Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Save-vs-DM 01-19-06, 02:29 PM	(This was posted in another thread, but I think it got lost in the resounding voices of "this is the best book ever") So, I've read through the whole book and here's a more in depth review. First Impression The first impression this book makes is very good. The cover artwork is up to the rather high standards that Eberron supplements have been setting. For the most part when you pick this book up the cover, the type face, the artwork, and the names all say “Eberron.” Layout This book has one thing going for it that I find very attractive: the layout. This book only has two chapters, a very short introduction chapter on building an Eberron character and a lengthier chapter that is more or less an “Eberron dictionary.” The layout of the second chapter is done by subject in alphabetical order. This layout makes it extremely easy to find the subject you wish to read about quickly and easily. I find this layout to be extremely “user friendly” for both players and DMs and it will be highly useful at the gaming table where looking up a specific subject often takes a great deal of time. This book really goes crazy with the sidebars. In some instances this is good, like with the what do you know sections. In other instances the sidebars seem out of place. It’s rather hit and miss at times. Chapter One Chapter one will probably be a bit uninspiring to most veteran players and board posters. While well written and useful for new players or someone seeking inspiration, it’s of dubious help to anyone who’s been playing for any length of time. Most of the suggested character archetypes are fairly Eberron specific, save for the restless wanderer, which was a tad too generic for my taste. This chapter will be highly useful to younger or inexperienced players but most other players will find it of limited use. Given the target of this book I think the chapter is a good idea but I personally don’t find it all that interesting. At seven pages it’s not all that big but it holds enough general character concepts to help new players. Chapter Two This chapter holds the meat and potatoes of the book. This chapter seems very hit and miss to me. As mentioned before, the layout really helps in my opinion. Since I’m a positive guy, I’ll start with the good stuff first. The book does a very good job of making basic introductions of most important Eberron material from a player’s perspective. I can really see a player picking up the book and thumbing through it until he finds something that perks his interest. Most of the subjects are about the size of a dragonshard in length with a few extra sidebars. It was nice to see the Goblinoids and Orcs get their own section. In addition some of the new love for aberrant dragonmarks was very welcome. For the most part the sections are fairly well written and interesting to new players. It’s heavy on the fluff and most sections have really neat in character type of intros to pique your interest. There aren’t a lot of problems in the actual body text of most of this chapter, honestly. Some of it is a bit bland and really repeats some of the dragonshards and what has been said on this message board. If you’re a new player and only have the core book this supplement is going to be your best friend. If you’ve been around since the game was released and collect dragonshards and visit these message boards a lot of this stuff will be old news. In the end I really like having most of this stuff collected in a nice supplement that I can use to help explain things to players. I might not have picked this up if I didn’t DM a lot, but I can see it being great for newer players or DMs. Those Pesky Sidebars My biggest problem with this book is in the sidebars. Normally I don’t mind sidebars, but some of these really get my goose. There is one simple phrase that would have made a lot of these sidebars much better. That phrase is “at your option.” As stated these sidebars more or less say “this subrace, class, etc. exists in Eberron.” Not, if you want it here this is where it goes but “it is here.” Suddenly I have sidebars that are including races and classes that I hate using in my games and now have to explain to my players why they’re not in this world. I find it very annoying. What really gets me is that some of these sidebars that take the time to state that everything that WotC has produced in the last three years somehow fits in this campaign world could have been removed and used to add more good material. The fact is that players don’t have to decide how a race fits into the game world. That is the job of the DM. And DMs really don’t need these sidebars in a player’s book, as most of them should know how that race fits in if he wants to include it. In short they were a waste of space and could have been used for something much better. This is a very personal beef, but the sidebar saying that “yeah, there are normal dragons you can go and slay for phat lewt” really irked me. It’s not a big deal, but I still found it against what I think Eberron is. Great for some players but not something I like on a personal level. Some of the sidebars are actually helpful. A lot of the sidebars contain some great crunch that expands on the game. In addition, the “what do you know?” sidebars are really great for DM and player alike. It’s nice to have an idea of what each DC lets you know about a certain section of the world. On a whole this book really would have been a lot better without a lot of these sidebars. The simple solution is to tell your players that anyone in a sidebar is optional material that is DM approval only. Artwork In short, this book is filled with yet more great artwork. It goes a long way towards attracting new players and invigorating the new ones. I’ve yet to find an Eberron book that had bad artwork and this book continues that fine tradition. Special mention goes to the work of Lee Moyer who turned out yet more excellent maps and the work of Wayne Reynolds. It was also nice to see the artists getting a signature for their work. Miscellaneous Comments This book had a lot of potential. I was really looking forward to the release of this book both as a player and as a dungeon master. While this book didn’t completely crush my spirit or hope for the world of Eberron, it had a few too many little problems for me to feel totally overjoyed at it’s final form. The book would have been twice as good without most of the sidebars. This is really where the book falls flat for me. A lot of the sidebars are DM material. DM material really has no business in a players book. I think that adding in sidebars telling us how to implement other material in the game world is honestly a bit insulting to our intelligence. I think nearly every DM has an idea of what he does and does not want to include. Yes, it’s easy to say that I don’t follow rule xxx. But it would be really nice if I didn’t have to say that. Adding in that some of this stuff was an option and not cannon would have helped both types of DMs. Those who did want to use the material just say “I use option xxx” and those who don’t want it just say “I do not use option xxx.” While this book was light on the crunch, most of it was good. There are a few things that are a bit high on the power scale (the high elemental binder being one of them). All in all I’m happy to have this book in my collection but I think it could have been a lot better. Overall this is a good book for new players or DMs with new players. IT HAS AN INDEX! Overall Rating: 7.5 Artwork: 9 Crunch: 7 Fluff: 6 Value: 6 Reviewer Slant: 8 Cheers, Save vs DM
Edymnion 01-19-06, 02:36 PM	Finally, an honest review :P While I find it heartening that it has a lot of dragonshard material in it (we needed that), the idea of Eberron dragonslaying for profit, and ways to include everything under the sun really rub me the wrong way. God help us, its bad enough NOW with people only skimming the first pages of the ECS and declaring "If its in D&D, then its in Eberron!" without having an entire book telling them how to turn Eberron into a generic Faerun clone where anything goes...
