

    Thank you for updating Wayfinder’s guide to Eberron.

    There are two minor problems in there, however.

    – The footer on pages II and III still says “Wayfarer’s” instead of “Wayfinder’s”

    – The preface on page 4 has two paragraphs of how the rules in this book are playtest and unofficial, and might appear in a future D&D book, which is outdated info.

    Any plans to do a further update? If yes, could you please fix this?

  16. I pre-ordered Rising, and am avidly perusing its mages on D&D Beyond. I think there must have been a very delicate balancing act in giving magical technology to the setting without deluging it with ‘modern’ conveniences. I’m curious where the conceptual lines were drawn between what technologies and processes were included (I notice specifically that there are newspapers, but no concept of photographers except perhaps within Magical Tinkering of the Artificer).

  17. I am glad to see a return to Eberron in 5th edition. It remains my favorites setting for DnD of all time (aside from Spelljammer which is kind of cheating).
    That being said, I am seriously not a fan of the 180 on greater dragonmarks and the way the spells are ONLY for casters. Boo. Big boo. Really not cool.
    I really hope for yet another reversal, or failing that I will just go back to the UA versions. It just irks me because I dont like using noncannon material or significant house rules like that.
    Just my 2 coppers.

  18. As an “original” Eberron fan (possessing every damn book published under 3.5 and even the 4e book), I love the new book for 5e. I suppose I could complain about the absence of the horrid rat, and how lame Wizards is for leaving it out, but that would be incredibly entitled and disingenuous. So I won’t. 🙂

    (I do miss those ugly acidic spitting little bastards, though.)

      • Easy enough to recreate them using Beyond’s homebrew thingie. I just wanted to lighten up the “OMG, WIZARDS IS @#$$&*!” narrative. 😉

  19. I see the lack of human’s mark of finding marks carried over from the revisions in wayfinder’s guide to the final book – What was the thought behind having humans losing access to the mark? (Also there appear to be a couple places in rising that were written before this decision was finalized – one even implying that humans could still get a mark of finding)

    • This is incorrect. If you read the description of the Mark of Finding on mpage 41, it details how it can be possessed by humans or half-orcs. There’s just text elsewhere in the book that missed this change, which will be addressed in errata.

      • Ah – in Rising from the Last War I did see on pg. 32 (in the half-orcs section) this phrase “Strangely, both orcs and humans associated with the house cannot develop the mark.” – though the human section on pg 29 is “Humans also number among House Tharask and manifest the Mark of Finding with their half-orc kin.” – and then didn’t actually read the mark of Finding section on page 41 – I read the mark of finding section in Wayfinder’s guide instead, assuming it had been updated correctly – and it lead me to believe that humans were still not going to get finding marks like the previous versions of the Wayfinder’s Guide

  20. Are you planning to update Morgrave Miscellany to account for the mechanical changes found in Rising? I would especially like some official rules for how fledgling dragonmarks would work with the new dragonmarks.

    • I know Ruty is working on updating the content of the Morgrave Miscellany, but I don’t know the precise timeline.

  21. I found a potential typo for the Living Cloudkill’s statblock. I thought it was weird that it had worse Constitution than both of the other, weaker examples (14 vs their 16 and 18), and looking at the math (like the bonuses to hit points, attack rolls, and save DCs), it looks like it was supposed to be 20.

  22. Regarding Dragonmarks… other thing that changed, conceptually, is that the spells were supposed to be uttility powers, and for example Tharashk now has Hunter’s Mark witch is a combat spell (that sergienses extremely well with Rogue)

    Sometimes I think people at Wizards don’t have the same care for lore and setting consistency as most setting fans do 🙁

    • It’s not mentioned in Rising. The main thing is that in 3.5, many aberrations — including dolgrims, dolgaunts, and mind flayers – had damage reduction 5/byeshk. That’s been dropped in Rising, which means that the immediate need for it is reduced. However, it could easily be presented asa substance that is innately anathema to aberrations; byeshk weapons could add an extra +1d6 damage to aberrations.

