D&D (2024) You Can Now Pre-order Eberron: Forge of the Artificer

Pre-orders for the upcoming setting book have gone live. Eberron: Forge of the Artificer comes out on August 19th. The book contains the new 2024/5 edition Artificer class with 5 subclasses, the Warforged species, a ton of backgrounds and feats, and 20 new monsters.

​

Forge wonders in the world of Eberron, where magic meets marvelous inventions.

Play as the Artificer: the ultimate creative class. You’re not just an inventor or spellcaster. You're an innovator, a bold-hearted visionary, fusing together magic and technology to craft extraordinary creations.

Fuel your adventures with this rules expansion for Dungeons & Dragons:

• 4 revised Artificer subclasses and 1 new subclass: the Cartographer
• 5 revised species, 17 backgrounds, and 28 feats
• New spells, bastions, and magic items
• 3 distinct, genre-based campaign templates for building fantasy noir, political thriller, and pulp adventure campaigns in the world of Eberron
• Over 20 new monsters, each inspired by a campaign model

​

 

[talorien508]

I can understand not liking the art style being shown here, taste is subjective, yadda yadda. But calling it "generic"? Without a point of view? That's just straight up not true. There is a definitive sense of style and direction here. You may not like it, but it's far from generic.

Furthermore... how can anyone call any art "generic", truly? The first thing that pops into my head when I think of "generic fantasy art" is classic Dragonlance art. Or like... maybe the original Wheel of Time book covers. Which was also had a style and point of view of its own. That's kind of what "art" is, fundamentally. At least... art made by actual humans. But I repeat myself.

The point is that I know intellectually, that all of that art is not at all generic, which tells me that we primarily use the term "generic art" as shorthand for "art I personally find uninteresting". Which is more words, sure, but at least it's more accurate and honest.

OK. I don't understand the point of view the art in these books is presenting and I need it spelled out for me.

 

[CF07]

Eberron isn’t steampunk or clockpunk, though. If anything, It’s “magipunk”.
...
Eberron has magical technology. There’s no steam power or clockwork gears or electricity (other than magical lightning).

That's fair enough, though steampunk and clockpunk can end up being pretty magicpunk, too, depending on how things are handled. They're at least on the same part of town, being reflections of the 20th Century pushed through the looking glass. I still don't like the Eberron world much, but do like having things like well-functioning artificer classes, so it's going to be pretty stealable for me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The alt covers are gorgeous.

And each would be even if the others were completely different in style.

I do wish that the warforged looked more like wood and stone beings in armor than like robots, but I like them being sleeker and more…aesthetically not hideous.

Noir and Pulp fantasy should have Art Deco or Art Nouveau style imo. Eberron always felt artistically disjointed to me. I mean I know Warforged come from forges that are messing with giantish tech, but if they look rough and bulky as a result they should stand out from the fine craftsmanship of a world where tech is advancing and most crafts are still done by hand (which is absolutely still a thing post Industrial Revolution, by the way).

 

[Clint_L]

I can understand not liking the art style being shown here, taste is subjective, yadda yadda. But calling it "generic"? Without a point of view? That's just straight up not true. There is a definitive sense of style and direction here. You may not like it, but it's far from generic.

Furthermore... how can anyone call any art "generic", truly? The first thing that pops into my head when I think of "generic fantasy art" is classic Dragonlance art. Or like... maybe the original Wheel of Time book covers. Which was also had a style and point of view of its own. That's kind of what "art" is, fundamentally. At least... art made by actual humans. But I repeat myself.

The point is that I know intellectually, that all of that art is not at all generic, which tells me that we primarily use the term "generic art" as shorthand for "art I personally find uninteresting". Which is more words, sure, but at least it's more accurate and honest.

