Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wexquif 04-11-06, 06:49 PM	So just out of curiosty, what was in the PGtE besides ways of intergrating things into Eberron? Because that is all I've heard about, and I also heard they were bad ideas.
Just another user 04-11-06, 07:12 PM	Essentially is a collection of articles similiar to the Dragonshards articles on the site, I didn't have read it yet, but many say they are quite good, the only problem are those suggestion you mentioned, not because they are bad in itself but because they have forgot to mention that they are actually "suggestions" and many (like, for example, me) thought that was a bad idea, because people could start to consider these suggestions as canon, i.e the only way to introduce those thing in Eberron (and we have seen some -rare- example of that in the forum) or, even worse, mandatory.
Dracosis 04-11-06, 09:05 PM	in regards to the thing about how to introduce additional classes to ebberon, rule zero means thats everything is in the hands of the DM. When WoTC writes something they do not really have to ear mark certian things as optional cause its all optional anyway. regardless the PGtE is good because it gives the players just what they need to know and not too much more. Its a much better idea to hand players the PGtE then it is to hand them the ECS.
mhacdebhandia 04-12-06, 04:54 AM	There's more detail on most of the topics in the Eberron Campaign Setting - races, nations, religions, and so on - there are three prestige classes, quite a few feats scattered around, and organisations that you can join - like prestige classes that aren't classes, they have prerequisites for membership and minor benefits for membership. The organisations are really just ways of tying PCs into the world - if you want a character that's very committed to the cause of the Silver Flame, perhaps she's a Silver Flame templar, a freelance member of the hierarchy, for instance. Maybe everyone in the party belongs to the Red Gauntlet Regiment of mercenaries.
Kolakuba 04-12-06, 05:42 AM	I think the PGtE is an excellent resource. When my players created their characters they already had a good idea about what Eberron was, so I just showed them some entries I thought they should read up on in PGtE, and they had tons of more background info to use when detailing their characters. WotC has avoided most of the spoilers that they've handed out in the other books, and gives every subject a thorough discussion. It's most of all a reference guide that builds upon already existing published material. As always, they introduce some new organizations, some feats and some prestige classes, but it's mostly fluff, but if you need crunch you get your dose of that as well. At the same time they try to incorporate much of the material published in the DnD supplements, and these suggestions are mostly really lame. This race lives on that island, and that race lives deep Xen'drik blablabla..... But overall it's a good addition to any Eberron-campaign and definetely worth the money.
Kreistor1 04-12-06, 10:51 AM	PGtE gives 2-6 pages on a whole lot of things that only get a paragraph in the ECS. It fleshes out a whole lot of ideas, giving you more detail on various areas and peoples, as well as organizations. It's worth it for the DM, IMO, but a player shouldn't necessarily have it.
super-ninja-squirrel-king 04-12-06, 11:53 AM	i agree with kolakuba: while not necessary, it is quite helpful, especially to flesh out the characters(player or non-player), i also didn't appreciate the whole 'this subrace on that island'. otherwise, it was not being too heavy-handed about 'this goes there, that goes here', but rather, it explains things quite well. i think the best part is that,if in character you would find an encyclopedia...lets say...written by a dumb, ostracised rakshasa, you could probably remove the crunch and just hand the player the PGtE, and use it as an in-game prop. dumb and ostracised because real rakshasas will have a listing of EVERY member that makes up the clergy of the silver flame, knowledge on the truth of kaius and his history with Vol, etc, etc, etc.
DoveArrow 04-12-06, 02:17 PM	So just out of curiosty, what was in the PGtE besides ways of intergrating things into Eberron? Because that is all I've heard about, and I also heard they were bad ideas. Some scattered feats that you can do without, some really crappy art, a reprinted dragonshard, the hand of vecna renamed as the hand of vol, and a bunch of other stuff that's pretty much worthless.
Ozymandias V. 04-12-06, 04:07 PM	Some scattered feats that you can do without, some really crappy art, a reprinted dragonshard, the hand of vecna renamed as the hand of vol, and a bunch of other stuff that's pretty much worthless. My, how ridiculously trollish and indefensible your claims are.
Calibim 04-12-06, 05:09 PM	My, how ridiculously trollish and indefensible your claims are. Now Now. Play nice..... Dove is entitled to her (I pretty sure Dove is a "her", if not don't hit me!) opinion as you are entitled to ignore it and enjoy the product anyway.
mhacdebhandia 04-12-06, 06:01 PM	Indeed, she is, however ignorant those opinions are. Frankly, I consider the material on the religions of Eberron worth the price of the book, but then I'm a sucker for that material. Faiths of Eberron is killing me with the wait.
Splendide 04-12-06, 07:09 PM	Indeed, she is, however ignorant those opinions are.I would say that DoveArrow gave a pretty accurate review.
Calibim 04-12-06, 09:07 PM	Indeed, she is, however ignorant those opinions are. Sweet mother of...! It's not ignorant! She didn't like the book....so what!? She doesn't have to like the book! You liked it? Good for you! Does she have to agree with you? No... Do you have to call her opinion "ignorant"? I would hope you had more tact... We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread now in progress...