  23. So, I finally just got this for a campaign I’m planning on running soon, and I’m enjoying the read so far but I have a couple questions.

    First of all, the section on the blood of vol says that it was founded “By Erandis D’vol, an elf from Aerenal”

    Is this true? That is to say, did… Erandis actually found the Blood of Vol, and that’s why she has such a grip on its upper workings even if most people of the faith on the ground level are ignorant that she even exists? Previously I was under the impression that unrelated servants and allies of house Vol had founded it without the direct intervention of anyone from the actual house Vol.

    And if it is true, is that actually widely known knowledge? I’d think that it would have rather concerned Agonessen and Aerenal if a religion founded by someone bearing the name of Vol started up not long after they supposedly wiped out the entire family…

    Secondly, I like the stats for ah, Lady Illmarrow, but I have to admit I’m kind of a fan of how 3.5 often had particularly big baddies have actual player class levels, and I was wondering what you would think of the idea of making her an actual wizard (Necromancy school archetype) with the lich and half dragon goodies from the provided statblock sprinkled on? I’m aware that the PC’s are special, and having class levels distinguishes them, but I kind of like the idea of a lategame antagonist also having class levels, facing an equally “special” threat and all.

    It’d make her stronger, for sure, but she’s already a pretty late-game threat anyway considering her 5E stats have her at 20th level spellcaster instead of the previous 16th, and I don’t feel like giving “the most powerful necromancer on the planet” the necromancer wizard abilities is far fetched or anything.

    • First of all, the section on the blood of vol says that it was founded “By Erandis D’vol, an elf from Aerenal” Is this true?

      No, that’s a mistake. The truth is in the sidebar on page 297, which observes that both the Blood of Vol and Lady Illmarrow are LEGACIES of the line of Vol. but that followers of the Blood of Vol don’t inherently worship or serve Erandis. During the time the religion developed Erandis was in deep hiding; it was INSPIRED by the teachings of the Blood of Vol, but the idea of the Divinity Within came entirely from Khorvaire. The Undying Court checked it out because of the name and concluded that there was no direct connection despite the name (… because there WAS no direct connection).

      Also, Erandis was never “d’Vol.” The d’ suffix is an invention of the Dragonmarked Houses. The line of Vol was eradicated long before the houses came to be.

      And I see no issue with given Illmarrow additional abilities.

      • Alright thanks, that’s what I thought considering that’s a common mistake and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you correct similar errors before, but the fact that it was in such a recent book that you worked on confused me a bit so I thought I’d check.

        Appreciate the response, hope you have a good thanksgiving 🙂

  24. On page 21, there’s an image of a Tairnadal elf in Vulkoori armor. Even more interestingly, her skin is dark brown like some wood elves, but her hair is white like a drow. What’s up with that? Is there a character with a story behind this illustration?

    Speaking of, high elves and wood elves are mapped to Aereni and Tairnadal cultures now. I’ve always been under the impression that those are separate religions, but not separate ethnic groups, and there are wood elves and high elves among both. Has that been changed?

    • Is there a character with a story behind this illustration?

      I wasn’t involved in commissioning the art for Rising, so I don’t know what instructions were given to the artist. It could be that this is supposed to be a Vulkoori drow, and that the caption is an error. A more exotic possibility is either that it’s a Tairnadal whose patron ancestor went undercover among the drow and thus they are emulating their use of this armor, or that it’s the Tairnadal descendent of a drow who rebelled and became one of the patron ancestors. So there may well be a story here, but I don’t know what it is.

      Speaking of, high elves and wood elves are mapped to Aereni and Tairnadal cultures now. I’ve always been under the impression that those are separate religions, but not separate ethnic groups, and there are wood elves and high elves among both. Has that been changed?

      It has always been my personal preference to say that all of the culture of Aerenal include both wood and high elves—that this reflects nuture rather than nature. With that being said, I can see the logic to the assignment. The Aereni are noted for their arcane sophistication, and the idea of all Aereni knowing a cantrip is logical. Meanwhile, the Tairnadal are swift warriors. So if you HAD to assign a subrace to each, it makes sense. However, I do present an unofficial alternative in Exploring Eberron. And as a DM, I’d personally allow a Tairnadal player to use the high elf subrace if it fit their character concept, or allow a Deathguard paladin of Aerenal to use the wood elf subrace.