CameronVk 01-19-06, 03:05 PM	Finally, an honest review :P While I find it heartening that it has a lot of dragonshard material in it (we needed that), the idea of Eberron dragonslaying for profit, and ways to include everything under the sun really rub me the wrong way. God help us, its bad enough NOW with people only skimming the first pages of the ECS and declaring "If its in D&D, then its in Eberron!" without having an entire book telling them how to turn Eberron into a generic Faerun clone where anything goes... Well at least as Game Masters we can control our own campaigns and declare the stuff we don't like out of the game. No matter what they print they can't make us use it.
Edymnion 01-19-06, 03:09 PM	Like SvDM though, I would rather not have the books being published putting me in an adversarial relationship with the players because I have to repeatedly tell them that "I don't care what the book says, thats not the way it works here". I've got no problems doing so, but I'd rather the books worked with me, not against me.
nastynate 01-19-06, 04:14 PM	It seems like many people view the sidebars as canon, but I personally feel they are more like suggestions. For example if you want to play a Xeph, it is suggested they could be found in Adar. Many people have quite a collection of splat books, and while most DMs are perfectly capable of deciding which material they want to allow, and where they want it, others might feel a little intimidated by the process. The sidebars help these DMs, and offer somewhat realistic options for players who want to make a character not conceptually covered in the ECS or PHB. I think the PGtE is a fantastic book. The format is excellent, with brief summaries on various subjects that give players a taste, without revealing everything. There is useful material for almost any character, a players wants to build. It's does rehash some things we already know, and there are a few areas that have their problems (revenant blade level 5 class feature :eek: , and half-elf dragonmark issues :rolleye2: ), but over all it's a pretty good resource. I personally happen to use the complete series (partially at least) in my campaign, and I also use psionics. I appreciate some of the sidebars, while others I won't use at all. I'm not big into oriental themed classes, so there won't be wu-jen, samurai, or ninjas in my version of Eberron, but I imagine there are those who do, and they probably will follow the suggested guidelines for incorperating them into their version of Eberron. The book isn't perfect, but have Wizards ever released a perfect product? This thing has fluff, cruch, good artwork, a nice format, useful setting specific suggestions, and an index too! Nobody uses a D&D splat-book in its entirety, but I bet this sourcebook has something useful for everyone who likes Eberron. Other than the ECS, I don't think any other Eberron book has that distinction.
Ph0eNiX 01-19-06, 04:20 PM	Like SvDM though, I would rather not have the books being published putting me in an adversarial relationship with the players because I have to repeatedly tell them that "I don't care what the book says, thats not the way it works here". I've got no problems doing so, but I'd rather the books worked with me, not against me. The solution here is simple. Realize taht the races and classes referenced in the various Races of and Classes of series are optional additioons to your campaign. Yes, the PGtE may say taht "x is here, and y lives there", but that information is only there if you choose to add those character races and classes to the game. As we all know, anything from any supplement is an optional rule. Just because there's a written reference to where Goliaths come from doesn't mean you have to include Goliaths in your campaign if you want. Therefore, the book isn't working against you. And shame on your players if they don't respect the supplemental rules you are choosing to use or not use. Furthermore, Rule 0 applies, even if you are adding the race or class in question. Don't like the vision provided by the latest book? Scrap that, and use your vision instead.
Edymnion 01-19-06, 04:45 PM	Yeah, except for every book that comes out pushes it in one direction or another, and its up us the users to express what we want in these books, and what we don't, to keep them from getting totally off base. You know, like 3 page writeups on how to have Drow PCs in Eberron.Furthermore, Rule 0 applies, even if you are adding the race or class in question.Oberroni Falacy. Just because the DM can fix it does not mean it wasn't broken to begin with.
AvonRekaes 01-19-06, 04:49 PM	I think that adding in sidebars telling us how to implement other material in the game world is honestly a bit insulting to our intelligence. I think nearly every DM has an idea of what he does and does not want to include. I would have to disagree with you there SvDM. I dunno about you but I've seen a lot of posts and Ask Keith questions about "How would you put X race into eberron" or "Where would class X go?". The Eberron Journal even has it's own conversions for races and classes. Do you think they're insulting our intelligence? Sure, they're unofficial so it's by default an option. I dunno about you though, but I *like* knowing the "official" placement of Xephs or Half-Giants or what-have-you. Of course, if I happen to dislike a certain placement of a certain race, I'll change it for my game. (For instance in my game, Killoren are native to Eberron and were first spotted shortly before the Dealkyr invasion, sort of like a planetary defense mechanism). In fact, I'm a bit dissappointed they didn't go into more detail for some races. Illumians literally got 1 sentence. I would have liked to know how their deification rituals changed since they would have had no proof that some of their number actually became gods. As for placement of such races being a DM concern, I do think you have a point. However, if I was a player and said "I want to play a Goliath, where do they fit in Eberron?", my DM would hand me the PGtE. I think that makes sense too. Other than that, I generally agree with your review. Let's all hope that one of these days they'll stamp out continuity errors before the book goes to press. *shakes fist at half-elfs getting elven and human dragonmarks.*
jasamcarl 01-19-06, 05:50 PM	Like SvDM though, I would rather not have the books being published putting me in an adversarial relationship with the players because I have to repeatedly tell them that "I don't care what the book says, thats not the way it works here". I've got no problems doing so, but I'd rather the books worked with me, not against me. You're players must be idiots, then, because my players would be able to put all fluff and crunch in its proper context, i.e. that which is most appropriate for our (my campaign). Don't blame the book for your players. And while the sidebars might not be necessary, nothing about Eberron is necessary. Its a guidebook of fluff suggestions, nothing more.
