D&D 5E (2014) Rate Eberron: Rising from the Last War

[Paul Farquhar]

I think the art is one of the weakest aspects of the book, largely because the reuse of old art means the style is inconsistent. And shifters look goofy.

But it's not a major drawback.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

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.

Oooooh, so when you say "the art is a car-crash combination of random old pieces and mediocre to bad new ones." it's some kind of Over Truth. But when others say they like it, it's just a unreasonable response.

Got it.

I can now take everything you say as.... uh... yeah. As nothing, really.,

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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!

The art is fantastic. The rules work fine, they just lack an option for non Spellcasting Greater Dragonmarked heirs.
The notion that it’s largely a reprint is laughably, objectively, false.

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.

This kind of melodrama seems wildly out of place for the topic at hand.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The art is fantastic.

Some of it is, but I wish it was all new.

The rules work fine, they just lack an option for non Spellcasting Greater Dragonmarked heirs.

Technically, the is no mechanical distinction between a Lesser and Greater Dragonmarks now - the book doesn't say: "if you have spellcasting you have a Greater Dragonmark, if you don't you have a Lesser Dragonmark". It's purely a roleplaying choice, like if you have a small or big nose.

Personally, I think that gives more narrative freedom, but I understand how some players prefer some things to be set in the stone of game mechanics.

The notion that it’s largely a reprint is laughably, objectively, false.

There is a huge amount of stuff in the new book that wasn't in the old, but looked at the other way, there is little in the old book that isn't reprinted in the new. Since I got the old book on D&D Beyond, and the new book in print it's not an issue for me, it just means I have some of the stuff in both formats.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Voted good. I cannot give it a perfect score because I'm really disappointed with the final version of most of the new races. I'll probably be looking at some homebrew alternatives when I run it.

 

[gyor]

I voted good, but would have voted excellent except WotC once again relies too much on reprinted material. Not just from WGTE, but this is the third time they have printed Goblins, put them them in the PHB next time and save the space else where. I think I will make a seperate thread on the criteria for when a race should go into the PHB in the future, hint if it gets reprinted more then twice or if it has been mentioned in a Player context in 3 settings or more.

WotC does some really good work, but they can be lazy sometimes.

 

[dave2008]

Having never owned anything Eberron before I am so far rating the book "Good.". I am realy enjoying the bestiary (the primary reason I bought the book), the lord of blades is really interesting and there a quite a few high CR options. I am also enjoying the alternate cosmology / faiths and Sharn seems interesting. There has been a bit of debate about the art in this thread, but it seems like pretty standard D&D fair to me. Some OK, some good, and some really good. I think both @Ruin Explorer and @Parmandur might have been a bit hyperbolic in their reactions.

 

[Parmandur]

Having never owned anything Eberron before I am so far rating the book "Good.". I am realy enjoying the bestiary (the primary reason I bought the book), the lord of blades is really interesting and there a quite a few high CR options. I am also enjoying the alternate cosmology / faiths and Sharn seems interesting. There has been a bit of debate about the art in this thread, but it seems like pretty standard D&D fair to me. Some OK, some good, and some really good. I think both @Ruin Explorer and @Parmandur might have been a bit hyperbolic in their reactions.

The art is less awesome than Descent into Avernus, but I've enjoyed both the new pieces and the reused material.

 

[dave2008]

The art is less awesome than Descent into Avernus, but I've enjoyed both the new pieces and the reused material.

Descent does have some awesome art in it.

 

[Shardstone]

4. The art direction very, very, very heavily hamstrings the book; to me, its defining aesthetic is non-existent, the cover is weak, and the quality of the non-reprinted art is overall terrible.

Rest of the book is fantastic.