Fizban's first impressions

[Psyren]

Tiamat on Eberron?

Spoiler

Show

[JackPhoenix]

Oh, bother!

I thought for sure that Tiamat's presence on Eberron was a 4e-ism. Which made it very easy to read RftLW's guidance on bringing the likes of Tiamat, Asmodeus and Lolth to the setting, either as their Great Wheel selves or as Khyber overlords.

But if long-time Eberron fans expect a Tiamat, then it becomes another lore-related headache.

I know her constellation was pictured in the original ECS, though I don't remember what other informations about her were there... she's certainly mentioned in Dragons of Eberron, for obvious reasons. Unlike Asmodeus and Lolth: Asmodeus and Baator was forced into Eberron in 4e, while Lolth appeared in DDO's expansion as a way to create crossover between Eberron and Forgotten Realms.

[samcifer]

I believe it's the same, which is on par with the Steel Defender, what was happening that it was dying so frequently? Was it at least saving the party some hits?

Not sure,but the dm trikes to buff monsters take harder encounters for pcs, which might have made the drake have a harder time surviving.

[Dork_Forge]

Not sure,but the dm trikes to buff monsters take harder encounters for pcs, which might have made the drake have a harder time surviving.

If that's the case, then the Drake probably ate a lot of damage for the PCs, it might not feel good for the player, but it was certainly doing its job.

[Ralanr]

Not sure,but the dm trikes to buff monsters take harder encounters for pcs, which might have made the drake have a harder time surviving.

If you're in Rime the DM doesn't need to buff anything.

[Millstone85]

I know her constellation was pictured in the original ECS, though I don't remember what other informations about her were there... she's certainly mentioned in Dragons of Eberron, for obvious reasons. Unlike Asmodeus and Lolth: Asmodeus and Baator was forced into Eberron in 4e, while Lolth appeared in DDO's expansion as a way to create crossover between Eberron and Forgotten Realms.

In that case, and if Eberron is in any way connected to the Great Wheel, I simply can't think of a scenario in which the overlord Tiamat isn't an avatar of the goddess Tiamat.

[JackPhoenix]

In that case, and if Eberron is in any way connected to the Great Wheel, I simply can't think of a scenario in which the overlord Tiamat isn't an avatar of the goddess Tiamat.

Eberron was not connected to the Great Wheel in any way in the original incarnation, and Overlords aren't gods. Sure, some worship them, but that doesn't make them divine. True gods don't have any physical representation on Eberron, no matter what some beings claim about themselves, assuming gods are even real in the first place.

This is not Forgotten Realms, where gods bother (and knock up) honest people about twice a year.

[Millstone85]

Eberron was not connected to the Great Wheel in any way in the original incarnation, and Overlords aren't gods. Sure, some worship them, but that doesn't make them divine. True gods don't have any physical representation on Eberron, no matter what some beings claim about themselves, assuming gods are even real in the first place.

This is not Forgotten Realms, where gods bother (and knock up) honest people about twice a year.

What I meant to say is that even the impassable barrier presented in RftLW is too much of a connection. To go old-school Eberron, a DM must decide that it is as separate from the Great Wheel as it is from non-D&D fictional universes, like Star Trek or Super Mario Bros..

Otherwise, gods do exist, on the other side of the barrier. And while that may or may not include the Sovereign Host, it does include a certain multi-headed dragoness who had her share of Torilian shenanigans.

[JackPhoenix]

In other news, who's responsible for that illustration of Laurana fighting Kitiara? Why in the Nine Hells is Laurana red-haired?

[DigoDragon]

I have been lurking here to see what might be said about kobolds, but I guess the lack of talk means it's as boring as I feared it to be? XD

I remember seeing something about kobolds getting their pack tactics ability replaced with something really dull that wasn't even kobold flavored. Was curious if it indeed happened?

Space is often treated much like the sea in fiction.

