Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DoveArrow 02-25-06, 05:07 PM	I was originally going to post this in Edymnion's thread, but I figured it was better if I start a new thread instead. Anyway, here's my review of the same book: I find it surprising that when it comes to reviewing the Eberron publications, I'm always of the opposite opinion from everyone else. While others have complained about Races of Eberron, Five Nations, Explorers Handbook, and Magic of Eberron, I have staunchly supported these publications and believe that they are still some of the best publications ever to have come from Wizards of the Coast to date. Now, I again find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum from everyone else, because while most have praised Player's Guide to Eberron for its consistency and what it offers to the game, I have found this book to be a real disappointment. Player's Guide to Eberron is a tired rehash of information that has been so well covered in player friendly sections of previous publications, that it really wasn't worth reprinting. In fact, at times, the writing sounds so familiar that it could almost be a cut-and-paste reprint. For example, while reading the description of the Aerenal elves, there were moments where I suffered from serious sense of deja vu, because the information sounded almost exactly like the dragonshard articles written by Keith Baker about this very subject. Meanwhile, some of the information in this book is not information that should be known by players. For example, why does a player need to know that a typical Silver Flame church doesn't have pews? This seriously upset me, because I had just created a layout of a Silver Flame church that included pews. Fortunately, one of my players read that section out loud before I introduced the church into my game, but if they hadn't, I feel like that section could have seriously broken my players' suspension of disbelief. Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again, when looking at Wizards publications, the art reflects the writing, and the art in this book sucks. Most of the pages are filled, from top to bottom, with text, with maybe a picture of a religous symbol, or a dragonmark that we've seen a dozen times over in previous publications. Meanwhile, where the pictures aren't just Eberron clipart, they're a real disappointment. One picture is actually a computer generated picture of the Silver Flame church at Flamekeep that, while not bad for a computer generated model, certainly can't compare to the picture of the interior presented in the ECS. Shoot, even the front cover, a picture of a shifter sitting on the ground, reading over a scroll, while her friends fight dracoliches in the background, can't compare to the sweeping, epic sky battle depicted on the cover of Sharn: City of Towers, or the battle between mind flayers and dolgaunts depicted on the cover of Magic of Eberron. Certainly, art shouldn't the only factor to consider when buying a d20 publication, but when you're shelling out $30, it would at least be nice to look at something that's pleasing when you're drudging through what amounts to a pretty dull read. So in conclusion, while I continue to remain in opposition to everyone else, I feel that Player's Guide to Eberron is a sad disappointment of a book that certainly isn't worth the paper it's printed on (let alone the $30 you'll expect to spend if you buy it). However, if you want consistency, then this book's got it. After all, it offers absolutely nothing new, so what's to complain about? Meanwhile, perhaps if you have players that don't want to shell out an additional $10 for a quality publication, like the ECS, then again perhaps this book is right for you. However, if you're like me, and you want something that adds something refreshing to an already exciting campaign world, then save your money for the next publication, because this one is about as refreshing as a blow to the head with a hammer.
Edymnion 02-25-06, 05:20 PM	While others have complained about Races of Eberron, Five Nations, Explorers Handbook, and Magic of Eberron, I have staunchly supported these publications and believe that they are still some of the best publications ever to have come from Wizards of the Coast to date.Actually, Five Nations was also a very good book. the information sounded almost exactly like the dragonshard articles written by Keith Baker about this very subject.Which is good. The vast majority of Eberron players out there don't come to these boards, and have never read the dragonshards. They don't know anything about the fluffy goodness that we take for granted. It NEEDED to be written up in a hardback. Did I mention that this book doesn't have any crunch? Well maybe I should, because there is absolutely nothing crunchy in this book... at all... period... stop. No new feats, spells, classes, prestige classes, powers, races, equipment, nothing.Not true, it seems that every couple of pages it has a couple of feats, a new magic item, etc. They are just intersperced with the rest of the information. For example, there are three new Shifter feats in there, in the Shifter section. The Blood of Vol has a new magic item and new magic ritual. Several Warforged feats, and shifter feats, lots of stuff. But in general, yes, its Crunch light. Which is good, IMO, because its supposed to tell players how the setting works, not rewrite half the crunch in the setting. Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again, when looking at Wizards publications, the art reflects the writing, and the art in this book sucks. Most of the pages are filled, from top to bottom, with text, with maybe a picture of a religous symbol, or a dragonmark that we've seen a dozen times over in previous publications.Actually, it added a bunch of new religious symbols that many people have been asking for for months. The entire Dark Six got their symbols printed, all of which are not found anywhere else. Meanwhile, where the pictures aren't just Eberron clipart, they're a real disappointment. One picture is actually a computer generated picture of the Silver Flame church at Flamekeep that, while not bad for a computer generated model, certainly can't compare to the picture of the interior presented in the ECS. Shoot, even the front cover, a picture of a shifter sitting on the ground, reading over a scroll, while her friends fight dracoliches in the background, can't compare to the sweeping, epic sky battle depicted on the cover of Sharn: City of Towers, or the battle between mind flayers and dolgaunts depicted on the cover of Magic of Eberron. Certainly, art shouldn't the only factor to consider when buying a d20 publication, but when you're shelling out $30, it would at least be nice to look at something that's pleasing when you're drudging through what amounts to a pretty dull read.I thought the art was pretty good. Not exactly the best Eberron has ever put out, but I enjoyed the Silver Flame temple picture, for example. The butch shifter women was pretty bad though. However, if you're like me, and you want something that adds something refreshing to an already exciting campaign world, then save your money for the next publication, because this one is about as refreshing as a blow to the head with a hammer.Thats just the thing though, PGtE wasn't supposed to add anything new, it was supposed to explain what is already there, which it did admirably. But hey, you bring up good points for those that need to hear them. Keep it up! Doesn't matter if the majority agrees with your opinion or not, just the fact that we have a voice that says "I didn't think it was that great, so be wary" is a good thing. If you make even one person stop and look at the book before they buy it, and realize its not what they wanted, then you've done the community a great service. :)
DerekSTheRed 02-25-06, 05:56 PM	I was slightly dissapointed with the Player's Guide to Eberron. Maybe I was expecting too much based on the Player's Guide to Faerun. The PGtF had a lot more crunchy stuff, but that may have been due to the fact that they needed to update a lot of stuff from the 3.0 FCS to 3.5. Having said that its not a complete waste, I just don't think everyone at the table should go out and buy one. It basically gives out examples of where to place all the various races/classes from the complete and races series of books. They were basically backing up their claim that "If it's in D&D, it's in Eberron." Now that's pretty good if you want to play a samurai or shugenja, or you wanted to use them as npc's, but not everyone wants to do that. Basically if you have most of the other D&D books and you want to use them in Eberron then PGtE is going to help and you'll probably buy it anyway. Otherwise, I'd only suggest it if you were an Eberron fan and wanted to read up on all the fluff, which is quite good BTW. Derek
Rechan 02-25-06, 06:07 PM	Actually there were two PrCs in PGtE. The Elemental Binder, and the Gatekeeper Mystagogue.