Adhevan 01-19-06, 06:34 PM	You're players must be idiots, then, because my players would be able to put all fluff and crunch in its proper context, i.e. that which is most appropriate for our (my campaign). Don't blame the book for your players. Wow. Your players automatically understand what new rules will and will not be optional in your home campaign without the need to even discuss it? I submit that this is not normal player behavior. Most players out there will want to actually use the material in an official campaign sourcebook if they shell out the money for it. I hardly think it is indicative of a sub-80 IQ that they interpret these rulebooks the way they are actually written instead of assuming that everywhere the author uses "is" he really means "possibly is, if it's appropriate for your campaign." It might be a little different if we were talking about a generic D&D supplement like Races of Quick-Crete(tm), but it's a little harder to treat a book as entirely optional when the title of it is Player's Guide to Eberron.
jasamcarl 01-19-06, 06:44 PM	Wow. Your players automatically understand what new rules will and will not be optional in your home campaign without the need to even discuss it? I submit that this is not normal player behavior. Most players out there will want to actually use the material in an official campaign sourcebook if they shell out the money for it. I hardly think it is indicative of a sub-80 IQ that they interpret these rulebooks the way they are actually written instead of assuming that everywhere the author uses "is" he really means "possibly is, if it's appropriate for your campaign." They may want to use it, having purchased said material, and I may take that into consideration, but they are unlikely to take some fluff suggestions as an absolute authority and crutch to demand its use, as some have been suggesting. My players are smart enough to realize that fluff is dependent more on my inclinations and their in game actions than the word of law of a campaign setting. In fact, i'm surprised my assertion is even controversial. Nothing in the Eberron book can be considered a rule in the same sense as the traditional crunch mechanics (and even that can be modified given enough forthought). The fluff will always be provisional, and easily modified. All new rules and especially fluff is optional.
Adhevan 01-19-06, 06:58 PM	In fact, i'm surprised my assertion is even controversial. Nothing in the Eberron book can be considered a rule in the same sense as the traditional crunch mechanics (and even that can be modified given enough forthought). The fluff will always be provisional, and easily modified. All new rules and especially fluff is optional. Especially fluff? The fluff is what makes it a campaign setting instead of just a list of feats and PrCs for a wargame. I'm surprised, and honestly saddened, that the background and history information that defines a setting has come to be called "fluff" anyway.
jasamcarl 01-19-06, 07:24 PM	Especially fluff? The fluff is what makes it a campaign setting instead of just a list of feats and PrCs for a wargame. I'm surprised, and honestly saddened, that the background and history information that defines a setting has come to be called "fluff" anyway. It's fluff not because that type of narrative driven gameplay isn't important, but rather because its content will almost always be determined by how an actual group actually plays and describes their play, not by some book filled with suppossed canon which will always give at best incomplete view of the world at the game table. I use Eberron because it acts as a starting point of references that all players can grasp to one degree or another, but based on preference, practibility, conscerns with actual gameplay, etc, the use of that fluff is strictly provisional.
polt 01-20-06, 03:41 AM	I don't see the big problem with "I have to explain why and this stuff doesn't exist in my world." Do your players really need that? I just say "Well, I don't like these races, I don't think they belong in the world, so they are off limit." Then my players go "Okay dokay" and everything is good :D
The Necromancer King 01-20-06, 04:21 AM	My players run every decision past me before they do something. If I say no, they accept that. They don't question it, because they know I probably have a good reason for it, even if that reason is "I would show you unfair discrimination because I hate your choice of character." Which is a perfectly valid reason to disallow something in a game. Everything written in every game book is optional. Everything. The only canon is what happens at your game table. Personally, I'm looking forward to this book. It sounds like it has some great options and some stuff I can use to flesh out my game. Yay more information on Zilargo and the Talenta Plains! Yay character options! Yay bad sidebars! *shrug*
Dansan 01-20-06, 06:47 AM	Still, from what I am gathering, this is the best Eberron book since City of Sharn. Or am I wrong? While I do play in Eberron, I don't even DM Eberron, though I might in the future, which would make this a potential buy for me, as I am always interested in good Eberron material (I know 10 times more about Eberron that my DM does).
jpat93 01-20-06, 01:22 PM	I just got it yesterday, and I'm pretty much an Eberron newbie. Though I have the ECS and Sharn, I haven't had a chance till about now to read either; knowing that the Player's Guide was coming out, I decided to start there to see what kind of orientation that would give me. I'm not really bothered by the topics-orientated approach, but I am a little surprised that there's no general orientation to the setting. I realize that the back cover says the ECS is needed, I'm still a little surprised that the book assumes that you as a player will already know quite a bit about Eberron. This may be a no-win situation: reprinting a bunch of stuff from the ECS would tick many off, and for good reason, but the PGtE hardly stands alone, even for players, which means that players may well still want the ECS, which (while good news for WotC sales) sort of raises ultimate questions about the place of the PGtE, at least in my mind. Anyway, the PGtE, like the other Eberron books, is lovely to look at, and I'm intrigued by many of the topics, so I'm still looking forward to reading it.
Euangelion 01-20-06, 02:32 PM	jpat93, I think that's a very good point. One way of filling in the gaps are to read the Dragonshards articles and the materials on the WOTC website in preparation for Eberron's release a year and a half ago. In particular, there was a map of Khorvaire that had a short description of each nation with it. It would take work to put it all together, but it would probably be enough for those just starting out in Eberron. In general: After reading/mostly skimming through the PGtE finally, I have to point out that on the "this is in Eberron" vs. "if this were in Eberron, this is one place it could be" issue, I noticed that it goes back and forth. Some places it's presented as definate, but other places it's more of a "could be" kind of thing. Not that this makes it any less confusing to a potential new player to Eberron. Also, I didn't see anything about elven sub-races (besides sea elves and drow) which seem to be the ones that bother a lot of people the most. Again, I could have just missed it.