      • The idea that there are half-drow (or more likely less than half) among the Tairnadal or Aereni is fascinating to me. How common is drow descent among these groups? Conversely, how common is elf blood among the drow of Xen’drik? I would assume they’re fairly rare, but would it be almost nonexistent, or is it rare but not unheard of. Would it be logical for elves to speculate that the elf with red eyes and white hair but isn’t albino to have some drow blood, whether it’s factual or not?

        • How common is drow descent among these groups?

          Incredibly low. After all, the drow were literally created to fight the ancestors of the Tairnadal and presumably mystically indoctrinated. However, we’ve said before that “incredibly low” isn’t “impossible” – that you could have a drow member of the Undying Court or a rebel drow as a Tairnadal ancestor.

          Elves among the drow of Xen’drik would likely be even rarer. The drow who remained behind were presumably those loyal to the giants, and again, they were made to kill elves. That indoctrination was largely lost after giant civilization collapsed, but it would likely have taken a few generations… so it seems unlikely that they’d have embraced elf survivors.

          But again, “extraordinarily rare” isn’t “impossible.”

  25. Hi Keith,

    I got into dnd a few years ago and this is my first experience with Eberron. I love the book! The world is so well thought-out, and I feel like interesting seeds of tension are everywhere for the DM and players to engage with. And then I find your blog which has even more detail! All this content is great; thank you for creating it.

    I have some questions for you about Eberron if I can find you at PAX Unplugged!

    • I’m going to have a few signings at my booth (Twogether Studios), so I shouldn’t be hard to find!

  26. Have been trying and failing to find a place to purchase a digital copy. Guess it hasn’t been released in that format yet.

    • I don’t think that WotC releases their print books in a digital format; so the closest you’ll get is the Wayfinder’s Guide to Eberron.

  27. On page 240, the book says there are tables for street events on lower Sharn, middle Sharn, upper Sharn, and Skyway, but as far as I can tell there is no table for middle Sharn anywhere. Am I crazy?

  28. just a quick question.. in 5e did they remove the headdress that the Kalasthar wear? I’ve been pouring over the book to try and find these (can’t remember the name of them) and the special material they use to construct them.

    • These headdresses are called pela, and are commonly made of a psiactive material called sentira. They haven’t been REMOVED; they simply haven’t been MENTIONED, just as they aren’t mentioned by name or material in the 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting book. The Kalashtar on page 317 and the Inspired on page 294 of Rising are wearing forms of those headdresses, even if they aren’t precisely the same design.

      • Thank you so very much! I loved all the detail of Eberron, and was hoping the Pela made it.. Kalashtars life and birth was one of my all time favorite stories of Eberron, I’m very happy it’s back.

  29. Not a review but a PREVIEW from the game designer! im a big fan from eberron and i got the book to retake gaming eberron, i played in 4th (as played) but i was DM back on 2004 and have a good blog about my Eberron Cronicles in purple

    I would retake that proyect since eberron it´s my favorite setting above all, i really like the changes on the setting and will play with my now 8 years old son! let see how it goes! 😀

    Cheers from Venezuela! #WEDOPLAY Calabozo Criollo


  30. In the original version of Eberron the Blood of Vol was an evil cult controlled by Erandis/Illmarrow, but this is not how it’s presented in the current core book. Have things actually changed, or does the more benign description (145) simply represent the public face of the sect?

    • This article provides more information. http://keith-baker.com/dragonmark-the-blood-of-vol/

      The Blood of Vol was misrepresented in the 3.5 ECS, and there’s alternate details about it in Sharn: City of Towers and other later books. The intent has always been that the Blood of Vol is a legitimate religion, while the Emerald Claw is an evil extremist sect of that religion controlled by Lady Illmarrow. The Blood of Vol itself is grim, but not inherently evil.

Comments are closed.