DoveArrow 02-25-06, 06:23 PM	Not true, it seems that every couple of pages it has a couple of feats, a new magic item, etc. They are just intersperced with the rest of the information. For example, there are three new Shifter feats in there, in the Shifter section. The Blood of Vol has a new magic item and new magic ritual. Several Warforged feats, and shifter feats, lots of stuff. Huh. I must have missed a lot of those. To tell you the honest truth, after being disappointed by the sections on Aerenal, the Blood of Vol, and the Silver Flame, I kind've skimmed over the rest. However, if I know which new magic item you're talking about for the Blood of Vol, it's actually the hand of vecna from the DMG. Actually, it added a bunch of new religious symbols that many people have been asking for for months. The entire Dark Six got their symbols printed, all of which are not found anywhere else. Yeah, and they really weren't that great. Someone else said that they were actually considering using their own symbols, and personally, I don't blame them. The only symbol I thought was kind've neat was the one for the Mockery. Thats just the thing though, PGtE wasn't supposed to add anything new, it was supposed to explain what is already there, which it did admirably. I guess not, but what I would have liked to see is something more akin to the Player's Guide to Faerun. Had that book included just a few more things (namely, gods, and subraces), it would have been a perfect supplement for players. My hope was that they would use that book as a model for the Player's Guide to Eberron and just improve upon it, kind've like what they did with Magic of Eberron. But hey, you bring up good points for those that need to hear them. Keep it up! Doesn't matter if the majority agrees with your opinion or not, just the fact that we have a voice that says "I didn't think it was that great, so be wary" is a good thing. If you make even one person stop and look at the book before they buy it, and realize its not what they wanted, then you've done the community a great service. Thanks Edy. :cloud9:
Rechan 02-25-06, 06:32 PM	I guess not, but what I would have liked to see is something more akin to the Player's Guide to Faerun. Had that book included just a few more things (namely, gods, and subraces), it would have been a perfect supplement for players. My hope was that they would use that book as a model for the Player's Guide to Eberron and just improve upon it, kind've like what they did with Magic of Eberron. You're kidding, right? People on these boards are having coniption fits over the mere mention of subraces in Eberron and are lambasting the PGtE over the fact it included subraces; if they came up with Eberron-specific ones, you'd have posters calling an all-out fatwa against WotC. ;)
DoveArrow 02-25-06, 06:44 PM	You're kidding, right? People on these boards are having coniption fits over the mere mention of subraces in Eberron and are lambasting the PGtE over the fact it included subraces; if they came up with Eberron-specific ones, you'd have posters calling an all-out fatwa against WotC. ;) Perhaps I should clarify, because I would never recommend including new subraces in Eberron. What I was referring to is that in Forgotten Realms, there are subraces that have very specific places in the campaign setting. However, while the Player's Guide to Faerun refers to these subraces, it doesn't reprint their stats. Personally, I thought it was a mistake not to include them, since many of the stats for the subraces printed in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting are from 3.0 and don't include things like level adjustments. In any case, my point is that the Player's Guide to Faerun was supposed to replace the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for players. That it didn't include the subraces or the gods, made it fall short of its goal. Had the Players Guide to Eberron succeeded where its predecessor had failed, I would probably have bought it. As it is, it's nearly useless at the table, and is just another book that takes up space in my already tightly packed D&D bag.
Edymnion 02-25-06, 08:33 PM	Actually, the god info you seem to have been looking for was most likely intentionally left out of PGtE, because the next Eberron book in the hopper is Faiths of Eberron, which will have all of the religious information in it. Not to mention the only reason the PGtF was supposed to replace the FRCS is because, as you said, FRCS was 3.0 and PGtF was their way of updating everything to 3.5. Eberron was 3.5 to start with, so there was no need to release an update book.
DoveArrow 02-26-06, 01:17 PM	Actually, the god info you seem to have been looking for was most likely intentionally left out of PGtE, because the next Eberron book in the hopper is Faiths of Eberron, which will have all of the religious information in it. Not to mention the only reason the PGtF was supposed to replace the FRCS is because, as you said, FRCS was 3.0 and PGtF was their way of updating everything to 3.5. Eberron was 3.5 to start with, so there was no need to release an update book. But... but... my tightly packed D&D bag. Have they no pity? :weep: In any case, it seemed to me that before PGtE came out, we were hoping to get a player friendly book that would replace the ECS for players. That way, DMs wouldn't have to worry about their players finding out about things like King Kaius, while still giving them access to the new feats, spells, classes, prestige classes, and clerical information contained in the ECS.
Rechan 02-26-06, 01:25 PM	But... but... my tightly packed D&D bag. Have they no pity? :weep: At that point, dude, you just need to scan/print the pieces you need. ;)
ekomega 02-26-06, 03:18 PM	I find the PGtE to be significantly better than the PGtF. When I think of a "Player's Guide" for a setting, I want it to provide information about the setting. A "Guide" to the setting for "Player's". To me, a guide to a setting doesn't contain rules and crunch, because those things have very little to do with the setting. It's the information (fluff) that's important. To create and make the world for the players. To help them understand. To be Eberron. PGtF is like a "Player's Handbook" for Faerun, which really wasn't needed. PGtF contains almost no information about Faerun (from my recollection), just rules and more rules. What good is it to have 100 regional feats in PGtF and then not explain the importance/significance/point of being from any particular region? It's like munchkin supreme... "Well if you want to be extra stealthy, be from Chondath, because Chondathans get a feat that lets you hide and sneak better" (made that up). I'd rather it explain why it's great to be from Chondath, and the history of Chondath, so a player wants to be from there for non-mechanical reasons, and then they can take the feat as a side benefit. PGtE provides information for players on so many topics. For people who have never read the ECS, it tells them so much about Eberron and the countries and the races and everything, which are really only detailed in the ECS. How else is a player supposed to know these things? And it's not like there's too few books full of crunch lying around (Races, Complete, Magic...etc.). They even have crunch books just for Eberron (Races, Magic...) so there was no need to make a player's guide that was very crunch heavy. Even the ECS is crammed with crunch. I think it was a good first step for Wizards to create a book like this, and I hope they do it in the future for other Campaign Settings.
Edymnion 02-26-06, 03:24 PM	Yup, we've asked for fluff heavy books for ages, and WotC is finally starting to listen. Thats very good news to me, and I hope they keep it up!
