[4e] Regarding Eberron and psionics

[overduegalaxy]

I idly mentioned that the 4e Eberron books were practically right around the corner to my group tonight, and they expressed a bit of interest in moving the campaign to 4e (I've got a Paladin/Grey Guard who's been lusting after the Avenger since PHB2 came out) after the books are released.

However, this got me thinking: With PHB2 out and still no mention of psionics, how exactly will that be handled in Eberron? The earliest we could see a comprehensive list of psionic roles is PHB3, which is what, six months away? A year?

So how exactly are players and DMs supposed to handle this rather large hole in what makes Eberron, Eberron? I mean, without psionics, the entire continent and culture of Sarlona is unworkable, to say nothing of the rest of the world. Sure, you can easily reflavor the Wizard as a Psion and the Swordmage as a Psychic Warrior or Soulknife and so on, but there will always be one of "those" players who follow the rules to a T and if it's not written in a book, it can't be done.

One of my players speculated that we might see two new classes in the Eberron Player's Guide: The Artificer and the Psion, pointing out that the FRPG had two new classes (sort of). However, I don't expect Wizards would introduce an entire new power source in a campaign setting book.

After realizing this, it's made me more than a little reluctant to make the switch. I've got two members of the party who'd have to make due without their psionics until such time as Wizards drops the splatbook they need.

[Neo]

I'd say wait and see what the books are like when they come out, as they might butcher the setting like FR or they might just ignore the parts that can't be done mechanically.

[TheOOB]

For players, you are pretty much boned until the book with psionics comes out. My guess is players handbook 3 will cover ki and psychic heroes, but that's nothing but wild speculation.

For NPC's it's not that hard, just give them a couple of powers that feel psionic-ish. Since NPC's don't have classes per say, it doesn't matter.

[Asbestos]

I'd say wait and see what the books are like when they come out, as they might butcher the setting like FR or they might just ignore the parts that can't be done mechanically.

Well, they can only butcher it so much since its set what... a year after it was originally? They mentioned something like that, its nothing like the 200 years after the apocalypse that the FR setting was put in.

Annnd... yeah, I've been wondering about the whole psionics thing in Eberron too. First off, WotC has already statted out Warforged (in a Dragon article) and I believe at some point they said that they want to avoid republishing the same material, they've also recently given Shifters a full write up in the PHB2. Now, FR had two races statted out in it. Eberron has two races left once you take Shifters and Warforged into account. One of these races is psionic and so setting specific that I don't see it being shoehorned into the generic setting via the PHB3. Shifters and Warforged and Changelings, sure I can see those in other settings, but Kalashtar? So, my suspicion is that somehow we'll end up with a psionic race... but no psionics. That's my guess at least.

[kamikasei]

A possibility: they will publish "non-psionic" versions of Kalashtar, Quori, etc. in the ECS, just giving them whatever the 4e equivalent of spell-like abilities is. Those races will then have psionic versions included in the Psionics sourcebook, which will tie them in to the actual rules. Once both are published, this doesn't really amount to any greater burden on players than needing both the XPH and ECS to play properly psionic characters in 3.5 Eberron. It's just in the intervening period that the difference matters, in which case they're just saying "don't play a psionic character, or reskin a wizard if you must".

[Sebastian]

You must remember that 4e don't have "systems". you don't have a magic system, a psionic system and so on, you have "powers" all you need is a new class with relative powers, PP, epic level and feats, some magic item specific for it, maybe some ritual with the psionic requirement and you are done. Monsters/NPC will have their own specific powers with the psionic/psichic keyword or psionic fluff, but not unlike "normal" monsters.

So, all they need is the artificer class, one, maybe two psionic classes (scholar and warrior, for example) and Eberron is pretty much playable.

I'm more worried about how they do dragonmarks.

[RebelRogue]

I think they will just postpone that part of the Eberron setting TBH, at least for player characters. Most Eberron Heroes hail from Khorvaire or Aerenal anyway, and while psionics are not limited to Sarlona it is still intimately linked to the continent, thematically. So, while it's a fully integrated part of the setting, it's not an integral part of it, IMO.

When the psionic power source is published (the relevant PHB will surely have the Kalashtar as a race) you can make Sarlonan/psionic characters, until then, you're out of luck!

[kamikasei]

When the psionic power source is published (the relevant PHB will surely have the Kalashtar as a race) you can make Sarlonan/psionic characters, until then, you're out of luck!

That's a point, actually. Given the lots-and-lots-a-books approach of 4e (as I understand it - producing multiple books under single topics, in the vein of the monster manuals from 3e), they might make the ECS a general overview with rules for Khorvaire-based characters, then cover Kalashtar and psiforged and so on in a Sarlonan book, have a book for Xen'drik, the Argonessen, etc., each including detailed rules for a particular set of races and classes (possibly tied to the release of general sourcebooks linked to the area's theme).