In a homebrew setting I have, people generally assume that "space" is like a sea of sorts, but in reality it really is space and the other planes are just other planets you can reach through a hyperspace network that everyone calls astral space (it is one of those settings that takes place on a far future Earth after a cataclysmic event that most everyone forgot about except for some elves and dragons who don't like to talk about it because they were involved).

[Ralanr]

I have been lurking here to see what might be said about kobolds, but I guess the lack of talk means it's as boring as I feared it to be? XD

I remember seeing something about kobolds getting their pack tactics ability replaced with something really dull that wasn't even kobold flavored. Was curious if it indeed happened?




In a homebrew setting I have, people generally assume that "space" is like a sea of sorts, but in reality it really is space and the other planes are just other planets you can reach through a hyperspace network that everyone calls astral space (it is one of those settings that takes place on a far future Earth after a cataclysmic event that most everyone forgot about except for some elves and dragons who don't like to talk about it because they were involved).

Kobolds didn't make the book.

[PhantomSoul]

Kobolds didn't make the book.

Ah, so the idea of changing Kobolds was completely dumped from the UA (at least for this book; UA in https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/d...nicOptions.pdf)

[KorvinStarmast]

In other news, who's responsible for that illustration of Laurana fighting Kitiara? Why in the Nine Hells is Laurana red-haired?

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but artistic license does a variety of things, to include depicting a paladin (oath of Glory) as a nearly naked/unarmored humanoid. And a redemption paladin as a robed, unarmored humanoid...and I had a similar reaction to that picture.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but artistic license does a variety of things, to include depicting a paladin (oath of Glory) as a nearly naked/unarmored humanoid.

• The illustration for the Oath of Glory is derived from Art History.
• The Oath of Glory was Released in Theros, a world inspired by Ancient Greek Myths.
• The Oath of Glory seems to be designed to make a Herculean Paladin

The 'Traditional' depiction of Heracles is bare chested with the skin of the Nemean Lion.

The piece of art with the Barechested Tiefling with a Feline Skin Mantle is drawing off of Art History....Bare Chested Males with Lion-Skin Mantles screams Heracles like 'laser swords' scream Star Wars.

Now bare chested females on lion skin rugs screams Hugh Hefner🃏

[ProsecutorGodot]

And a redemption paladin as a robed, unarmored humanoid.

It's not that outlandish, the UA gave them that completely ridiculous unarmored AC, it's possible the art was made while that version was in testing and they decided to keep it.

It works from a thematic standpoint, since redemption paladins avoid unnecessary combat it makes some sense that they wouldn't be dressed for it unless necessary. I leaned on the unarmored and unassuming theme for my own until the magical armor we started finding was a significant upgrade over a staff of defense and mage armor.

[Amnestic]

It's not that outlandish, the UA gave them that completely ridiculous unarmored AC, it's possible the art was made while that version was in testing and they decided to keep it.

Had to check out how ridiculous it was - 16+Dex while unarmoured+no shield.

Would probably be okay if it started at 13+Dex and scaled up to either 15 or 16 at a later level (7?) tbh

[KorvinStarmast]

[*]The illustration for the Oath of Glory is derived from Art History.

We are not at a museum, we are playing D&D, 5th edition. In D&D, paladins are armored knights. (I have the Theros book. They didn't remove armor from the game). Heracles wasn't a paladin. He was certainly a great hero.
As an aside, I'd have loved to see something like a Hoplite or Myrmidon figure for the Oath of Glory in Tasha's. Greek heavy infantry from the classical age can look badass.

As to the barechested, lion-hide caped lady it screams either Frank Frazetta or Boris Vallejo to me. Because-we are playing D&D.

