Quote from: Omega;814300I agree here. Unless warforged cannot ever wear armour, then a +2 to AC in 5e is a bit more than I'd allow. +1 is allready into the "rare" stage which in 5e shouldn't be popping up till around level 5, and +2 is "very rare" Which is stuff supposedly around level 11.

And I am not seeing any prohibitions on wearing armour. Or any downsides at all. Which (aside from the Drow,) fits 5es formatting at least.

Yeah, I suspected that +2 is too much. Anyone have any ideas as to what the "beefy" subtype should get?

Quote from: misterguignol;814302Yeah, I suspected that +2 is too much. Anyone have any ideas as to what the "beefy" subtype should get?

Personally I'm not sure there should be a beefy subtype. That wasn't standard in either the 3e or 4e versions, and as we can see from the tiefling not every race offering has to have a subrace. I don't share Keith Baker's vision in this regard.

Relative "beefyness" or "speedyness" can mostly be handled with variations in the characters' ability scores I think.

In my case, I would focus more on slightly upgrading what we've got so it's on par with the half-orc for instance (the existing race I feel it is closest to). Really the big discrepancy is the stats. I second the Con bonus being buffed to +2, as it was in 3e. They didn't even get a strength bonus back then, so yay progress.

Now, is +1 AC equal in value to the half-orc's Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks? Are the living construct traits equal in value to Darkvision and the Intimidation proficiency?

I'm not sure in either case. If the warforged really is coming up short however, it wouldn't be by much, so I'm tempted to do one of the following:

- Give them an additional immunity. Poison makes the most sense and isn't that big of a deal. Starts to overlap with the dwarf a bit though.

- Give them some ability that mitigates critical hits like they did in 3e. Trouble is, constructs being resistant to critical hits is no longer a thing in 5e.

- Give them some ability to mitigate death saving throws like they had in 4e.

Again, I'm very concerned about stepping on the dwarf's toes. I worry about outshining the dragonborn too, come to think of it.

Eberron still has a special place in my heart, so let's have a look.

Changeling: The Shapechanger ability is badly written. I like fifth broad strokes rules, but this is far to broad and open. I also dislike the "must have seen" clause, I've played a Changeling that never impersonated but always switched faces and I'd rather lean into opposite direction, meaning "can change appearance at will, but copying exact appearances is hard. The rest is fair and quite in line, though a bit bland and on the weak side if you follow a more limiting line on adjucating the Shapechanging.

Shifter: Well done. Very different from other races and still in line with the design. Shifting abilities are character defining. I always liked shifters. If just they had come up with a better background than Werebeast crossbreeds when they first created them.

Warforged: Eberron was very much designed for 3e and warforged are a prime example. This makes them quite hard to convert to other editions and I think it really shows. Ability increases and Living construct are fine, but the rest is a distinct "Do not want". I think my approach woud be to make + Con and Living construct basic elements of the race and additional stat increases, armored body and other features put Subraces, with the twist that given some downtime and a bit of money or crafting invested, a warforged can be modified to another subrace, losing the old features. So your fighter starts with the Juggernaught Subrace, with a fixed AC of 17, but if you find better armor, you can spend 1-2 weeks removing the plating and switch subrace, so you can wear your new powersuit.

Artificier: Quite bland compared to the other wizard subclasses. I'm not to fond, but I don't really see a need for an artificier class or subclass to play a good Eberron campaign. That said, it is a good enough fix for those who want it. Some armor and weapon proficiency comparable to the 3e artificier wouldn't have been out of line, I think.

Dragonmarks: I'm not a fan of Dragonmarks as feats. One thing to note is that 5e stepped away from the 3e concept of all NPCs, monsters and PCs are build using the same rules. So unlike the 3e system for dragonmarks, we only have to worry bout designing dragonmarks for PC use, while for any NPC we can just choose some basic statline, slap on some dragonmark apropiate abilities and call it a day.

So, how do we do dragonmarks for PCs?

It shouldn't be a background, I'm glad wotc avoided that route. As said, I'm not a fan of feats either. I think the best policy might be to offer multiple routes towards dragonmarked PCs. Very minor marks could be feats (though not the ones wotc presents, those are booring and very powerful), unpredictable manifestations treasure and particularly powerful heirs and aberrants a sorcerer subclass.


Despite my criticism, I don't consider the conversion file to be a failure or letdown. It is pretty close to what I expected. I just have some rather fixed oppinions on doing it right.

Quote from: misterguignol;814197The warforged in the free pdf don't really seem in-line with the races as presented in the PHB, so I went and made my own version here if anyone is interested.

Looks good!