It still seems likely that they'd have basic rules in the ECS, though, much as they had the bare-bones rules for monster races in the MM. It doesn't hurt them to provide a stopgap for the players if they save all the racial feats, paragon paths, etc. for later books.

[RebelRogue]

To be fair, you needed just as many books in 3.5 to run a "full" Eberron campaign: if your happened not to have or use the XPH, no problem; just ignored that part of the setting, more or less. If you wanted extra info on Xen'drik, you had to purchase another book etc.

[NPCMook]

They'll probably do some Excerpts from the book in June, though I'm kind of curious if they will add some Eberron Races in that book like they did with the Forgotten Realms, hopefully no redundancy on Warforged, though I wonder what race that is next to the Warforged on the cover

[Asbestos]

That's a point, actually. Given the lots-and-lots-a-books approach of 4e (as I understand it - producing multiple books under single topics, in the vein of the monster manuals from 3e), they might make the ECS a general overview with rules for Khorvaire-based characters, then cover Kalashtar and psiforged and so on in a Sarlonan book, have a book for Xen'drik, the Argonessen, etc., each including detailed rules for a particular set of races and classes (possibly tied to the release of general sourcebooks linked to the area's theme).

Except that, unless I'm mistaken, campaign settings get two books and that's it. Psiforged are relatively minor, it'd be easy to just have a feat for Warforged that made them 'psiforged', which is exactly how 3.x did it too.

On Dragonmarks: I think we'll see this as some sort of 'background' bonus or as feats... or some combination.

@Kamekasi: I seriously doubt that they will publish psionic and non-psionic versions of the same race just to include them ahead of time. My guess is that either the race [Kalashtar] will appear in Eberron (which I sincerely believe it will since its so setting specific) or it will show up in a later PHB with only a brief mention in the Eberron books (like the Half-Orcs and Gnomes for FR)

[oxybe]

i'd bet that the dragonmarks will work one of 2 ways:

feat chain: heroic -> paragon -> epic . least, lesser & greater dragonmarks, each with it's own power or ability.

or

similiar to what they did with spellscarring in FR

[Asbestos]

i'd bet that the dragonmarks will work one of 2 ways:

feat chain: heroic -> paragon -> epic . least, lesser & greater dragonmarks, each with it's own power or ability.

or

similiar to what they did with spellscarring in FR

Except that the Spellscarred is basically a full on class, so I don't think it will be quite like it, though I think that you'll be able to choose whether you have a dragonmark or not, similar to how you can choose to have a spellscar (and in fact need one to take further spellscar related feats)


Something I've been thinking... If they don't re-publish Warforged (which I doubt they will), they will most certainly publish Warforged related feats. I think that Eberron may be the first instance of something in a book directly referring to something published in Dragon.

[hewhosaysfish]

Sure, you can easily reflavor the Wizard as a Psion and the Swordmage as a Psychic Warrior or Soulknife and so on...

Sounds like a workable stop-gap solution to me.

...but there will always be one of "those" players who follow the rules to a T and if it's not written in a book, it can't be done.

Well that's their problem isn't it?

[InkEyes]

They'll probably do some Excerpts from the book in June, though I'm kind of curious if they will add some Eberron Races in that book like they did with the Forgotten Realms, hopefully no redundancy on Warforged, though I wonder what race that is next to the Warforged on the cover

My bet is on Changeling. Wizards seems to like putting the most unusual-looking races on the covers of their books.

[overduegalaxy]

Something I've been thinking... If they don't re-publish Warforged (which I doubt they will), they will most certainly publish Warforged related feats. I think that Eberron may be the first instance of something in a book directly referring to something published in Dragon.

Well, technically they're statted out in the MM, but I see what you're getting at.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing how Wizards can effectively make the Changeling different enough from the Doppelganger.

[Inyssius Tor]

Personally, I'm interested in seeing how Wizards can effectively make the Changeling different enough from the Doppelganger.

Huh? What gives you the idea that they intend to make an entirely different Changeling race, descended from mythical doppelgangers that bear no relation to the new Doppelganger, with features and appearance and inclinations and fluff text identical to the new Doppelganger... instead of just using the Doppelganger?

Hell, even with the actual huge differences between Doppelgangers and his Changelings in 3.X, that was Keith Baker's original plan! He didn't have any intention of doing the whole doppelganger-heritage thing until his editors told him to; apparently they were leery of publishing an LA-buyoff race in their core books.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I was under the impression that 3.5 Changelings == 4th Doppelgangers myself. If nothing else, it'd confuse people less when I talk about my Changeling: The Lost game and the D&D game where I play a Changeling.

Regarding the original topic of psionics, they'll probably largely ignore Sarlona for a year and then release a supplement to bring everything up to speed when the PHB3 comes out. That's how I'd do it if I worked for WotC and could therefore get away with it. Basic Quori/Inspired/Illithids/whatever will probably have monster/NPC stats, but no classes.