Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 9848173" data-attributes="member: 6803643">I really like the textual updates from KB and team, though there are a lot of glitches in the integration into D&D Beyond (from linking to the wrong version of monsters when the text is specifically discussing the difference between using 2014 and 2025 versions of the same monsters. The Planes chapter is also heavily broken in its chapter ToC – various planes' sub-headings are treated as if they're their own planes and other planes just aren't on the dropdown list – only way to get to them is to keep scrolling through the chapter.I'm pleasantly suprised how the species and class options have been integrated already into their own slots of the Game Rules, though the new 20th Level variant Artificer capstones (one for each subclass in Forge of the Artifice) did NOT make the jump from book to to integrated rules. There are a few minor errors in the text – the main one that bothers me is that the Kalamer (Merfolk) – essentially setting-specific variant Tritons – have a walking speed of 10, a swim speed of 40, and a species feature that says "you have a swim speed equal to your speed." I hope this one gets fixed at some point. Not sure how the balance works out. I'm still bothered by the Dirge-Singer subclass name being essentially a LazyLord Bard when in my recollection the term was originally more of a funeral dirge / mourner build. But because the terms are tied to the Dar name for their Bard-Warlords, and Dirge-Singer is essentially a back-translation from the Dar Goblin language, I understand why they're here. It just seems a bit misleading of a subclass name.I'm very glad that they found a way to allow the variant Aasimar options given that they had taken away the subspecies of Aasimar in MP:MotM – ExEb Aasimar just are their own separate species entry. Oh, and I'm glad Gnolls are no longer called "Znir Pact Gnolls" – Yes, these represent Gnolls of Eberron and many are Znir Pact. But they get to be just Gnolls now (not even "Gnoll (Exploring Eberron)" – just "Gnoll")! Presumably bc WotC has no intention of creating their own playable Gnoll species now that the default assumption is that Gnolls are Fiends. There's a few new options, Runbound Dwarf is gone, and now Ruinbound is just a Lineage that can apply to any species a la Ravenloft's Dark Lineages, and Backgrounds and Feats have been reworked to match 2024 PHB. Oddly, there isn't a new Background for each Origin Feat; most of the ExEb Origin Feats thus are essentially "DM May I" – they suggest you work with your DM to see if you can replace a standard Background's feat choice with this species-specfic origin feat. There's just 2 new Backgrounds – a Changeling Specific one, and a Malenti Specific one (each with their own Origin Feat). There's a Species-Specific Origin Feat for Aereni Elves, Dhakaani Goblinoids, Khesh'dar Goblinoids (not a separate species though, just a culture within the Dar), for Kalashtar, and for Warforged. Shifters don't get an Origin Feat, but they get a General Feat as do Kalashtar, Warforged, Changelings, and Aereni Elves (Malenti and Goblinoids do not).The book also holds onto Siberys Dragonmarks as Supernatural Gifts, even though Forge of the Artificer introduced an Epic Boon to repesent them; this gives DM's this alternate reward option for narrative purposes.  The subclasses have been slightly updated but still feel a bit off-balance from the core in my opinion. And Warrior of the Living Weapon feels odd to me because it lets you chose any of the "Four Eberron Species" Martial Forms whenever you adopt its Barbarian Rage-like subclass feature. I'd have prefered it was "choose one form when you take this subclass" – thus still allowing for non-standard forms as the subclass isn't species specific to the 4 new species from the original v3.5e Eberron Campaign Setting. It feels VERY flexible and not in a narrative way that I'd prefer when they feel like 4 -very- different approaches to an otherwise similar subclass. I also would have preferred if Mind Domain had been retired in this new version given that it was trying to be the 3.5e Ardent/Divine Mind psionicist and the new revisions to the Knowledge Domain now capture that psionic flavor in a way that the Mind Domain feels even more redundant than it did originally. But I understand -WHY- it exists when there's not enough alternatives for Psionics in the setting until the Psion class finally drops for 5E. Oddly, the Mind Domain gets 2 more 5th-level Domain spells at Cleric Level 17; this is not a feature of any of the other Cleric Domains and I think it may be overpowered when the subclass ALSO gets the powerful Bend Reality capstone feature at 17th. Especially when one of these spells is Banishing Smite – something not even given to the War Cleric as the Smite spells are supposed to be Paladin-only now in Revised 5E. I'd probably house-rule these extra 2 spells off the table.Just noticed this, but in the 2024 Cleric Class where it lists subclasses, all other 1st and 3rd party subclasses say what level their various features kick in at, but Mind Domain just lists the features without text for the levels. Hopefully WotC fix this on the back end soon as it could be confusing. The levels for the subclass features are properly displayed in the actual digital book.</blockquote>

Verification