Ryan_Singer 01-20-06, 03:58 PM	jpat93, I think that's a very good point. One way of filling in the gaps are to read the Dragonshards articles and the materials on the WOTC website in preparation for Eberron's release a year and a half ago. In particular, there was a map of Khorvaire that had a short description of each nation with it. It would take work to put it all together, but it would probably be enough for those just starting out in Eberron. Link, please? I would love to print this out for players. Ryan
Euangelion 01-20-06, 04:11 PM	Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eb/20040608a) it is, but unfortunately the descriptions of the nations are only available online using the interactive map. Perhaps it could be downloaded, though.
Serow Darkstar 01-21-06, 07:37 AM	-Edit- Drat. The link won't work... Well, if you have a manner of saving the link, here's the URL for the map. "http://www.wizards.com/dnd/ebmap/eberron_interactive_PL.swf" Right click, save target as. That should allow you to save the interactive map...
Euangelion 01-21-06, 11:37 AM	Those Pesky Sidebars My biggest problem with this book is in the sidebars. Normally I don’t mind sidebars, but some of these really get my goose. There is one simple phrase that would have made a lot of these sidebars much better. That phrase is “at your option.” As stated these sidebars more or less say “this subrace, class, etc. exists in Eberron.” Not, if you want it here this is where it goes but “it is here.” Suddenly I have sidebars that are including races and classes that I hate using in my games and now have to explain to my players why they’re not in this world. I find it very annoying. What really gets me is that some of these sidebars that take the time to state that everything that WotC has produced in the last three years somehow fits in this campaign world could have been removed and used to add more good material. The fact is that players don’t have to decide how a race fits into the game world. That is the job of the DM. And DMs really don’t need these sidebars in a player’s book, as most of them should know how that race fits in if he wants to include it. In short they were a waste of space and could have been used for something much better. I'm going to have to admit that this is the very way I suggested (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=457073&page=1&pp=30) (post #14) that the Eberron Expanded articles could be organized, not around individual books but around themes, like suggestions on incorporating the new player classes from the Complete series, and so on. Thus I'm very pleased that this information is available to us. Yes, it's slightly annoying to me that it's presented as being more definate than it might need to be, but as was stated earlier, everything is up to the DM in Eberron! (I'm also very pleased that Races of the Dragon makes such an effort to include Eberron - using sidebars - in its presentation, even to the point of quoting the kobolds Dragonshards article. If this trend continues, then there won't be a need to include so much information about outside sources in Eberron sourcebooks.) This is a very personal beef, but the sidebar saying that “yeah, there are normal dragons you can go and slay for phat lewt” really irked me. It’s not a big deal, but I still found it against what I think Eberron is. Great for some players but not something I like on a personal level. This is something you need to take up with Keith, because this presents almost verbatim the information given in the Role of Dragons Dragonshards article. I think that adding in sidebars telling us how to implement other material in the game world is honestly a bit insulting to our intelligence. Come on now, the implication of that statement is that if someone actually finds the information in the sidebars useful then there's something wrong with their intelligence, and that there's something wrong with the intelligence of those who thought the information might be useful. Frankly, it had to be done, because modifiying the materials from the generic 3.5 books for Eberron takes more effort than it would for a generic campaign or even FR. So yes, Save-vs-DM, you're very smart, and one of the best designers of PrC's out there, but I believe that the information in the sidebars is ultimately going to be helpful to more people than not (especially among those who rarely, if ever, visit these boards).
Logos7 01-21-06, 02:31 PM	I've got the book, I like it Layout gets top points for me, Usability gets top points for me, something both me and my players can use multible times is nice Content gets near top points for me, it has everything i wanted in it (to the point i will probably never buy explorers handbook ), and i think that trying to provide a way to include otherthings from complete and races of in the book is a good thing, Am i going to allow subraces now or do everything the way the book says.....the short answere is no. My players aren't going to have a problem with this as they know what i allow in my game (and races of series is not there nor is 1/2 of complete). It does give how the people who wrote the book (which include Keith Baker) would do things Art Again A-1 some of the Images seem somewhat not in style line up but still very nice and exciting unlike a lot of other DnD Artwork Compleints' s Seems like the Kalaystar section seems a little skimpy on crunch ( sure 2 feats and a few powers in other placesto like 3 for everyone else and both of those only first level thingys but interesting enough, I will be using the Races of Eberron Kalaystar section for more crunch) 9/10 Flufftastic and something for everyone ( think SvsDM is being a bit stogey on his rating) lots more for most people, everyone's going to use it a bit at my table (unlike 5nations) and it fills in some of the gaps in knowledge detractants they do suggest(perhaps even canonize) subraces and all of the Races of and Complete Material, theirs a 1/2 page on incarnum and a few other books i don't have or want, i suggest you ignore those bits Would also like to point out just cause you dont agree with something's doesn't mean everyone does, I seem to find a lot of that (for example the quotes from dragonshards not seeming "Eberronesque" to some people, You can run your own game your own way, just don't expect to find to much traction of compeints that Mr. Baker didn't write something the way you think it ought to be Logos
Edymnion 01-21-06, 03:03 PM	I just say "Well, I don't like these races, I don't think they belong in the world, so they are off limit." Then my players go "Okay dokay" and everything is good :DYeah, but what bothers me is that when a book presents something as "yes, this is exactly how it is!" when it's talking about entirely optional material (aka, stuff that is not part of the Eberron line in any shape, form, or fashion) leads to the players getting the wrong idea of the setting. The idea of me getting a new player that comes to the table saying that they want to play a half-dragon umbragon warlock and can't understand why that isn't acceptable in Eberron, because Book A says that this is where you find this and this, and Book B says these exist over here, etc scares me a little. The coolest part of Eberron was that it is DIFFERANT. It isn't like every other setting in the game. There are no subraces, there is no great wheel, magic makes sense, in-setting use of alignment is actually CORRECT, there are no active gods, etc. Adding in everything under the sun just dilutes the setting and robs it of some of it's specialness, IMO. Yes, as the DM, I can fix that by setting said new player down and explaining it to them, and then we're good to go. But the problem is, the next book will push it just a little farther, then the next book a little farther after that, and before too long, Eberron will be the giant hodge-podge melting pot "Ah who cares, just toss it in!" mess that some of the other settings are in. The setting books should be about the SETTING. Leave explaining how to fit extra material into it for the extra books. Aka, I would want to see the Eberron line books avoid things like Illumins and Warlocks entirely, just don't even mention them. Then, you go to Races of Whatever Gimmick We Thought of Now, see the entry for "More humans with differant colored skin and scales", and have "How to use Blue Skinned Scalies in Eberron" as part of the entry. Like how it was handled in the MM3. Look up Eldritch Giant, it talks about them, and then talks about adapting them to Faerun or Eberron. THAT is how extra material should be handled, not going into depth about how there's a tribe of Eldritch Giants in region Y of country X.