ChimericalWolf 02-26-06, 03:59 PM	However, in my defense, after being disappointed by the sections on the Blood of Vol, the Silver Flame and Aerenal, I only skimmed through the rest of the book, stopping occasionally, only to be disappointed once again, which caused me to miss them. So you read some of the more widely covered topics in Eberron fluff, didn't like those, and condemn the rest of the book. Good job. Next time you want to review a book, read the thing before posting a "review" of it and quit wasteing my time.
Adhevan 02-26-06, 04:30 PM	Next time you want to review a book, read the thing before posting a "review" of it and quit wasteing my time. A few bites of manure isn't enough? You should eat the entire cow pie before you are sure you don't like it?
Rechan 02-26-06, 04:39 PM	A few bites of manure isn't enough? You should eat the entire cow pie before you are sure you don't like it? So 6 pages out of 160 is a clear indication that a book is pure crap. Gotcha. So does that mean that I can base my whole opinion off of your one comment, because well, it's just a bite and I can tell what I don't like?
nastynate 02-26-06, 04:45 PM	Mmmmm...cow pies. Them's good eating!
Acev 02-26-06, 04:52 PM	For people who have never read the ECS, it tells them so much about Eberron and the countries and the races and everything, which are really only detailed in the ECS. How else is a player supposed to know these things? By reading the ECS. I was hoping the PGtE was going to be like a PHB for Eberron players with tonnes more fluff. I don't want my players reading the ECS. There is way to much information I don't want them to have in there. King Kaius is a very good example of what I mean. Having a book with all the info my players need to play, fluff and crunch, and none of the stuff they don't would've been great. The PGtE was a total disappointment to me.
Adhevan 02-26-06, 05:05 PM	So 6 pages out of 160 is a clear indication that a book is pure crap. Gotcha. So does that mean that I can base my whole opinion off of your one comment, because well, it's just a bite and I can tell what I don't like? I have no opinion on the PGtE. My local book store still doesn't have it. And while 6 pages might not be enough to form an in depth analysis, a person doesn't have to intensely scrutinize every line in the book to form a valid opinion of it. But mostly my post was a knee-jerk reaction to the irony of someone who was complaining about his time being wasted by this thread actually wasting more of his time to complain about it. You shouldn't really need my permission, but feel free to form your opinions of me in any way you desire ;)
Rechan 02-26-06, 05:09 PM	I have no opinion on the PGtE. My local book store still doesn't have it. And while 6 pages might not be enough to form an in depth analysis, a person doesn't have to intensely scrutinize every line in the book to form a valid opinion of it. Valid opinion? Fine. But to "Give a review", one expects the reviewer to give an indepth analysis. A review is supposed to look at the merits, weigh the bad with the good, look for anything positive - or to at least give a good idea of what it is. Which can't be gained by seeing 3.8% of the material. Seriously. Do you think one could open up the review section of the newspaper and read 'Regarding movie x, I only stayed in the theater for five minutes; I didn't like the movie'? No. That belongs in the op-ed section, under opinion, not Review.
PoeticJustice 02-26-06, 05:38 PM	While Dove's entitled to his/her opinion, I disagree with almost every point the review raised. 1) The book does in fact contain little but rehashed material. This was, however, the intent. Eberron needs a prduct that's an acceptable and acessible summary for the material already published. It is a guide, after all. 2) Although it is crunch-light, so have most Eberron Books thus far. 5 Nations and Explorer's Handbook had litle game data and supplemental rules to pull out. Even the ECS wasn't as full of new rules as it might've been, but that's not a bad thing, nor does it detract from the merit of the work, nor does this book's lack of game data detract from it. 3) The griping over Silver Flame Churches strikes me as immaterial. 4) Critiquing the art of the book is subjective, as there's little accounting for taste, but I did not have a problem with it. I don't really remember being bowled over by it either. 5) The sidebars are a scar on the face of the campaign setting and I hope the design team reads ever vitriolic word I write about it in hopes that they will NOT include stuff like that again. I would not be so perturbed by their inclusion if they were of any quality, but in general it is sophomoric cramming that I can think of myself. I have no problem with Keith's handling of Warlocks in the Umbragen article of about a year ago, save for my general hatred of the class itself. I found the book okay, but only okay. It accomplishes what it sets out to do, but the inclusion of the sidebars sets a disastrous precedent for the product line. I do not believe it is the best book made for Eberron since the ECS. Personally my favorite supplement was the Explorer's Handbook., but that's a story for another day. RECHAN/ADHEVAN Gotta agree with Adhevan here. Skimming the book is often sufficent to determine whether or not its worth your money. A few pages of Sandstorm, Races of Destiny, and Incarnum were enough to tell me they weren't my speed. I wouldn't go so far to say they're bad books, though. Just not for me.
Gurv 02-26-06, 05:59 PM	I find it surprising that when it comes to reviewing the Eberron publications, I'm always of the opposite opinion from everyone else. While others have complained about Races of Eberron, Five Nations, Explorers Handbook, and Magic of Eberron, I have staunchly supported these publications and believe that they are still some of the best publications ever to have come from Wizards of the Coast to date. Now, I again find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum from everyone else, because while most have praised Player's Guide to Eberron for its consistency and what it offers to the game, I have found this book to be a real disappointment. Well, I think you've answered most of your own issues right here at the beginning. You have opinions which are consistently in conflict with the majority. It would be nice if writers had the time to cater to the wants and needs of each individual...but in this life, they have to do their best to please as many people as they can. Apparently, you don't fall into that circle. Player's Guide to Eberron is a tired rehash of information that has been so well covered in player friendly sections of previous publications, that it really wasn't worth reprinting. Unless they were reprinting the information on the gods and religions, and the other bits of information you wanted to see? As Edy said, not everyone spends their life at the WotC web site, so putting information from the dragonshards into a single, easy to reference sourcebook seems like a good idea to me. Not to mention that there is a whole lot more that has never been mentioned before. Meanwhile, some of the information in this book is not information that should be known by players. For example, why does a player need to know that a typical Silver Flame church doesn't have pews? This seriously upset me, because I had just created a layout of a Silver Flame church that included pews. This upset you seriously? I know you realize that you don't need to incorporate every printed detail into your own game. And you must have noted that "typical" doesn't mean that pews are forbidden in every church. If this was the most serious problem with PGtE, then I think the writers deserve nothing but praise. Did I mention that this book doesn't have any crunch? Thank the gods. Crunch we can get anywhere. Don't waste the space in an Eberron sourcebook on feats and spells and classes. There are already tons of sourcebooks that are packed with nothing but that stuff. Eberron books should be about Eberron, the world. We already know how to play D&D. They didn't even reprint the stuff from the ECS, something that would have at least made this book useful, without exposing the players to information they really have no business knowing. Ok...so the PGtE is a bunch of reprinted information, but it should have reprinted half the ECS? In fact, where it tries to include new things like Incarnum, it utterly fails, because rather than try to introduce it in some way that makes it feel like it's an integral part of the world, it just sort've passes over it haphazardly, saying that yeah, it's always been there, some of the halflings use it, and that dusklings live in Thelanis. NO! BAD WIZARDS! If you want to point the hammer gun at someone, point it at the person that wrote this miserable section, because even if you want to include incarnum in your game, this section fails to make it seem even remotely interesting and almost makes you want to reconsider using it at all. What about people who can't fit Magic of Incarnum into their tiny little backpacks? If the writers had given every sourcebook written do date an intergral role in the setting, then it would have been difficult to exclude things the DM did not wish to use. As it is, they mentioned ways to include various concepts without forcing anyone to do so. I mean, seriously...what if they had written something about incarnum that contradicted what I had planned for my game? That would be as bad as if they had claimed that <gasp> pews were not common in Churches of the Silver Flame! (You want them to leave such details up to the DM, yet detail major concepts?) However, in my defense, after being disappointed by the sections on the Blood of Vol, the Silver Flame and Aerenal, I only skimmed through the rest of the book, stopping occasionally, only to be disappointed once again, which caused me to miss them. Not a very good defense, admitting that you condemned an entire sourcebook without reading it. However, if you're like me, and you want something that adds something refreshing to an already exciting campaign world, then save your money for the next publication, because this one is about as refreshing as a blow to the head with a hammer. Sometimes, a blow to head with a hammer can be extremely refreshing, depending on who is being hit.
