Can half-daelkyr become Heirs of Siberys? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can half-daelkyr become Heirs of Siberys? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
The Jake
03-27-07, 01:56 AM I'm still trying to understand the basics of dragonmarks.
The White Sorcerer
03-27-07, 06:59 AM No. Only humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, and half-orcs can become heirs of Siberys.
Bartimaeus
03-27-07, 01:48 PM This is gonna sound mean, but I don't mean it that way. But seriously HOW hard is it? Dragonmarks are Feats--just take a second to look at the Prerequisites and you'll know who can and can't get a dragonmark.
Vharuck
03-27-07, 04:09 PM This is gonna sound mean, but I don't mean it that way. But seriously HOW hard is it? Dragonmarks are Feats--just take a second to look at the Prerequisites and you'll know who can and can't get a dragonmark.

While this is true, dragonmarks often go beyond the realm of easy to define statistical qualities. However, when it comes to race, then yeah, it's set in stone (barring Rule 0, but that can just be assumed all the time).
AvonRekaes
03-27-07, 04:12 PM I think the confusion might come up from a statted NPC in one of the books who's a Half-Daelkyr with a dragonmark. If I recall correctly, that is.
If I am right, then of course the book is in error. Half-Daelkyr should not have any access to dragonmarks, despite being largely human. Dragonmarks are more than genetic, they're mystical. The taint the makes a human child be born as a Half-Daelkyr also changes it's race and even creature type. They are no longer human and therefore no longer meet the prerequisites for any of the dragonmarks.
Lazaro
03-27-07, 05:04 PM What in the nine hells was I thinking....
The White Sorcerer
03-27-07, 05:33 PM Half-daelkyr do qualify for abberant marks.

Page reference?
Macrovore
03-28-07, 04:55 PM I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them.
The White Sorcerer
03-28-07, 06:02 PM I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them.

Out of those three only empty vessels have the human subtype. Kalashtar and daelkyr half-bloods are not humans.
Daydreamer
03-28-07, 06:37 PM I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them.

NOt that i mind, but recently several ppl have nicked my sig :). Im just starting to notice it.
thx for tha luv.
goblin_pride
03-28-07, 06:51 PM While this is true, dragonmarks often go beyond the realm of easy to define statistical qualities. However, when it comes to race, then yeah, it's set in stone (barring Rule 0, but that can just be assumed all the time).

The fluff is pretty clear the response the Dragons have on some of the half-breeds getting marks as well. If you think they went overboard on that whole mark of Death thing, how do you think they'll react when a half-daelkyr suddenly manifests? Think Custer. The dragons gave the orcs druid magic to stop the Daelkyr getting in, if they start manifesting marks I would imagine they'd nuke every seal, kill anything within a few hundred miles, kill anything that ever saw a seal, anything that ever read about a seal, anything that ever mentioned a gatekeeper seal in passing..........

The Daelkyr aren't from Eberron, their offspring manifesting marks goes to a whole new level of bad. We're talking about more than just crossing the streams* here, it's more like trying to tie a windsor knot in the bloody things. A half-daelkyr with a mark should be hunted at every second of it's life after manifesting.

* sorry for the Ghostbusters reference, I couldn't think of any other way to make the statement have the appropriate level of dire consequence. If you didn't catch the reference, you need to see the movie.
Vharuck
03-28-07, 06:51 PM I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them.

And here's where the dragonmark's flavor restrictions kick in. The person has to be human and nothing else. Empty vessels aren't really human either, even less than kalashtar, as theyh were manipulated by breeding with other races and (hinted at) outsiders of fiendish blood.
AvonRekaes
03-28-07, 07:04 PM I have seen the reference that subraces qualify for abberant marks. However, Half-Dealkyr aren't a subrace. They're the wrong creaturetype, and they do not have the Human subtype.

The only way a Half-Dealkyr can get a dragonmark, abberant or otherwise, is to have a lenient DM that takes story over mechanics.
Edymnion
03-28-07, 07:40 PM While this is true, dragonmarks often go beyond the realm of easy to define statistical qualities. However, when it comes to race, then yeah, it's set in stone (barring Rule 0, but that can just be assumed all the time).Yeah, its set in stone.
Until it becomes inconvenient, then everybody bends over backwards to re-interpret the rules so that they don't lose out on their precious feat.