Uller999 01-21-06, 03:39 PM	Yeah, but what bothers me is that when a book presents something as "yes, this is exactly how it is!" when it's talking about entirely optional material (aka, stuff that is not part of the Eberron line in any shape, form, or fashion) leads to the players getting the wrong idea of the setting. The idea of me getting a new player that comes to the table saying that they want to play a half-dragon umbragon warlock and can't understand why that isn't acceptable in Eberron, because Book A says that this is where you find this and this, and Book B says these exist over here, etc scares me a little. The coolest part of Eberron was that it is DIFFERANT. It isn't like every other setting in the game. There are no subraces, there is no great wheel, magic makes sense, in-setting use of alignment is actually CORRECT, there are no active gods, etc. Adding in everything under the sun just dilutes the setting and robs it of some of its specialness, IMO. Yes, as the DM, I can fix that by setting said new player down and explaining it to them, and then we're good to go. But the problem is, the next book will push it just a little farther, then the next book a little farther after that, and before too long, Eberron will be the giant hodge-podge melting pot "Ah who cares, just toss it in!" mess that some of the other settings are in. The setting books should be about the SETTING. Leave explaining how to fit extra material into it for the extra books. Aka, I would want to see the Eberron line books avoid things like Illumins and Warlocks entirely, just don't even mention them. Then, you go to Races of Whatever Gimmick We Thought of Now, see the entry for "More humans with different colored skin and scales", and have "How to use Blue Skinned Scalies in Eberron" as part of the entry. Like how it was handled in the MM3. Look up Eldritch Giant; it talks about them, and then talks about adapting them to Faerun or Eberron. THAT is how extra material should be handled; not going into depth about how there's a tribe of Eldritch Giants in region Y of country X. Well I have got MMIII in front of me but there is no write up for Eldritch Giants. There is however a write up for Sand Giants, I'll use that as an example... "Sand Giant inhabits the vast desert on the continent of Xen'drik. Although sand giant clans generally lead nomadic live, a few clans maintain permanent dwellings carved into towering spires of sand-sculpted rock that thrust up from the desert wasteland." Now it looks to me that sand giants have a pretty assumed and well-defined place by this little paragraph; or at least it’s as well defined as any other monster they randomly added into the book. The only thing that makes it’s seem to less implicit is that there is a Faerun adaptation right next to it. Goat folk and Web Golems both lack this and the actual information that is on paper to implement Goat Folk is IMO much more palpable that that used to implement Skalds or whatever those Incarnum critters are called. Let's look at their information as offered and I think you'll find MMIII to be much more invasive "The lawful militaristic Skarns use Incarnum to embody the ideals of a particular alignment - usually law itself, but sometimes good or evil." "Two races with a common ancestor have spread to dominate isolated Kapaerian Island, west of the Skyfall peninsula. The ordered cities of the skarns and the more casual communities of the Rilkans thrive side by side..." It goes for another dozen or so lines, mainly in describing them and explaining a little about Incarnum in Eberron. So the Goatfolk were actively involved in the last war and live in a good adventuring spot in the 5K (the blackcap mountains), meanwhile the Incarnum folks live out on a recently invented island which is noted as being isolated. So which one is more invasive and liable to come up in game in most campaigns? Neither of the entries uses passive language, none of it is implied it’s all explicitly stated. What is implicitly understood in this book as with all other D&D books is that you use what you want to and only what you want to. It really isn't a matter of stupidity or maintaining the sovereign holiness of the fluff it’s about time management. I don't have time to (if I wanted to) implement and plan out all of those little Incarnum races. So WoTC does it for me. I appreciate that, I don't use it but it’s nice to know that if I wanted to, I could do so with a minimum of hassle. Also as has been said before a butt-load of people have asked about how to implement things. It was my impression that all D&D products are designed such that if you want to add or subtract something it wouldn't destroy structural cohesion of the system. Psionics work like this.
MysteryGilgamesh 01-21-06, 05:35 PM	I have a beef with the book: Mechanics wise, the damn thing is all over the place. I don't mean power level-wise (because every book made is always all over the map, power level-wise). I mean, simply...All of the mechanics. Are scattered. All over the place! Whose bonehead idea was it to stop using the tried and true, easy to access, "put everything in one place here's a chapter for you, you and you" format for feats, PrC's, spells, and magic items? This was just a horrible design decision. Who approved this? Because whoever did, needs to be fired. Other than that, the book seems fairly decent so far. The excerpts giving places to all of the various classes and races released since (or before) Eberron's arrival were a good thing. I like knowing, definitively (none of this "Oh, they might be here..." **** that permeates other products) where things are, and what they're doing so. Too bad this didn't arrive a few months ago, however, when I was playing an Incarnum user, but ah well...
polt 01-21-06, 06:20 PM	The idea of me getting a new player that comes to the table saying that they want to play a half-dragon umbragon warlock and can't understand why that isn't acceptable in Eberron, because Book A says that this is where you find this and this, and Book B says these exist over here, etc scares me a little. Well, if you player wants to play this, simply say "No, it doesn't fit in this game."