Rechan 02-26-06, 06:21 PM	I wouldn't go so far to say they're bad books, though. Just not for me. Which is my point. Skimming a book and deciding "Well, I don't like it" is fine. Skimming a book and deciding "Well, this is crap, and I'm going to review it to explain why!" You can't make a persuasive argument or an implied, informed opinion (which is what a review is) on such a minimal input. It's like saying "Incarnum is broken" when you onced over the spells section without looking at how the classes work or whatever.
Sieylianna 02-26-06, 08:19 PM	I was also disappointed with this book. There were some interesting points, but so much of it was just an overview with the DM forced to fill in the gaps. I think a bit more detail on not quite as many subjects would have made it more valuable. The high-level approach did make it seem like a rehash of material from other sources. Ed
Rechan 02-26-06, 08:26 PM	I was also disappointed with this book. There were some interesting points, but so much of it was just an overview with the DM forced to fill in the gaps. I think a bit more detail on not quite as many subjects would have made it more valuable. The high-level approach did make it seem like a rehash of material from other sources. Which was the intention. Player's Guide to Eberron was meant as a Player's Guide. This should have been given away with chapter 1 going over stuff that's obvious to Eberron veterans. You hand this to a D&D player new to Eberron, and go "Read this, this is what the game is about". The PGtE is basically The ECS without the spoilers.
Atlictoatl 02-26-06, 10:38 PM	While the PGtE does repeat information found elsewhere, IMO it does it in a way that is useful even for Eberron veterans. By writing on a familiar topic from a slightly different angle (that of the novice to Eberron), the PGtE triangulates the matter in question, allowing the completist to zero in on a more three-dimensional representation of the setting. I found myself reading the PGtE and learning new things in every article, even while reading material that was familiar to me. For that, I find the PGtE invaluable.
treehouse916 02-26-06, 10:54 PM	Man, Atlictoatl, you said exactly what I think about the PGtE, but way better than I could ever put it. I love the way things are rephrased in the book - it's refreshing, and it makes me feel like I did when I first read through the ECS. I also love how it's formatted, like an encyclopedia. Reading topics in the PGtE along with their counterparts in the ECS and other sourcebooks makes me feel like I've got complete understanding of the given subject. I love it, and I have it with me at every session I run. I'm glad I'm not the only one who does that :)
Adhevan 02-26-06, 11:45 PM	Seriously. Do you think one could open up the review section of the newspaper and read 'Regarding movie x, I only stayed in the theater for five minutes; I didn't like the movie'? No. That belongs in the op-ed section, under opinion, not Review. The OP claimed to have skimmed most of the book, so a better analogy might have been fast forwarding through most of the movie, but that's picking nits. I do see your point, but this is not a newspaper or even a gaming magazine. It's just a post by a member of a message board community. I don't expect the same scholarly standards for a review that I would in a professional publication. I definitely didn't find it a waste of my time since it spurred a discussion of the points the OP brought up. Some people refuted those points. A few agreed with some of them. As someone considering purchasing this book, the discussion has been useful for me. Admittedly, my first choice would be to thumb through it in the store and form my own opinion, but this is a small town and not every published supplement hits the shelves. Anyway, we're probably way off topic, so I'll shut up now.
Sieylianna 02-27-06, 07:42 AM	Player's Guide to Eberron was meant as a Player's Guide. This should have been given away with chapter 1 going over stuff that's obvious to Eberron veterans. You hand this to a D&D player new to Eberron, and go "Read this, this is what the game is about". The PGtE is basically The ECS without the spoilers. Without spoilers and races and feats and all the stuff you need to actually create a character. I have X amount of money to spend on gaming in a given month and repurchasing things I already have is not a good use of my money. The Player's Guide to Faerun isn't a rehash of old material. Ed
Ricohard_Draconis 02-27-06, 07:50 AM	The Player's Guide to Faerun isn't a rehash of old material. technically it was as it updated a lot of the 3.0 material to 3.5
DoveArrow 02-27-06, 10:44 AM	So you read some of the more widely covered topics in Eberron fluff, didn't like those, and condemn the rest of the book. Good job. Next time you want to review a book, read the thing before posting a "review" of it and quit wasteing my time. Thanks for whatever that was.
Kid SixXx 02-27-06, 11:12 AM	Man, Atlictoatl, you said exactly what I think about the PGtE, but way better than I could ever put it. I love the way things are rephrased in the book - it's refreshing, and it makes me feel like I did when I first read through the ECS. I agree. The PGtE is a handy roadmap for adaptation & implementation. There are some WoTC alternate books that I can barely stand, and there are some that I love but have no clue (or am to lazy to figure out) how to "eberronize" the information. As I said in another thread, some of the suggested adaptations are downright silly (ie. use of the Elf Bladesinger PrC with Dhakaani goblins) but other suggestions are pretty helpful.
