D&D 5E Rate Eberron: Rising from the Last War

[gyor]

Not an unreasonable position, but also not a useful one in the absence of time travel.

There is always 5.5e and 6e.

 

[MarkB]

There is always 5.5e and 6e.

Sure, and with perfect hindsight they'll include everything that was popular during the course of 5e's publication. And will inevitably leave out other things that go on to be popular with players in 6e.

 

[gyor]

Sure, and with perfect hindsight they'll include everything that was popular during the course of 5e's publication. And will inevitably leave out other things that go on to be popular with players in 6e.

Not things that happen to be popular, things that appear often via reprints or appear in 3 or more settings. If something is popular, but is only done once, it doesn't need to be in the PHB.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Not things that happen to be popular, things that appear often via reprints or appear in 3 or more settings. If something is popular, but is only done once, it doesn't need to be in the PHB.

If it is not in the PHB, it needs to appear in most material that will require it.
The existence of the Goblin PC statblock in Ravnica material does not allow it to be omitted from Eberron material, so it will need to be reprinted there.
The same does for all material, whether spells, feats, other PC races etc.

 

[Shardstone]

I don't get this. I don't know what is new and what is not, but non of the art is terrible. If you have a specific piece you think is terrible, please point it out and why. And the alt-cover is fantastic!

All the art for the artificer and its sub-classes (save the steel defender) struck me as particularly awful.

Compare to Ravnica anything or Xanathar's sub-class art and its night and day in terms of quality.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Actually the goblin stat block is not a direct reprint from Volo - the section on alignment is different. E:RftLW also includes about two pages of description which is not in Volo and is completely different to Ravnica.

Eberron goblins =/= Ravnica goblins =/= Forgotten Realms goblins.

 

[dave2008]

All the art for the artificer and its sub-classes (save the steel defender) struck me as particularly awful.

Compare to Ravnica anything or Xanathar's sub-class art and its night and day in terms of quality.

I don't see it. The quite like the gnome & homunculus on pg 57; now the battlesmith and artillerist (pg 60) are kinda skuds (fine from a distance, but not so great close up), but I like the steel defender and all of them are far from what I would call 'awful.' I just think your analysis or reaction is hyperbolic. The are work is not awful, IMO. Now a couple of comments about this:

1. One, two, or three pieces of bad art (which I personally don't agree with) does not make the entirety of the art in the book terrible as @Ruin Explorer seemed to suggest, and perhaps you are suggesting.
2. I am not trying to tow the company line. I think there is some questionable art in WotC (and even more so Paizo) products and where I really care about it - the MM. So I am not trying to blindly defend WotC, but I think describing any of the art that I have seen in the book as awful is just extreme and doesn't help your point.
3. My main issue with the art is not the quality, but the quantity. I think there could be more art and more large spreads.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

1. One, two, or three pieces of bad art (which I personally don't agree with) does not make the entirety of the art in the book terrible as @Ruin Explorer seemed to think.

How many would? Four? Five? It seems to me that no amount would for some people, especially re your comment that art only matters in the MM. Which is fine, but obviously an extreme position.

Also, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think that the art is "terrible" that's far too extreme. I think it's distinctly lower quality than I expected, especially for such a high profile product. Car crash was intended to refer to it being incoherent. It's not the end of the world.

The balance issues are a much bigger problem as 5E has no mechanism to correct them.

 

[dave2008]

How many would? Four? Five? It seems to me that no amount would for some people, especially re your comment that art only matters in the MM. Which is fine, but obviously an extreme position.

To clarify I said where I really care about the art is the MM. The fact the sub-standard art gets in there I personally find shocking. Regarding a whole book, I would say something like 15-25% of the art being bad as a negative effect of my impression of the quality of the book.

Also, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think that the art is "terrible" that's far too extreme. I think it's distinctly lower quality than I expected, especially for such a high profile product. It's not the end of the world.

My apologies, it was probably someone else. There have been a couple of post with people saying it is either terrible or fantastic, which I think are both extreme. So I lumped you into one of those groups.

The balance issues are a much bigger problem as 5E has no mechanism to correct them.

I haven't run into any balance issues yet, but I haven't actually used anything from the book yet so I can't really comment on that. However, must things that people claim as unbalanced we just haven't experienced at our table.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I haven't run into any balance issues yet, but I haven't actually used anything from the book yet so I can't really comment on that. However, must things that people claim as unbalanced we just haven't experienced at our table.

Sure. Most people will not experience most broken things. This is true in every edition. 3E could be broken in truly spectacular ways, but most groups didn't see anything beyond quadratic wizards. That doesn't make them not a problem, imo, or not bad design. Just bad design which doesn't impact you.