Edymnion 04-12-06, 09:43 PM	in regards to the thing about how to introduce additional classes to ebberon, rule zero means thats everything is in the hands of the DM. When WoTC writes something they do not really have to ear mark certian things as optional cause its all optional anyway."Just because the DM can fix it does not mean it wasn't broken in the first place." -The Oberroni Falacy By that logic, there are no warforged or dragonmarks in Eberron either, just suggestions that you might want to put them there. Bottom line, indesputable: PGtE presents material from other books, including races, subraces, and PrC, as definatively being in a certain location. It does not say they might be, it says that they *ARE*. Can the DM ignore that? Yes they can. But they can also ignore the fact that House Cannith makes magic items and say they make really good coffee instead. PGtE clearly differentiates between "if you want" and "this is the way it is". Read the section about using the Taint from Heroes of Horror. It repeatedly says "If you want to use this, then it could go over here". Then read where it says Race X or PrC Y is. It doesn't say "If you want to use catfolk, they're over here", it says "Catfolk are right here". There really is no arguing that simple fact. PGtE does *NOT* present that kind of material as optional material, it presents it as hardcore fact. Sure, the DM can still choose to ignore it, but they have to realize that at that point, they are now houseruling, just as much as they are houseruling that Cannith makes coffee houses and that airships are held in the sky by big fluffy marshmellows. But don't get me wrong, PGtE is an incredible book. Its second only to the ECS itself in usefulness to the setting. As long as you ignore the sidebars, you're pretty much good to go. Few spots still have rough stuff in them, but the majority of the crapshoot stuff is in the sidebars. Even with the stuff it should never have had in it, I still say its an absolute must have book. The bad stuff is very minor compared to the overwhelming awesomeness that is the Player's Guide to Eberron.Indeed, she is, however ignorant those opinions are.I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Do you even know what the word "ignorant" means? It simply means to lack knowledge. Dove obviously has some idea what she is talking about. Being ignorant of what the book has would mean she doesn't have the slightest clue as to what is in it. Obviously she does, so she cannot be ignorant. Her opinion of the book (which I disagree with, I still think its a great book that every Eberron player should have) is just as valid as yours or mine. Just because you don't agree with it does not mean she doesn't have the slightest clue what she's talking about.
mhacdebhandia 04-13-06, 04:18 AM	Do you have to call her opinion "ignorant"? I used that word because I felt the review in question was, perhaps deliberately, ignorant of what the book had to offer. It neglected to even mention many of the salient features of the book, focusing almost entirely upon the scattered references to "objectionable" elements and magnifying them out of proportion to their actual role in the book (and not judging them on their own merits, either, rather condemning them out of principle). In short, a biased and unbalanced review that did not take all of the features or the purpose of the book into account, turning a blind eye to those features which didn't support a condemnation of the supplement. I would use the same word to describe, for instance, a review of a film which criticised its use of CGI over traditional puppetry and practical effects, to the almost complete exclusion of a discussion of the performances, storyline, et cetera. That's the closest analogy I can think of for that particular review: ignorant of the possible virtues of the product and of what makes a good review in the first place.
Calibim 04-13-06, 07:31 AM	I used that word because I felt the review in question was, perhaps deliberately, ignorant of what the book had to offer. It neglected to even mention many of the salient features of the book, focusing almost entirely upon the scattered references to "objectionable" elements and magnifying them out of proportion to their actual role in the book (and not judging them on their own merits, either, rather condemning them out of principle). In short, a biased and unbalanced review that did not take all of the features or the purpose of the book into account, turning a blind eye to those features which didn't support a condemnation of the supplement. I would use the same word to describe, for instance, a review of a film which criticised its use of CGI over traditional puppetry and practical effects, to the almost complete exclusion of a discussion of the performances, storyline, et cetera. That's the closest analogy I can think of for that particular review: ignorant of the possible virtues of the product and of what makes a good review in the first place. Ok, fair enough. My apologizes if I got snippy but I have dealt with Dove on several occasions, while her "Tact Filter" may be positioned to filter "in" (how ya like that Edy!) I don't believe she is ignorant of the subject matter or what the PGtE was trying to accomplish. I think she read it and thought it sucked. Me I own it and I can see several good uses for the book, however compared Sharn:CoT or Five Nations it pales in comparison (I especially don't like the new lay-out the books have been taking as of late, but hey that's me). Ok back to the topic at hand.
Edymnion 04-13-06, 09:19 AM	a biased and unbalanced reviewNow that would be a more correct way of putting it. Does she have a biased review? Of course, we all do. We wouldn't be reviewing it in the first place if we didn't have a personal opinion on the subject, since we're not getting paid to do reviews around here. But there's a big differance between "chose not to mention the other aspects" and "didn't know about the other aspects to begin with".