Disagree. Generic means “typical of its genre,” and it is a useful term. It means conventional, uncreative, not pushing boundaries, not particularly noteworthy in an aesthetic sense. Wheel of Time covers (and content) are great examples of generic post-Tolkien fantasy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's fair enough, though steampunk and clockpunk can end up being pretty magicpunk, too, depending on how things are handled. They're at least on the same part of town, being reflections of the 20th Century pushed through the looking glass. I still don't like the Eberron world much, but do like having things like well-functioning artificer classes, so it's going to be pretty stealable for me.

As pointed out earlier, it isn't anything punk, because it is not anti-establishment or dystopian. Nor does it use steam, clockwork or diesel power. Trying to shoehorn it into these labels is a fools errand.

It is magitech, but that doesn't tell you anything about the style. The style used in this art is retrofuturism, which is something a number of people have been doing with Eberron for a while. But it's only suggested by the setting description. The way people dress, adorn their buildings etc is a cultural thing, not a technology thing - it could be pretty much anything. I happen to like this look, but there is no right or wrong look to any D&D setting. It's up to the players doing the describing. This book is being sold as a bundle with Rising from the Last War, which uses a different style for the same setting. Choose which you like best, or do something completely different.

 

[Parmandur]

Disagree. Generic means “typical of its genre,” and it is a useful term. It means conventional, uncreative, not pushing boundaries, not particularly noteworthy in an aesthetic sense. Wheel of Time covers (and content) are great examples of generic post-Tolkien fantasy.

Robert Jordan hated those covers so much, but couldn't get out of them because contracts. He would mercilessly mock them at signings...

 

[CF07]

As pointed out earlier, it isn't anything punk, because it is not anti-establishment or dystopian. Nor does it use steam, clockwork or diesel power. Trying to shoehorn it into these labels is a fools errand.

It is magitech, but that doesn't tell you anything about the style. The style used in this art is retrofuturism, which is something a number of people have been doing with Eberron for a while. {...}

I have no issue with the art and wasn't arguing about it... maybe you got me mixed up with someone else? I don't really care one way or the other about how it looks. The new art certainly does have an art deco look to it. I live in NYC and have seen many buildings with vestigial elements like that in Midtown especially.

Obviously you think of the term "steampunk" as being much more specific than I do, which is fair enough, I was using it pretty loosely to refer to a genre like that explored in books like Bruce Sterling and William Gibson's The Difference Engine although with fantasy elements, and not Eberron per se. My interest is, therefore, in things like the class builds, items, spells, and such, to use for my own reasons. For example, one of my current campaign worlds features things like Living Spells, which were originally introduced via Eberron because there's a magical apocalypse in the backplot that dramatically weakened magic and drove the gods mostly out. And, of course, there are airships and trains.

 

[Von Ether]

As pointed out earlier, it isn't anything punk, because it is not anti-establishment or dystopian. Nor does it use steam, clockwork or diesel power. Trying to shoehorn it into these labels is a fools errand.

It is magitech, but that doesn't tell you anything about the style. The style used in this art is retrofuturism, which is something a number of people have been doing with Eberron for a while. But it's only suggested by the setting description. The way people dress, adorn their buildings etc is a cultural thing, not a technology thing - it could be pretty much anything. I happen to like this look, but there is no right or wrong look to any D&D setting. It's up to the players doing the describing. This book is being sold as a bundle with Rising from the Last War, which uses a different style for the same setting. Choose which you like best, or do something completely different.

There's the story that the Bruce Sterling and William Gibson gave Steampunk its "punk" because it was the opposite cyberpunk, which they felt had gone mainstream.

So it was anti-anti-establishment

 

[Gradine]

There's the story that the Bruce Sterling and William Gibson gave Steampunk its "punk" because it was the opposite cyberpunk, which they felt had gone mainstream.

So it was anti-anti-establishment

Would that make it more accurate to call it steampunkpunk?

 

[Remathilis]

There's the story that the Bruce Sterling and William Gibson gave Steampunk its "punk" because it was the opposite cyberpunk, which they felt had gone mainstream.

So it was anti-anti-establishment

The curse of all punk is to eventually get absorbed by the mainstream.