DoveArrow 02-27-06, 01:08 PM	Well, I think you've answered most of your own issues right here at the beginning. You have opinions which are consistently in conflict with the majority. It would be nice if writers had the time to cater to the wants and needs of each individual...but in this life, they have to do their best to please as many people as they can. Apparently, you don't fall into that circle. Apparently not. Unless they were reprinting the information on the gods and religions, and the other bits of information you wanted to see? As Edy said, not everyone spends their life at the WotC web site, so putting information from the dragonshards into a single, easy to reference sourcebook seems like a good idea to me. Not to mention that there is a whole lot more that has never been mentioned before. If it had stated that it was reprinting the dragonshards in an easy to reference sourcebok, I would have been fine with that. I probably would have even bought it, since it's not always easy to get on the web in game session to look at a particularly pertinent dragonshard. This upset you seriously? I know you realize that you don't need to incorporate every printed detail into your own game. And you must have noted that "typical" doesn't mean that pews are forbidden in every church. If this was the most serious problem with PGtE, then I think the writers deserve nothing but praise. It upset me because it is very DM specific information and has no place in a book designed for players. Thank the gods. Crunch we can get anywhere. Don't waste the space in an Eberron sourcebook on feats and spells and classes. There are already tons of sourcebooks that are packed with nothing but that stuff. Eberron books should be about Eberron, the world. We already know how to play D&D. With rare exception, I tend to like books that have a good balance of both fluff and crunch. If a book favors fluff over crunch, or crunch over fluff, I like it to provide information that expands on what has already been covered in previous publications. Ok...so the PGtE is a bunch of reprinted information, but it should have reprinted half the ECS? I can see how that looks like a contradiction, so let me clarify. I was hoping more for a book like the PGtF, which is why I wanted the feats, spells, etc. from the ECS. However, I would have been just as happy with a book that fleshed out the different organizations presented in the ECS, the way that Races of Eberron fleshed out the different races. What I got instead was a book that reiterated a lot of the fluff from the ECS without anything substantially new. What about people who can't fit Magic of Incarnum into their tiny little backpacks? If the writers had given every sourcebook written do date an intergral role in the setting, then it would have been difficult to exclude things the DM did not wish to use. As it is, they mentioned ways to include various concepts without forcing anyone to do so. I mean, seriously...what if they had written something about incarnum that contradicted what I had planned for my game? That would be as bad as if they had claimed that <gasp> pews were not common in Churches of the Silver Flame! (You want them to leave such details up to the DM, yet detail major concepts?) What I would have preferred is if this had been included in a sidebar with other suggestions for including Incarnum in the world. As it is, it does exactly what you say it shouldn't. It contradicts what I had planned for my game. Not a very good defense, admitting that you condemned an entire sourcebook without reading it. Well reading the first chapter of Five Nations, and Magic of Eberron seemed enough for most people to condemn those two books and I read a lot more than just the first chapter, so why am I being held to a higher standard? Sometimes, a blow to head with a hammer can be extremely refreshing, depending on who is being hit. Look guys, even though I don't always agree with your opinions on things, I never make the kinds of sarcastic remarks that I have been subjected to in this thread. As such, I would appreciate it if you could give me the same treatment. :mad:
polt 02-27-06, 01:24 PM	Apparently not. It upset me because it is very DM specific information and has no place in a book designed for players. I respect your opinion on the book, but I don't see why that is DM information? Every person living in Thrane, and defenitely every follower of the silver flame would know about the pews, so how is this DM info only?
DoveArrow 02-27-06, 01:31 PM	I respect your opinion on the book, but I don't see why that is DM information? Every person living in Thrane, and defenitely every follower of the silver flame would know about the pews, so how is this DM info only? Because who is more likely to draw a map of a church? The DM or the player? Meanwhile, even if a player does know that their character's church doesn't have pews, where does she put that information in her character's description?
polt 02-27-06, 01:35 PM	Well, it's not a character creation guide. It's the players guide to eberron. Which means it's about giving the player a view of the world.
treehouse916 02-27-06, 01:55 PM	To me, the pew thing is just one of those details that gives the players a more 'complete' feeling of understanding the world they inhabit. If I were going to detail a world that included the Catholic church, I might make mention of some relatively unimportant ritual or doctrine associated with a typical church service, because a PC who was Catholic would know about it. It's all about continuity, eh? I'm not really arguing your point; obviously you were upset with it, and I'm not going to be able to convince you that you weren't upset in the first place. I'm just explaining the author's (probable) motives in this instance. When the Faiths of Eberron book comes out, you won't get upset about the expansion of material there, right? So why is it a problem here?
DoveArrow 02-27-06, 01:56 PM	Well, it's not a character creation guide. It's the players guide to eberron. Which means it's about giving the player a view of the world. People are upset about the attention given to the secret creation forge in Cannith Tower, I'm upset about this. It's just a matter of opinion, I guess.
DoveArrow 02-27-06, 02:19 PM	To me, the pew thing is just one of those details that gives the players a more 'complete' feeling of understanding the world they inhabit. If I were going to detail a world that included the Catholic church, I might make mention of some relatively unimportant ritual or doctrine associated with a typical church service, because a PC who was Catholic would know about it. It's all about continuity, eh? I'm not really arguing your point; obviously you were upset with it, and I'm not going to be able to convince you that you weren't upset in the first place. I'm just explaining the author's (probable) motives in this instance. When the Faiths of Eberron book comes out, you won't get upset about the expansion of material there, right? So why is it a problem here? Again I am upset with the 'pew thing' because I feel like it is DM specific information. If similar information is included in Faiths of Eberron,then no I won't be upset, because that is not a book specifically designed for players.
treehouse916 02-27-06, 02:27 PM	But do you feel like you might not have been upset about it if your specific circumstance hadn't coincided with the release of the book? As I said before, flavor information being released in a player's guide isn't exactly new policy. The existence (or lack thereof) of pews in a Silver Flame church is not likely to be the surprise twist in an adventure, for example. But this all goes back to the whole 'you don't have to use it if you don't want to' mindset that I hope most people use when they get sourcebooks. You have pews in your Silver Flame churches in your game? Well, that's alright. :D
DoveArrow 02-27-06, 02:29 PM	But do you feel like you might not have been upset about it if your specific circumstance hadn't coincided with the release of the book? As I said before, flavor information being released in a player's guide isn't exactly new policy. The existence of pews in a Silver Flame church is not likely to be the surprise twist in an adventure, for example. I think I have been pretty clear about my objections to the pews. I'm not going to reiterate that opinion any further.