DoveArrow 04-13-06, 11:23 AM	My, how ridiculously trollish and indefensible your claims are. My hate for the book knows no bounds. :P
DoveArrow 04-13-06, 11:47 AM	I used that word because I felt the review in question was, perhaps deliberately, ignorant of what the book had to offer. It neglected to even mention many of the salient features of the book, focusing almost entirely upon the scattered references to "objectionable" elements and magnifying them out of proportion to their actual role in the book (and not judging them on their own merits, either, rather condemning them out of principle). I actually did a much more in depth review (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=594028) of the book in another thread. I thought about linking to it, but I felt it was already pretty well known what my opinion was, so I didn't. However, to remedy my neglecting to mention some of the more 'salient features' of the book, I thought a couple of the character archetypes mentioned in the first chapter were interesting. Not all of them, mind you. For example, I remember distinctly disliking one archetype, which essentially described adventurers who like adventuring, because it was so generic, and not at all unique to the world of Eberron, that it felt like the author ran out of ideas, but still needed to fill the pages with something, and so he hit upon this travesty. Anyway, after having given this book an unearthly number of tries (mostly at the suggestion of people on these boards), I feel I can safely say that I think this book sucks. That may not be the popular opinion on the boards, and it may not even be your opinion. However, it is my opinion, so you can take it for what it's worth.
Majorafire77 04-13-06, 12:15 PM	Not only is PGtE pretty good, but it has an index as well! What more motivation do you need?
DoveArrow 04-13-06, 12:16 PM	(I'm pretty sure Dove is a "her", if not don't hit me!) You're close. DoveArrow is the name of a female character that I used to play in the AOL roleplaying chat rooms. I've kept the screenname mainly because it's unique, it's easy to remember, and I never have to worry about someone else using it. Anyway, back to the subject at hand.
Ozymandias V. 04-13-06, 06:49 PM	My hate for the book knows no bounds. :P The manner in which you stated it was rather trollish, and your assertion (because it wasn't an opinion, it was a declaration of fact) was indefensible as stated. Hence my commentary. I'm not saying you have to like the book. I don't much care for it myself.
Calibim 04-13-06, 08:14 PM	You're close. DoveArrow is the name of a female character that I used to play in the AOL roleplaying chat rooms. I've kept the screenname mainly because it's unique, it's easy to remember, and I never have to worry about someone else using it. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. Ok this calls for a cold shower while I play "Crying Game" through my iPod docking station and sob uncontrollablly.... (And no that does not give anyone permission to go on a rant about the intricacies/Stigma of males playing female characters.....we've heard it all before and I'm pretty sure that particular horse as been smited into oblivion....move along .....nothing to see here....)
Korhal_IV 04-13-06, 08:52 PM	To the contrary of most posters, I rather liked PGtE. The things Edy and others are objecting to are, at most, a couple of sidebars. And, unlike others, I appear to be lucky enough not to have retarded players who will crucify me if I adjust any sourcebooks, so I don't have to worry about whisper gnomes or glacial dwarves or any of that crap. PGtE is pretty useful and informative. I find myself referring to it often. The alphabetical layout is handy, the entries are broad enough to cover the topic and short enough to be interesting, and the illustrations are pretty good. Rather than rely solely on an internet thread for opinions, why don't you just take a look at it in your friendly local game store? Skip the character archtype section; even I think it's pretty lame, but all booklets designed to be introductions to roleplaying are. Just start with the religious bits, the goblinoid bits, etc.
Euangelion 04-13-06, 09:38 PM	I like PGtE alot. In fact, I'd say it's third best behind the ECS and S:CoT. In particular I liked how it fleshed out more details about the setting, such as the rule that extraplanar outsiders can't be dismissed while within manifest zones linked to their home plane. Cool. Makes sense. I also appreciated the information on ways to incorporate material from the other 3.5 books, but it is unfortunate that the way in which that material was presented was uneven in terms of being suggestions or being canon. On the other hand, I must be in the minority when it comes to 5 Nations. The inconsistent formatting in terms of what material is covered for each of the nations, the virtual absense of NPCs with NPC classes, the strange inconsistencies and contradictions within the Thrane chapter (why would the people get upset with Diani over Shadukar when the city was captured in 961 and she came to power in 988?), the worthlessness of the Argentum organization (a very similar organization is detailed in the ExH, the Acquisitions Directorate, and all that needed to be said is that there is a similar organization for the CotSF, and that space could have been used for the Knights of Thrane instead), and the baffling absense of a shred of flametouched iron on anyone in Thrane, even the Keeper of the Flame, really annoys me. I like the book, but it's my least favorite Eberron sourcebook so far. Sure a DM can clean all that up, but that brings us right back to the Oberroni falacy again.
mhacdebhandia 04-14-06, 01:22 AM	One of the things I especially appreciated about the Player's Guide to Eberron was that it didn't try to shoehorn certain concepts into game mechanics which don't suit it for the sake of a false consistency. For instance, the use of organisations like the Templars of the Silver Flame rather than trying to create a prestige class to fit all templars, or giving them short shrift by only providing a prestige class for a subgroup of the order and not catering to the majority. Likewise, including manifest casting feats rather than creating a manifest spellshaper prestige class.