It works from a thematic standpoint

Except that they totally left out the Unarmored Defense piece. Sloppy work by the editing and creative teams to not talk to each other before Xanathar art concept went final in order to match the final design choice. And by the way, thematically I loved the concept but would rather they had gone all in on the 'this paladin can be unarmored and here's how to compute their unarmored AC: Dex Plus Proficiency bonus, can use a shield. Yes, this makes for a really high armor class at high levels, but for the non violence schtick to work that AC needs to be high due to the game's built in lethality and the Prof Bonus for monsters moving up with Paladin's AC ...

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The classic setting with the most... Unique... Dragons is Dark Sun, I'm somewhat surprised the Kings didn't get a mention

They're not really dragons essentially.

Mixing Arcane magic with psionics does... something... to a person. How you wield arcane tempers the outcome. But Ascended Defilers are no more actual dragons than Ascended Preservers are Celestials or.. whatever an Avangion is.

They just have a thematic similarity.

Well then we have a Prime world with no 'echo dragons' at all

They're just all dead at this point.

Or in a fun twist.. What if Athas is the pre-history of Eberron? Secrets of Sarlona has a whole bit about this desert area that used to be ruled by might Sorcerer-Kings in ages past. Maybe they didn't break the whole world like they thought, maybe it was a selective area before Psionic humans spread and eventually moved forward? :)

Perhaps the key to healing Athas is to somehow give it proper dragons.

Which fits even better if you maybe suggest Argonessen's influence or that despite the creation myth maybe Syberis, Eberron and Khyber came later.

[Azuresun]

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but artistic license does a variety of things, to include depicting a paladin (oath of Glory) as a nearly naked/unarmored humanoid. And a redemption paladin as a robed, unarmored humanoid...and I had a similar reaction to that picture.

What if I told you that some Paladins don't wear armour 24/7?

[Fynzmirs]

I'm not a fan of some of the new spells, namely Summon Draconic Spirit and Draconic Transformation. They aren't *bad*, and I would even argue that they are both pretty powerful.

My issue with Summon Draconic Spirit is the same as with Tasha's summon spells - they don't summon a creature but rather something that looks like a certain creature and pretends to be that creature. And it doesn't feel as satisfying as using a monster stat block. I undestand that it's difficult to balance summoning spells against the ever-growing list of monsters but I would rather they limited summonable creatures to a specific list (as in some 3.5/pathfinder spells) than made all summons samey. And somehow a creature with 5d10 hit dice and a +3 Con modifier has an average hit points of 50.

I don't have any mechanical issues with Draconic Transformation, I like buff spells. But when I read the spell's name I thought it will allow to transform into a dragon (so increase size, probably change AC etc.) and instead I got a buff spell. A fine buff spell but my disappointment is immesurable and my day is ruined.

I like the new archetypes. Not sure why the monk's "flight" is so limited, they could have made it slightly better.

[JackPhoenix]

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but artistic license does a variety of things, to include depicting a paladin (oath of Glory) as a nearly naked/unarmored humanoid. And a redemption paladin as a robed, unarmored humanoid...and I had a similar reaction to that picture.

Artistic licence is one thing, and even paladins take the armor off from time to time. But when someone's defining feature is her hair color, and you get that one wrong.... Laurana was called the Golden General for a reason, for f...izban's sake!

Seriously, I'm not much of a Dragonlance fan, I've read the books about 15 years ago, and it still gave me pause when I've read the image's description.

[Naanomi]

Maybe they didn't break the whole world like they thought, maybe it was a selective area before Psionic humans spread and eventually moved forward?

Darksun lore they definitely broke the whole planet. More than once actually. Mostly by screwing with their own sun, and poorly thought out bioengineering. The damage caused by defiling was just the icing on the apocalypse cake. Heck, the main setting was among the more *habitable* remaining regions by most accounts

Eberron could have parallel events, of course, because 'everything in DnD is in Eberron'

[strangebloke]

In other news, who's responsible for that illustration of Laurana fighting Kitiara? Why in the Nine Hells is Laurana red-haired?

I don't know, looks within the range of what you could call "golden hair" to me. Hair color is one of those things that everyone has a different definition for. My wife's been called blond, brunette, and redhead!