DoveArrow 02-27-06, 02:34 PM	But this all goes back to the whole 'you don't have to use it if you don't want to' mindset that I hope most people use when they get sourcebooks. You have pews in your Silver Flame churches in your game? Well, that's alright. True dat. :cool:
Sir Elton 02-28-06, 10:27 AM	Hmm. I don't need this book. I'm already pulling Eberron in a satisfactory direction for my campaign. :D
stevelabny 02-28-06, 12:25 PM	Well, I think you've answered most of your own issues right here at the beginning. You have opinions which are consistently in conflict with the majority. It would be nice if writers had the time to cater to the wants and needs of each individual...but in this life, they have to do their best to please as many people as they can. Apparently, you don't fall into that circle. Please don't mistake the handful of regulars on this message board as "the majority". First off, your side of the arguement already claims that the PtGE the PGtE is allowed repetition of the Dragonshards because most people DON'T come to the websites. That said, PGtE has SO much material that is just a complete rehash of stuff we already knew (and not just from Dragonshards, but from the ECS, and RoE and FN) , that it is a bit disappointing. If they wanted to make an Eberron primer with less spoilers (I use the word less, because PGtE still has some) that's fine, that's great, that should be available at a discount price. The reason why you think there's a majority here? Those of us who don't mind one way or the other if subraces show up, and those of us who absolutely want to be able to use the other books we bought, and the warlocks, ninjas, hexblades, raptorans, goliaths and whatever else we like... have been completely disgusted and turned off by what this board has become. At first, it was a friendlier than usual and helpful board. Now its well on its way to become a completely unhelpful place filled with obnoxious fanboys and their one true Eberron.To whine about the Eberron books using stuff from other WOTC books is not only selfish, its STUPID. If WOTC never fits the non-core crunchies into its campaign settings and newer splat books, they are making a bad business move. It is much better to fit stuff in, especially with simple, easy to ignore sidebars, and get anyone who doesn't have those books interested enough to buy them, then to only make references to core material and make nothing else fit together. Psionics is non-core, but was included in Eberron to sell Psionics books, and it worked, because now you're getting a Complete Psionics book. If the mentions of any of the crunchies in PGtE sells another book, it is better for ALL OF US. Buy a clue guys, the obnoxious level that the "I hate every author but Keith" and "everything else is wrong, or stupid, or i don't like it, so how dare they give it a whole two sentences" is part of what wound up killing the Dragonshards.
Rechan 02-28-06, 02:36 PM	Please don't mistake the handful of regulars on this message board as "the majority". First off, your side of the arguement already claims that the PtGE the PGtE is allowed repetition of the Dragonshards because most people DON'T come to the websites. That said, PGtE has SO much material that is just a complete rehash of stuff we already knew (and not just from Dragonshards, but from the ECS, and RoE and FN) , that it is a bit disappointing. If they wanted to make an Eberron primer with less spoilers (I use the word less, because PGtE still has some) that's fine, that's great, that should be available at a discount price. Once more, and I'll beat this drum as long as I have to, the Player's Guide is for players. Probably players who are New to Eberron. Probably players whose DMs don't want them to read the Spoilers in the ECS. The PGtE is the one-stop-shop for a DM to hand the book to a player and go 'Here, this is all you need to know to get started, and this is pretty much all your character should know' without handing them ECS, 5N and RoE. Psionics is non-core, but was included in Eberron to sell Psionics books, and it worked, because now you're getting a Complete Psionics book. If the mentions of any of the crunchies in PGtE sells another book, it is better for ALL OF US. Good point. Buy a clue guys, the obnoxious level that the "I hate every author but Keith" and "everything else is wrong, or stupid, or i don't like it, so how dare they give it a whole two sentences" is part of what wound up killing the Dragonshards. Actually, it was WotC saying "Uh, we're not going to have you putting out for free what we can get people to buy".
Kid SixXx 02-28-06, 02:49 PM	Actually, it was WotC saying "Uh, we're not going to have you putting out for free what we can get people to buy". Yep, which is why we're waiting for a Dragonmarked sourcebook earmarked for later on this year instead of getting a series of DS articles on each house.
Siran Dunmorgan 02-28-06, 04:33 PM	Because who is more likely to draw a map of a church? The DM or the player? Meanwhile, even if a player does know that their character's church doesn't have pews, where does she put that information in her character's description? Every drawing I have seen of a Silver Flame installation since the one illustration of Flamekeep in the Eberron Campaign Settinghas been wrong. Just plain wrong. The written description we have of Flamic architecture is that it is inspired by the form and dynamism of fire, but the illustrations we've seen of it have all been basically very blocky and heavy: the opposite of what I would have expected from the written description. From the start, the description of Silver Flame churches had always brought to mind Nuruosmaniye Camii, near the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul: tall central dome, tall spires, the walls around the dome tall and vertical, consisting mostly of stained glass so that the interior is a vast space of light. The Nuruosmaniye has a much stronger vertical orientation than most mosques, and this makes it a good model for Silver Flame churches generally. Oh—and no pews. I'd always thought of Church of the Silver Flame services as being much more like Islamic than Christian observances. The illustration of the Silver Flame church in Player's Guide to Eberron is better than most—it certainly captures that "mosque" feeling—but still has too much of a blocky, squared-off look to it, as if the designers are thinking in squares or cubes of material rather than flames; we're told in the text descriptions of Flamic architecture—in Five Nations— that the dominant geometry is triangles, which are not at all in evidence in the Church of the Silver Flame example in Player's Guide to Eberron. —Siran Dunmorgan
DoveArrow 03-01-06, 12:32 AM	Every drawing I have seen of a Silver Flame installation since the one illustration of Flamekeep in the Eberron Campaign Settinghas been wrong. Just plain wrong. I tend to agree. The picture in Five Nations that you refer to, is not how I ever pictured a Church of the Silver Flame to be. It looks more like something from the Mournlands than something from Thrane. In fact, I used it as inspiration for just that; a church of the Silver Flame found in the Mournlands. I even showed it to my players. If nothing else, I think it helped give them an ominous feeling about the area. Oh—and no pews. I'd always thought of Church of the Silver Flame services as being much more like Islamic than Christian observances. For Bob's sake, am I the only one that has a problem with the pew thing? Sheesh! :P The illustration of the Silver Flame church in Player's Guide to Eberron is better than most—it certainly captures that "mosque" feeling—but still has too much of a blocky, squared-off look to it, as if the designers are thinking in squares or cubes of material rather than flames; we're told in the text descriptions of Flamic architecture—in Five Nations— that the dominant geometry is triangles, which are not at all in evidence in the Church of the Silver Flame example in Player's Guide to Eberron. Here I disagree. I don't see the Silver Flame church as looking like a mosque. Granted, I think it's perhaps the best take we've seen so far, but personally (and perhaps this is me being a little prosaic), I tend to think of the Silver Flame churches as looking something more like the temples of the Latter Day Saints (the one in San Diego (http://www.lds.org/temples/main/photo/0,11505,2020-1-81-0,00.html) being a fine example of what I'm talking about).