Kanatash 01-21-06, 06:20 PM	As usual, since after Sharn: City of Towers came out, I’ve thought the same thing about every Eberron sourcebook. They all have the same things right and wrong about them; great art, interesting new topics, and the same stupid mistakes. Why do we keep seeing major errors concerning Dragonmarks? It seems like that most of the problems we have come into the book through new authors, and the editors keep letting the problems come through. You’d think they keep a look out for that stuff by now. I don’t mind the “this goes here” stuff, I already forced my self to realize that everyone writing for Eberron aren’t going to follow the same ideas as me (generally falling under the Baker Philosophy, not because I have to but because I really like the newer ways of doing things). The authors do things right in my mind are usually the ones that were in the original design team. Sharn: City of Towers is by far for me the best sourcebook for the setting, Very interesting, outstanding quality, and No Glaring Mistakes. It’s not that I don’t want new authors to write for Eberron, it’s that I wish they would study the world first (online articles, novels, and other sourcebooks).
Splendide 01-21-06, 07:22 PM	It goes for another dozen or so lines, mainly in describing them and explaining a little about Incarnum in Eberron. So the Goatfolk were actively involved in the last war and live in a good adventuring spot in the 5K (the blackcap mountains), meanwhile the Incarnum folks live out on a recently invented island which is noted as being isolated. So which one is more invasive and liable to come up in game in most campaigns?Quite obviously the entry in PGtE. Monster Manuals have never been for players, so put what you want in there.
Save-vs-DM 01-21-06, 09:20 PM	Come on now, the implication of that statement is that if someone actually finds the information in the sidebars useful then there's something wrong with their intelligence, and that there's something wrong with the intelligence of those who thought the information might be useful. Frankly, it had to be done, because modifiying the materials from the generic 3.5 books for Eberron takes more effort than it would for a generic campaign or even FR. So yes, Save-vs-DM, you're very smart, and one of the best designers of PrC's out there, but I believe that the information in the sidebars is ultimately going to be helpful to more people than not (especially among those who rarely, if ever, visit these boards). I did not mean to demean the intelligence of anyone out there with that statement. What I wrote came off wrong if that's what you take away from that statement. Perhaps it was my frustration at percieved mistakes in the book, perhaps I'm just a huge jerk. If I did offend anyone, I aplogize. I was out of line. I'm going to have to admit that this is the very way I suggested (post #14) that the Eberron Expanded articles could be organized, not around individual books but around themes, like suggestions on incorporating the new player classes from the Complete series, and so on. Thus I'm very pleased that this information is available to us. That was a good suggestion. I'm not saying having the information there is bad per say, more that I would have liked to see more information about new stuff in Eberron. Cheers, Save vs DM
DarkWarriorKarg 01-22-06, 12:37 AM	I honestly don't mind a book that helps me place the optional material presented in the other sourcebooks within the world. I truly dislike buying a sourcebook, then finding out that it's not usable in the system/background I like (planar handbook & manual of the planes, anyone?) As for players asking for something that isn't in the game structure I'm using, the word "no" exists for a reason. I would rather have too many options, than not enough. Further, I run games for my players, not myself. So they do have a say in how the world will be. This is a cooperative game, no? I've gone long past the point of telling my players that they must conform to my vision, take it or leave it. Dictatorship is pointless. This worry by some, of what WOTC will include in THEIR product, is meaningless. They have a luxury good they need to sell. They will put in whatever sells. That is smart marketing.
Dragonlover 01-22-06, 11:45 AM	I have a beef with the book: Mechanics wise, the damn thing is all over the place. I don't mean power level-wise (because every book made is always all over the map, power level-wise). I mean, simply...All of the mechanics. Are scattered. All over the place! Whose bonehead idea was it to stop using the tried and true, easy to access, "put everything in one place here's a chapter for you, you and you" format for feats, PrC's, spells, and magic items? This was just a horrible design decision. Who approved this? Because whoever did, needs to be fired. I personally liked this for PGtE, because it puts the crunch with the fluff and keeps it in the theme of the book. What did irritate me (and I know its a really minor thing) is that they changed the layout of the feats. They used the 'Eberron' font, centralised the name and missed off the [General] tag. I know that its a small thing, but the first time I read it I nearly didn't realise that they were the feats. Dragonlover
Chaotix42 01-22-06, 12:44 PM	I've loved the PGtE so far. Indeed, a lot of the book seems to be fitting the other non-setting-specific material into the nooks and crannies of Eberron, but I don't mind it really. At first I was worried that the "sanctity" of Eberron would be violated, but the book is just stocked full of good ideas. While I may never use a chaos gnome in my entire DM'ing career, it's hardly damaging to have a paragraph on the little guys saying where they are in the world. It's not going to lead to a "Chaos Gnomes of Eberron" book or anything.