[Psyren]

My issue with Summon Draconic Spirit is the same as with Tasha's summon spells - they don't summon a creature but rather something that looks like a certain creature and pretends to be that creature. And it doesn't feel as satisfying as using a monster stat block. I undestand that it's difficult to balance summoning spells against the ever-growing list of monsters but I would rather they limited summonable creatures to a specific list (as in some 3.5/pathfinder spells) than made all summons samey. And somehow a creature with 5d10 hit dice and a +3 Con modifier has an average hit points of 50.

I vastly prefer the Tasha style summons. Everything you need is in one place instead of needing to crack open the Monster Manual, the creature scales with your spell slot and derives from your stats, you can guarantee what you'll get instead of relying on GM goodwill, the GM doesn't have to figure what is in the area, they can impact the battlefield without clogging it, etc.

Starfinder summons work the same way (summon a self-contained stat block that improves with slot level) and it's just better imo.

[Fynzmirs]

I vastly prefer the Tasha style summons. Everything you need is in one place instead of needing to crack open the Monster Manual, the creature scales with your spell slot and derives from your stats, you can guarantee what you'll get instead of relying on GM goodwill, the GM doesn't have to figure what is in the area, they can impact the battlefield without clogging it, etc.

Starfinder summons work the same way (summon a self-contained stat block that improves with slot level) and it's just better imo.

It's great for quick games and as a spell occasionally cast by a spellcaster. It's easy to use and understand, I won't deny that. However, and that is my subjective opinion, it doesn't feel as good, especially as a dedicated summoner. You see all those cool things that monsters can do that are forever beyond players' reach (of which there are many more in 5e than in 3.5) and, for me, playing as a conjurer is a way to access that.

Does it require bookkeeping, choosing on the fly what the best summon would be (when possible) and managing multiple bodies on the battlefield? Yes, obviously. And I get that it is difficult for newer players, especially without disrupting the flow of the game. But there is a ton of playstyles designed to be as new-player-friendly as possible. I was always of an opinion that having one more difficult one was a good thing (as it helps to keep more experienced/munchkiny players engaged). And sure, you can tell them "go play 3.5/another system" but in many places around the world finding players is much more difficult than in western urban centers and it's generally a good thing when the most popular system has something to offer for all kinds of players.

That said, I have nothing against Tasha's summon spells existing. I'm no elitist and I'm fine with having more approachable ways to play a conjurer. What I dislike is that it seems like those new summon spells aren't just a simpler alternative, but rather a new design direction. And I (again, subjectively) feel that one of my favourite playstyles is threatened by that direction.

[JackPhoenix]

It's great for quick games and as a spell occasionally cast by a spellcaster. It's easy to use and understand, I won't deny that. However, and that is my subjective opinion, it doesn't feel as good, especially as a dedicated summoner. You see all those cool things that monsters can do that are forever beyond players' reach (of which there are many more in 5e than in 3.5) and, for me, playing as a conjurer is a way to access that.

Does it require bookkeeping, choosing on the fly what the best summon would be (when possible) and managing multiple bodies on the battlefield? Yes, obviously. And I get that it is difficult for newer players, especially without disrupting the flow of the game. But there is a ton of playstyles designed to be as new-player-friendly as possible. I was always of an opinion that having one more difficult one was a good thing (as it helps to keep more experienced/munchkiny players engaged). And sure, you can tell them "go play 3.5/another system" but in many places around the world finding players is much more difficult than in western urban centers and it's generally a good thing when the most popular system has something to offer for all kinds of players.

That said, I have nothing against Tasha's summon spells existing. I'm no elitist and I'm fine with having more approachable ways to play a conjurer. What I dislike is that it seems like those new summon spells aren't just a simpler alternative, but rather a new design direction. And I (again, subjectively) feel that one of my favourite playstyles is threatened by that direction.