DoveArrow 03-01-06, 01:05 AM	Once more, and I'll beat this drum as long as I have to, the Player's Guide is for players. Probably players who are New to Eberron. Probably players whose DMs don't want them to read the Spoilers in the ECS. The PGtE is the one-stop-shop for a DM to hand the book to a player and go 'Here, this is all you need to know to get started, and this is pretty much all your character should know' without handing them ECS, 5N and RoE. Except that the book doesn't contain stats for the artificer class, rules on action points, or any of the feats, domains or new spells contained in the ECS. I'm just saying. :rolleyes:
Siran Dunmorgan 03-01-06, 01:33 AM	For Bob's sake, am I the only one that has a problem with the pew thing? Sheesh! :P … Here I disagree. I don't see the Silver Flame church as looking like a mosque. Granted, I think it's perhaps the best take we've seen so far, but personally (and perhaps this is me being a little prosaic), I tend to think of the Silver Flame churches as looking something more like the temples of the Latter Day Saints (the one in San Diego (http://www.lds.org/temples/main/photo/0,11505,2020-1-81-0,00.html) being a fine example of what I'm talking about). You know that the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints don't have pews either, yes? :D —Siran Dunmorgan
DoveArrow 03-01-06, 01:34 AM	You know that LDS Temples don't have pews either, yes? :rofl: That was good.
PoeticJustice 03-01-06, 01:41 AM	From the start, the description of Silver Flame churches had always brought to mind Nuruosmaniye Camii, near the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul: tall central dome, tall spires, the walls around the dome tall and vertical, consisting mostly of stained glass so that the interior is a vast space of light. The Nuruosmaniye has a much stronger vertical orientation than most mosques, and this makes it a good model for Silver Flame churches generally. Oh—and no pews. I'd always thought of Church of the Silver Flame services as being much more like Islamic than Christian observances. —Siran Dunmorgan Normally I don't agree with what you post, but after a quick google on the mosque you mentioned I have to admit this us a good call. Giving the church a more islamic bent is an excellent idea also; it removes the stumbling block catholic comparisons that bog down use of the church and sets up a good dynamic between the Church of the Silver Flame, which demands its parishoners to lead a rightous life, and the Sovereign Host, which is primarily characterized by their benevolent attitude toward Mankind. Good Call.
Just another user 03-01-06, 03:09 AM	As I said in another thread, some of the suggested adaptations are downright silly (ie. use of the Elf Bladesinger PrC with Dhakaani goblins) but other suggestions are pretty helpful. Why silly? Dhackaani have a strong bardic tradition, elves don't, if you replace "longsword or rapier" in the text with flail, chain or other dhakaani weapon (and drop the elf requirement, of course) it could be a good PrC for the Goblinoids,I think it would be a better fit for them that for the Valenar, to not mention the other kind of elves. And of course you should rename it Chainsinger or something like it.
Rechan 03-01-06, 12:35 PM	For Bob's sake, am I the only one that has a problem with the pew thing? Sheesh! :P Yes, yes you are. :P
Rechan 03-01-06, 12:38 PM	Except that the book doesn't contain stats for the artificer class, rules on action points, or any of the feats, domains or new spells contained in the ECS. I'm just saying. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Perhaps you missed this line: this is pretty much all your character should know' without handing them ECS, 5N and RoE. I said "What your character knows". So yes, the PGtE lacks the mechanics for artificers and various Eberron-specific feats; that doesn't diminish the fact that the PGtE is a player-friendly encyclopedia for Eberron-fluff.
DoveArrow 03-01-06, 02:36 PM	I said "What your character knows". So yes, the PGtE lacks the mechanics for artificers and various Eberron-specific feats; that doesn't diminish the fact that the PGtE is a player-friendly encyclopedia for Eberron-fluff. I know. I'm just being a putz. Still, I would edit it so that it says "this is all the fluff your character should know."
Wrathamon 04-03-06, 06:45 PM	I know. I'm just being a putz. Still, I would edit it so that it says "this is all the fluff your character should know." and people would ask "what is fluff?" that and Fluff is like saying it doesnt have any substance... which is an insult.
Koriel 04-04-06, 07:09 PM	Personally, I like it. The ECS book touches on a lot of topics very briefly and let me wanting know more about specific things. This book goes into more in-depth detail on a lot of things they couldn't fit in the original book and it answered many of my questions. Most of the pages are filled, from top to bottom, with text... Words and stuff are usually something I look for in a book. :whatsthis
Raziel_Brokodar 04-04-06, 08:03 PM	heh, I still haven't even looked at the book yet... so I can't say what I think... but the cramming of non-Eberron material still scares me. Also I've noticed that people have taken the 'suggestions' of where to add a race or class (or whatever) as official word. (hell I still haven't even gotten my hands on Shattered Land or Grieving Tree yet)
Romulus LoneWolf 04-04-06, 09:21 PM	I just don't get the hatred for the PGtE.. In my opinion, it's by far the best book for this line since the Corebook. It covers darn near the entirety of Eberron and details a lot of stuff from the world quite nicely. For starters, I got a much better image of what Aereni elves feel like as characters from the Player's Guide then I did from the ECS or even the much vaunted Races of Eberron. RoE gives us 2 1/2 pages, and nearly all of it focuses on the Deathless and their worship. PGtE actually explains the belief system behind the whole Deathless worship thing, and expands beyond it as well. More importantly, as my Eberron campaign's DM, I've found the PGtE to be an endless pool of ideas for NPCs, plots and subplots.. ...And even more importantly for me, the Player's Guide told me how I could fit in Catfolk and other animalistic races. And for my and my game's players, that counts for a lot.
Edymnion 04-04-06, 11:23 PM	Also I've noticed that people have taken the 'suggestions' of where to add a race or class (or whatever) as official word.Of course they have, because its not presented as a suggestion, but flat out official word. People :censored:ed me out up one wall and down another because I dared say that exact thing would happen, but it did. Things that get presented as undeniable fact in these books gets taken as undeniable fact by the vast majority out there, without question.
Godspeed Silent Emperor 04-05-06, 07:29 AM	Words and stuff are usually something I look for in a book. :whatsthis :D Yeah, me too. I like the book and it was a very good source for our two players who are afraid/ not motivated to read through the ECS. They got the PGtE, read the topics they're interested in/ need for the background of their character and were done. That's fine :)
Koriel 04-05-06, 07:56 AM	heh, I still haven't even looked at the book yet... so I can't say what I think... but the cramming of non-Eberron material still scares me. Also I've noticed that people have taken the 'suggestions' of where to add a race or class (or whatever) as official word. More imporantly, it helps players justify the inclusion of non-mainstream classes or races in the Eberron setting and helps them find a suitable role or place for them. In any group, there's always someone who just wants to play a ninja, or a xeph, or something and has to deal with naysayers and recalitrant DM's who would otherwise say, "But ninjas are an oriental class! Xephs are an alien race! They have absolutely no place in this campaign setting!." Because there are many who believe, if something is not explicitly stated in the source books, then it cannot exist in that setting. But really, when you have a world as vast and diverse as Eberron, why wouldn't ninjas, xephs, and the like exist somewhere? Eberron, afterall, is it's own unique fantasy setting and an entire world of its own. It's neither a copy of medieval Europe nor inspired by LotR like most other traditional settings. The whole point of Eberron is to have a fresh, new setting that departs from these things in some ways, not to be another Greyhawk clone. It's a great tragedy to include cool new classes and races in the splatbooks if no one can ever play them because no campaign setting specifically incorporates them. Well finally, here's one that does. I think the PGtE does a good job of integrating these things into Eberron in a plausible way.
mhacdebhandia 04-05-06, 04:41 PM	Actually there were two PrCs in PGtE. The Elemental Binder, and the Gatekeeper Mystagogue. Technically, it's the high elemental binder - and there's three prestige classes. You left out the revenant blade.