Arcane Guyver 01-22-06, 07:23 PM	I don't know how I feel about this book. It's nice, I love the layout, and it's written well for the most part. I like all the little sidebars that detail how the new base classes fit in (especially Wu Jen & Shugenja). I've been waiting for some of this information for a long time. Oh yes, and now we know why the Sage said subraces can manifest aberrant dragonmarks! The new dragonmark-related feats are awesome. On the flip side: Complaint #1 - One of the artists really needs to go. Don't know him by name, but he's the one that makes every guy look like a half-orc (due to lots of green skin & arms that would break if they tried to bend them - I think the Shadow Marches woman's arm is already broken :eek: ). Complaint #2 - This book flat-out states that most everything fits in Eberron, the end. I'm glad they were lenient with Monster Manual subraces (using only drow & aquatic brands of elf). And the races I like I'm obviously fine with...but I really could do without stuff from Races of Destiny, Frostburn, Planar Handbook, and Magic of Incarnum. So...even if this aspect of the book is not canon (looks like it is...), it's still going to be a HELL of a headache for me as a DM to go through it, page by page, saying what is and isn't relevant in my game. :( And yes, I will have to do this, as most of my players have picked up the book and asked if they could play some of these new races/classes. Complaint #3 - The 'hungry dragons' sidebar. Not a biggee, as a DM can easily just ignore that section and everything will be alright. The 'phat lewt' comment is exactly the feeling I got from this. :rolleyes: Complaint #4 - I wish they would have reserved most of that Xen'drik stuff for the Xen'drik sourcebook due out later this year. A full page listing 30-some-odd races living in a section of one continent...yeah. :weep:
DarkWarriorKarg 01-22-06, 11:51 PM	Complaint #4 - I wish they would have reserved most of that Xen'drik stuff for the Xen'drik sourcebook due out later this year. A full page listing 30-some-odd races living in a section of one continent...yeah. :weep: As long as the Xen'drik sourcebook doesn't contradict this, I don't mind. And I like the plug-ins for the other books WOTC publishes.
Demickel 01-23-06, 10:47 AM	As long as the Xen'drik sourcebook doesn't contradict this, I don't mind. And I like the plug-ins for the other books WOTC publishes. You're not exactly reading what people are saying are you? They don't have a problem with the inclusion of the sidebars, their problem is that the sidebars were statements of fact rather than "suggestions" or "If you want to put X in your campaign, THIS is where they would fit."
The Dreaming Duck 01-23-06, 11:49 AM	This is something you need to take up with Keith, because this presents almost verbatim the information given in the Role of Dragons Dragonshards article. Umm... Have you READ the Role of Dragons Dragonshard recently? It's not verbatim at all. Compare the following: Perhaps that scaly horror you've encountered doesn't have any secret agenda or hidden interests... it might just be hungry. Good luck with it. Both DM and party should always consider the cunning of the dragon. Part of the creature's power is its intelligence, and a dragon rarely allows itself to be taken by surprise. Dragons are not simply monsters: They are the children of sky and earth -- the legacy of the first age of Eberron. An encounter with a dragon -- rogue or not -- should always establish the power and majesty of these creatures, and it should always be a significant event. The Role of Dragons 'shard also presents the idea that a rogue dragon might be a hidden power behind a thieves' guild or other organization. It emphasizes the power and intelligence of these creatures - that they AREN'T just "Rrrar!" monsters hanging out in caves waiting to eat people. By contrast, this Everyday Dragons sidebar does just that. "Maybe it's just hungry." There's no doubt in my mind that Keith didn't write that sidebar.
Hellcow 01-23-06, 12:02 PM	What did irritate me (and I know its a really minor thing) is that they changed the layout of the feats. They... centralised the name and missed off the [General] tag. That's actually current WotC formatting - you'll see the [General] tag dropped in other books in the future. As for the sidebars, while it's true that the language is unclear, *I* certainly consider material from anything beyond the core books to be optional, and see the sidebars in just that light. You won't see chaos gnomes in Zilargo in *my* campaign... but if other people want to use them and find the sidebar helpful, good for them. Likewise, as folks who've read my posts know, I've suggested that the samurai could be a military tradition of some of the Dhakaani clans; however, the idea of the Code of Honorable Devotion as presented in the PGtE is certainly easier for players who want to make samurai characters without coming up with a strange and elaborate backstory involving life among the goblins. I've always said that it's that you CAN find a place for everything in Eberron... not that you HAVE to. In my opinion, the PGtE sidebars present options for those who want them: but I would still feel free to tell a player "I'm just using the material from the core books in my campaign", or "I'm using Races of Stone, but none of the subraces."
Trannic 01-23-06, 12:24 PM	Quite frankly I enjoyed the book, it gave great ideas on how to implant all the other info that's out there. However, I didn't see anywhere in any of the Eberron books that said, "Now that it is written, you must use it." The best thing about Eberron is its inherent flexibility for players and DM's. I agree with Hellcow and all the others who said it, if you don't want to use it, then don't use it, but if you are, here is a suggestion of where it could be. I mean good grief, these are game books not holy scripture passed down from on high. But then, that's just my opinion.
MrFilthyIke 01-23-06, 12:43 PM	Perhaps that scaly horror you've encountered doesn't have any secret agenda or hidden interests... it might just be hungry. Good luck with it. What's wrong with a draconic rampage? Even in Eberron? Heck that's a plot itself! Why has this mighty creature gone berserk? Dealkyr influence? Madened by the Prophecy?? Maybe Dragon Rabies is catching?? ;)
Euangelion 01-23-06, 10:34 PM	The Role of Dragons 'shard also presents the idea that a rogue dragon might be a hidden power behind a thieves' guild or other organization. It emphasizes the power and intelligence of these creatures - that they AREN'T just "Rrrar!" monsters hanging out in caves waiting to eat people. By contrast, this Everyday Dragons sidebar does just that. "Maybe it's just hungry." There's no doubt in my mind that Keith didn't write that sidebar. Okay, I overstated my point with the phrase "almost verbatim". My bad. :D But I guess I must have been thinking about these lines from the Role of Dragons Dragonshard: "A guardian dragon could lurk in any ruin or ancient site. Only bardic knowledge or ancient lore can provide a party with the tools to tell whether a dragon is a guardian that should be left to her post or a rogue wyrm that can be struck with impunity." (italics added) And then there's this statement about rogue dragons: "Here is the lone dragon the adventurers may seek -- the deadly creature lurking in its hidden lair, gathering a hoard in the darkness." 'Phat lewt' anyone? It sounds like to me that if Keith didn't write that sidebar, then whoever did either read the Role of Dragons or talked to Keith about it. I could be wrong; either way, that sidebar just doesn't bother me. When it comes down to it, dragonslaying is just one of those things that makes Dungeons and Dragons what it is. So some dragons look at the lesser races as a healthy snack. So what? They're dragons, they can do what they want.