I give most Trasha's summons a pass, with one exception: Summon Beast. There are lot of various demons, elementals, fey, constructs or aberrations, so the spell summoning a specific type represented by the stat block is not much of an issue, and appearance can be mutable there. It's not an imp, or a horned devil, or some other specific creature from the MM. Summon Beast, however, summons an animal which can look like an existing type of animal, while using the exact same stat block to represent "wolf", "boar", "ape" or "badger" or whatever you'd fit under the Beast of the Land. But those animals are *not* the same, have different abilities, and their MM stat blocks are different from the block the spell gives us. I have the same issue with Summon Draconic Spirit: It's clearly intended to represent a specific type of dragon, yet it doesn't behave like any other dragon of that type in the game.

[Segev]

I personally think making the summon spells have a short list the caster knows, and needing to find ways to research more, would be a reasonable limit to both the analysis paralysis and potential abuse.

Summon Lion and Summon Giant Spider are really both Summon Beast and you can prepare just that and have the other two, but you habe to actually know them to use summon beast that way.

[strangebloke]

Not sure why we're talking about summoning but my personal take is:

I don't like summoning as a mechanic and I think it makes for a bad play experience and I swear people who want summoning will never be content until malconvoking planar binders come back

[jas61292]

Not sure why we're talking about summoning but my personal take is:

I don't like summoning as a mechanic and I think it makes for a bad play experience and I swear people who want summoning will never be content until malconvoking planar binders come back

I basically agree with this. If the game is going to be designed with combat as a major focus, and such combats are typically going to be skirmishes between small groups, you simply cannot have characters whose whole thing is controlling multiple creatures and expect it to be balanced. Action economy is too important to allow a character to just break it for free. We see that issue with every summon spell. No matter how weak, they are all among the most busted for their level. Heck, even having a single permanent companion is incredibly difficult to do. We've now had multiple takes on the concept across a few classes, and I'm not convinced any of them are truly balanced against their alternatives.

While I much prefer the newer summon spells to the conjure ones from the PHB, I'd really just prefer none of them exist in the first place. Players should play a single character. More than that just does not work well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not sure why we're talking about summoning but my personal take is:

I don't like summoning as a mechanic and I think it makes for a bad play experience and I swear people who want summoning will never be content until malconvoking planar binders come back

I basically agree with this. If the game is going to be designed with combat as a major focus, and such combats are typically going to be skirmishes between small groups, you simply cannot have characters whose whole thing is controlling multiple creatures and expect it to be balanced. Action economy is too important to allow a character to just break it for free. We see that issue with every summon spell. No matter how weak, they are all among the most busted for their level. Heck, even having a single permanent companion is incredibly difficult to do. We've now had multiple takes on the concept across a few classes, and I'm not convinced any of them are truly balanced against their alternatives.

While I much prefer the newer summon spells to the conjure ones from the PHB, I'd really just prefer none of them exist in the first place. Players should play a single character. More than that just does not work well.

Count me in here, mostly. I don't ban it, but I do strongly request that players at my table settle on one or two pre-discussed options, and only summon one or two things. And if it bogs stuff down, we'll have to figure out something else.

As far as balance, I find that anything that lets you dive through other books is going to be inherently difficult to balance, even without the extra action economy. So on that matter, the Tasha's-style summoning ones are way better than the PHB-style Conjure ones. And I'd prefer if the polymorph line went somewhere similar.

As far as "why aren't you summoning that exact thing?" You're not summoning a beast at all. You're summoning a spirit, that takes a shape similar to that creature, modified by your own imagination.

Spoiler: For those who have played FFXIV through at least 5.0

Show

It's like the difference between fighting Titan back at lower levels and fighting Titan during the Eden series of raids. The one summoned by the kobolds as their god and the one summoned from the WoL's memory via Eden's power are similar, but decidedly different. The old-school one didn't have wheels, after all.