DoveArrow 04-05-06, 05:19 PM	Words and stuff are usually something I look for in a book. :whatsthis I quote myself: Certainly, art shouldn't the only factor to consider when buying a d20 publication, but when you're shelling out $30, it would at least be nice to look at something that's pleasing when you're drudging through what amounts to a pretty dull read.
Sarlax 04-06-06, 02:22 PM	Things that get presented as undeniable fact in these books gets taken as undeniable fact by the vast majority out there, without question. Interesting data. Where's it come from? Before declaring something to be a problem of overwhelming magnitude, have evidence.
rizzard 04-07-06, 04:05 PM	i think the book is very good especially for the players. it goes over allot of stuff thats in other titles but . my players aren't allowed inside the ecs or fn as it spoils some plots i want hidden. the pgte gets allot of use in the game referenced and rereferenced,epecially for a setting thats brand new and has allot of new and unique elements my players have become well versed on eberron and have been able to enjoy the setting more for it. growing up playing 2nd edition there were crunch books and setting books in a setting you want as much fluff as possible. the whole purpose of this book is to give the players a guide to their world in an very nice encyclopedic format. and it does it brilliantly. Crunch? F crunch, theres enough crunch already. you want a setting to grow it needs allot of depth and detail.the more immersive it is the better leave the crunch to other books like the forth coming "PRCS of eberron 250 new ones you'll never use" i mean were not playing rifts here people. to the OP there is nothing wrong with the art just because you like one of WAR's covers more than another doesn't mean the book is bad it just shows you don't know how to write a review very well. Art of all things in a product is the most subjective element.personally i think the cover is some of the better art in the book but thats just my penny also the church of the silver flame bit is bull, just because you came up with your own floorplan before they did is not a detraction from the book it's just how things go. you know it's D&D right? that your allowed to bend any product to fit your home game, just use your version if you like it better ::EDIT:: after looking over the replies a little more i think the whole prob stems from you misunderstanding the purpose and target of the book , it's in the title. maps and layouts are not always the solely the domain of the DM. i bet if you close your eyes you could see the general general layout of a supermarket or dare say a church. well the "DM Specific info" in the book is there to convey that sense. it's a good book
DoveArrow 04-07-06, 08:04 PM	after looking over the replies a little more i think the whole prob stems from you misunderstanding the purpose and target of the book , it's in the title. maps and layouts are not always the solely the domain of the DM. i bet if you close your eyes you could see the general general layout of a supermarket or dare say a church. well the "DM Specific info" in the book is there to convey that sense. it's a good book You're right. It is a misunderstanding. However, maps are just the beginning of what I don't understand. What I really don't understand is why is it okay to essentially rehash fluff that has already been covered in depth in five previous publications, but it was not considered prudent to reprint crunch that was printed in one previous publication? Why is it okay to essentially reprint a dragonshard (something that people can get for free) in a book that costs $30 without telling us that they were going to do this? That is the beef that I really have with this book. It rehashes information that has been so well covered that it really wasn't worth reprinting. If it had anything, and I mean anything, that I couldn't have gleaned from another book, I would have bought it. However, it doesn't and that's why I think this is such a terrible book.
mhacdebhandia 04-08-06, 01:10 AM	I prefer to judge everything primarily on its own merits and only secondarily on its relationship to similar things. For instance, is the Player's Guide to Eberron a useful book? Yes, it is. It offers a somewhat-encyclopaedic overview of the major features of the setting: races, nations, cultures, history, religions, even themes and how the world embodies those themes. I've learned things about the world which I didn't expect the supplement to include: my perennial example is further detail on the religions of the world than what has previously been presented, which I thought would be relegated to Faiths of Eberron. Considered now in relationship to the Eberron Campaign Setting: Information may be (unavoidably) duplicated, but the same argument can be made for any supplement more narrowly-focused than the core. It's just context for the detail, and not worthy of criticism. Does this supplement appropriately flesh out the information supplied by the core setting? Yes it does. In fact, I feel that it lives up to its name: while it's not a player-focused replacement for the campaign setting (which would be a poor move in any case), it's certainly very strongly useful to players even more, I think, than it is to Dungeon Masters running Eberron games. The expanded detail on various elements of the setting focuses on the everyday elements of the world (details on the faith to which your character might subscribe, for instance) or on certain stand-out phenomena to which you might wish your characters to belong for the sake of establishing themselves as something special (such as the tradition of the manifest spellshapers). Are there problematic elements included in the supplement? Yes. Keith Baker's vision for Eberron does not include subraces, and the Player's Guide does directly contradict that by including mention of them. Yet there are two facts in play: first, those of us who prefer Keith's version are extremely unlikely to ever actually have to deal with a player who insists he can play a dream dwarf ninja because the Player's Guide said so, and second, the fact that Wizards of the Coast chose to include mention of elements from their other D&D supplements does not necessarily indicate that there will ever be a bunch of wild elven Valenar raiders in an Eberron adventure, or anything like it. Indeed, I'm more inclined to suggest that the Player's Guide represents not a contamination of Eberron by extra-canonical elements, but rather a place where extra-canonical elements have been quarantined. Like a vaccine of sorts, to continue the somewhat hysterical disease metaphor, it represents a controlled injection of problematic mainstream D&D elements to satisfy anyone who wants to see support for all their Complete and Races of purchases in Eberron, as a safeguard against the need to constantly include them in future supplements. For instance, a theoretical sourcebook detailing the Mror Holds need not now necessarily include mention of dream dwarves because we all know where they "are". There are many details from Five Nations, to pick just one, not replicated in the Player's Guide. I'm inclined to believe this book represents the final word on subraces and the like in the setting. (Even if I am mistaken, I feel more D&D players and DMs need to find the common sense to say "No, I don't want to use that". A pathological dependance upon the perceived sanctity of canon does the game no good.) Basically, I think the Player's Guide to Eberron is unfairly maligned by people who simply expected something different without much cause.