PoeticJustice 01-23-06, 11:14 PM	O...So some dragons look at the lesser races as a healthy snack. So what? They're dragons, they can do what they want. That doesn't sound like a significant event. And if we doesn't have that, then why not just declare 999 YK the Year of Rogue Dragons and rally the flights in a war against Queen Takhi... I mean Vol. It's not a huge deal, but one of the things I like about Eberron is the way it treats Dragons. They are as near gods as anything on this setting and should get that level of respect. Simply saying that one acts stupid due to hunger is like telling telling the party Wizard to go hunt cats for food.
Euangelion 01-24-06, 09:39 AM	It's not a huge deal, but one of the things I like about Eberron is the way it treats Dragons. They are as near gods as anything on this setting and should get that level of respect. Simply saying that one acts stupid due to hunger is like telling telling the party Wizard to go hunt cats for food. If humanoids taste good to a dragon, how is it stupid to eat one? If a dragon is as close to a god as one gets in Eberron, why should any member of a lesser race think that a dragon is going to give them any more respect than we give chickens or cows or any other animal we raise for food? The lesser races sure a heck should respect a dragon, but there's absolutely no reason a rogue dragon should be expected to return that respect. Dragons have personalities too, and diverse ones at that. Some of them are jerks and bullies, plain and simple, who have zero respect for the lesser races, except as a tasty snack. Another way of looking at it is this: while an encounter between a group of humanoids and a dragon will certainly be a significant event to the party, it probably won't be one for the dragon. That is, until the dragon realizes the party is unlike any other group of humanoids it has encountered. The only reason a rogue dragon should fear humanoids is if there's thousands of high-level NPC's running around slaying dragons. But in Eberron there just isn't, so there's no reason a rogue dragon, cut off from dragon and humanoid society, is going to look at humanoids as anything special. And they way I see it, that's a perfectly logical and faithful implication of the unique place dragons have in the Eberron Campaign Setting. You may not like it, but hey, we're just part of the lesser races, so we have to come to terms with it somehow. ;)
PoeticJustice 01-24-06, 12:47 PM	If humanoids taste good to a dragon, how is it stupid to eat one? If a dragon is as close to a god as one gets in Eberron, why should any member of a lesser race think that a dragon is going to give them any more respect than we give chickens or cows or any other animal we raise for food? It's not the same situation. There'd be a lot more vegetarians if you knew what you were eating was a thinking creature with thoughts and dreams just like the eater. When a human eats a cow he easting a stupid beast of burden. When a Dragon eats a person he knows he's eating sentient being, something most beings finds distasteful. The lesser races sure a heck should respect a dragon, but there's absolutely no reason a rogue dragon should be expected to return that respect. Dragons have personalities too, and diverse ones at that. Some of them are jerks and bullies, plain and simple, who have zero respect for the lesser races, except as a tasty snack. You're going to have to convince me that we're tasty on this one. The average human has little meat and fat compared to you're average sheep or cow, and are a lot less prone to sortie or retreat. And, if humans and cattle are roughly on the same level, as you imply, then why not go for a slow, fat, and delicious cow instead of bony human? Another way of looking at it is this: while an encounter between a group of humanoids and a dragon will certainly be a significant event to the party, it probably won't be one for the dragon. That is, until the dragon realizes the party is unlike any other group of humanoids it has encountered. The only reason a rogue dragon should fear humanoids is if there's thousands of high-level NPC's running around slaying dragons. But in Eberron there just isn't, so there's no reason a rogue dragon, cut off from dragon and humanoid society, is going to look at humanoids as anything special. And they way I see it, that's a perfectly logical and faithful implication of the unique place dragons have in the Eberron Campaign Setting. No, that's the justification for Dragons inany setting. Eating is not majestic. Eating is not special or different. Any setting can have a hungry Dragon as a matter of course. I rather like the idea of a Dragon behind the scenes, running a thieves' guild or taking over a mine. I do not like the idea of a Dragon saying "I'm hungry, I'll terrorize the countryside because I can get away with it."
Euangelion 01-24-06, 01:19 PM	When a human eats a cow he easting a stupid beast of burden. To put it simply, I see no reason that a rogue dragon, drunk with arrogance over its superiority to the lesser races, might not look at a humanoid any differently than that. To paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's good to be a god."
MysterYvil 01-24-06, 02:44 PM	Wow. Your players automatically understand what new rules will and will not be optional in your home campaign without the need to even discuss it? I submit that this is not normal player behavior. Most players out there will want to actually use the material in an official campaign sourcebook if they shell out the money for it. I hardly think it is indicative of a sub-80 IQ that they interpret these rulebooks the way they are actually written instead of assuming that everywhere the author uses "is" he really means "possibly is, if it's appropriate for your campaign." It might be a little different if we were talking about a generic D&D supplement like Races of Quick-Crete(tm), but it's a little harder to treat a book as entirely optional when the title of it is Player's Guide to Eberron.I guess I'm spoiled, but my players work fine within the framework of "only the PH, DMG, and MM are core" in my campaign. I pretty open about non-core stuff, but the right to reserve is always there. EVERYTHING else is optional, and they check with me before they get their hearts set on any non-core info, even if they shelled out money for whatever book. I've never had any complaints about this policy, either. Many players appreciate it, as they don't have to participate in the "arms race" of buying each new item for the latest-and-greatest.