Rate Eberron: Rising from the Last War

Rate Eberrron: Rising from the Last War

  • Excellent! *****

    Votes: 27 48.2%
  • Good ****

    Votes: 21 37.5%
  • Average ***

    Votes: 6 10.7%
  • Not Great **

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Terrible *

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Total voters
    56

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
What do you think of the latest D&D book? Poll above (unless you’re using Tapatalk which doesn’t support polls).
 

PsyzhranV2

Adventurer
This book has just enough copyediting errors and small lore mistakes to become annoying, thus preventing me from rating it as Excellent in its current state. I still love it though, and would have rated it Excellent otherwise; Chapter 4 should be mandatory reading for all DMs.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I voted average, because I'm average meh on Eberron. I suspect a lot of votes will depend on how appealing the setting is to people, as opposed to other metrics.
 
Just my personal opinion as an Eberron DM in a 5e campaign, and having played and DMed 5e since release, but Artificer is pretty ridiculous. At 10th level, they can attune up to 4 items, at 14th level, 5 items (ignoring requirements, by the way), and at 18th level, 6 items can be attuned. Attunement is a huge balance equalizer in 5e...honestly surprised the designers allowed this. On the other hand, many of their infusions, which are Artificer-created permanent magic items, require Attunement.

Funny thing you can do: infuse an item, have your high-Charisma Deception-proficient friend sell it to a shop keeper or other buyer, then walk away. Shop Keeper can Identify it via normal means (spell or short rest), and see that it appears to be a normal item. Then, infuse an item over your Infused Item limit, expiring the oldest infusion you just sold, leaving the buyer with a mundane item.

Otherwise, great book from what I read so far and nice to see it updated for 5e.
 

Gradine

Archivist
Funny thing you can do: infuse an item, have your high-Charisma Deception-proficient friend sell it to a shop keeper or other buyer, then walk away. Shop Keeper can Identify it via normal means (spell or short rest), and see that it appears to be a normal item. Then, infuse an item over your Infused Item limit, expiring the oldest infusion you just sold, leaving the buyer with a mundane item.
One of things about Eberron is that very few things that a regular PC can do that are not fairly well known. People in Eberron live in a world where Artificers are well known (especially to anyone who trades in magical items) and there will no doubt be several counter-measures developed to tell a fraudulent temporarily infused item from the real thing (as many real-world stores do now with counterfeit bills).

This is the setting that very explicitly states that people know Changelings exist and so act accordingly when the situation warrants it.
 
One of things about Eberron is that very few things that a regular PC can do that are not fairly well known. People in Eberron live in a world where Artificers are well known (especially to anyone who trades in magical items) and there will no doubt be several counter-measures developed to tell a fraudulent temporarily infused item from the real thing (as many real-world stores do now with counterfeit bills).

This is the setting that very explicitly states that people know Changelings exist and so act accordingly when the situation warrants it.
True, but is this explicitly stated in the the new book somewhere? Sure, a DM can hand waive it as being impossible (a DM can hand waive anything after all), but not mentioning it seems like a miss to me.
 

Gradine

Archivist
True, but is this explicitly stated in the the new book somewhere? Sure, a DM can hand waive it as being impossible (a DM can hand waive anything after all), but not mentioning it seems like a miss to me.
I'm not sure that it needs to be explicitly stated. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't want my rulebooks clogged with unceasing countermeasures to potentially exploitative edge-case player actions that I, as the personal master of my own personal campaign, can reasonably head off on the basis of the material that is present.
 

Parmandur

Legend
You have to be kidding. It's got completely unplaytested and sketchy as anything rules, and the art is a car-crash combination of random old pieces and mediocre to bad new ones. Plus it's largely a reprint of another book!
Not at all, this book is fantastic.

It has been playtested, extensively, so I don't know where you are getting from on that front, since as you point out it is about a quarter a finalized version of the early access public playtest document.

I love the art, old and new, and enjoy the mix. My son got a major kick from flipping through and looking at the pictures on the way home from the store.
 
Not at all, this book is fantastic.

It has been playtested, extensively, so I don't know where you are getting from on that front, since as you point out it is about a quarter a finalized version of the early access public playtest document.

I love the art, old and new, and enjoy the mix. My son got a major kick from flipping through and looking at the pictures on the way home from the store.
They completely changed the rules on how Greater Dragonmarks work, to something with big balance impacts (much bigger than before), without any widescale test. It's not clear that the change was playtested at all by any group. You certainly cannot, in good faith, assert that it definitely was.

Many other major changes were made with no apparent testing of the changed rules. Some are straightforward enough that that's reasonable - the racial changes, for example.

But the Greater Dragonmark stuff? No.

"My kid liked it!" is lovely but if intended as an argument is a bad faith approach for reasons I hope you can understand.
 
I think that his "my kid likes it!" remark (as you put it) is aimed at the Artwork. Because such a thing is subjective. So it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable argument against the "I hate it [the art]!" you've thrown out.
It isn't reasonable, given the only possible responses to it beyond ignoring it. It's fine as a comment, but not as an argument. Art is subjective is fine, but that's a different argument entirely, which he also, separately, made.
 
Colour me extremely sceptical that there is any balance impact whatsoever. They replaced a few weak-sauce feats that no player would ever take with the option of learning a couple of less-than-overwhelming utility spells.
I'm sorry, Paul, but that is such a grotesque and profoundly disingenuous misrepresentation of the situation that I'm not going to engage with you on this beyond pointing that out.

If you want to argue with someone about it, head over to the 5E reddit.
 
I'm sorry, Paul, but that is such a grotesque and profoundly disingenuous misrepresentation of the situation that I'm not going to engage with you on this beyond pointing that out.
Wut? How so? Are you trying to claim that the Greater Dragonmark feats where not a pile of suck?! In which case, you need to justify YOUR statement. Why would any PC choose one of those feats ahead of GWF or +2 Dex?

You are the one who says it affects balance. How do those weaksauce feats affect balance?

If you think I'm wrong, have the common curtesy of explaining WHY because I can't see it.
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Legend
They completely changed the rules on how Greater Dragonmarks work, to something with big balance impacts (much bigger than before), without any widescale test. It's not clear that the change was playtested at all by any group. You certainly cannot, in good faith, assert that it definitely was.

Many other major changes were made with no apparent testing of the changed rules. Some are straightforward enough that that's reasonable - the racial changes, for example.

But the Greater Dragonmark stuff? No.

"My kid liked it!" is lovely but if intended as an argument is a bad faith approach for reasons I hope you can understand.
For art, it is a sufficient point.

I have absolute certitude that everything, including all changes, went through the standard internal playtest process. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
 

Advertisement

Top