Even the designers do it. I mean, just look at the official ruling on Dragonmarks and Reincarnate.
You wanna be a minotaur with any dragonmark you want? Sure, just claim you were reincarnated. Oops, your PrC just turned you into a half-dragon? Thats okay, just claim you're still human, despite the fact that you're covered in scales, breath fire, and have giant wings coming out of your back, and you'll be fine!

:rolleyes:
Vharuck
03-29-07, 12:04 AM Yeah, its set in stone.
Until it becomes inconvenient, then everybody bends over backwards to re-interpret the rules so that they don't lose out on their precious feat.

Even the designers do it. I mean, just look at the official ruling on Dragonmarks and Reincarnate.
You wanna be a minotaur with any dragonmark you want? Sure, just claim you were reincarnated. Oops, your PrC just turned you into a half-dragon? Thats okay, just claim you're still human, despite the fact that you're covered in scales, breath fire, and have giant wings coming out of your back, and you'll be fine!

:rolleyes:

I know what you mean. Man's ability to rationalize truly shines brightest when manipulated into getting one something one should not be able to achieve.
Raziel_Brokodar
03-29-07, 12:18 AM I know what you mean. Man's ability to rationalize truly shines brightest when manipulated into getting one something one should not be able to achieve.

Just make sure to buy your DM cookies! :cookie:

I'd almost fall for a cookie...
Edymnion
03-29-07, 12:17 PM Just make sure to buy your DM cookies! :cookie:

I'd almost fall for a cookie...What about a box of donuts?
Cifer
03-29-07, 02:38 PM What about a box of donuts?
And never, ever underestimate the power of ice cream...
Caul
03-29-07, 02:57 PM Yeah, its set in stone.
Until it becomes inconvenient, then everybody bends over backwards to re-interpret the rules so that they don't lose out on their precious feat.

Even the designers do it. I mean, just look at the official ruling on Dragonmarks and Reincarnate.
You wanna be a minotaur with any dragonmark you want? Sure, just claim you were reincarnated. Oops, your PrC just turned you into a half-dragon? Thats okay, just claim you're still human, despite the fact that you're covered in scales, breath fire, and have giant wings coming out of your back, and you'll be fine!

:rolleyes:

Actually, were it me, I would certainly allow that minotaur or that dragon to maintain their dragonmark. They would still be marked by the prophecy...only one small problem...it wouldn't work anymore. Think Vol...
Vharuck
03-29-07, 07:33 PM What about a box of donuts?

Not a big fan of donuts myself. And it owuld depend on the kind of cookie. A large, chewy cookie with half-melted chocolate chips would make me even agree with a player being a dragon from the fourteenth moon.

But the true way to my heart is through Cheez-Its.
korcheck
03-29-07, 07:48 PM I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that secrets of sarlona mentions that dragonmarks won't or don't show up on people from that continent for some reason I think has to do with the monoliths.
The White Sorcerer
03-30-07, 07:02 AM I still maintain the opinion that the appearence of dragonmarks on Khorvaire and Aerenal has something to do with both continents having Eberron dragonshards. Sarlona = no Eberron shards = no dragonmarks.
Kid SixXx
03-30-07, 07:10 AM I know what you mean. Man's ability to rationalize truly shines brightest when manipulated into getting one something one should not be able to achieve.

D&D Rule 1.1.1

All things are undeniably reasoned away with the inclusion of a good backstory. The more ludicrous the backstory, the better.

Eberron example: Well you see, my drow stowed away on a ship bound for Breland when he was about three years old, and then......
Edymnion
03-30-07, 07:17 AM Actually, were it me, I would certainly allow that minotaur or that dragon to maintain their dragonmark. They would still be marked by the prophecy...only one small problem...it wouldn't work anymore. Think Vol...Yeah, thats the way it SHOULD work.
When you no longer meet the prereqs to a feat, you lose the ability to use the feat until you again meet the prereqs, but you still have it. For example, the Fighter that gets Strength drained down to 12 Str can no longer Power Attack, because that feat has Str 13 as a prereq. However, as soon as he recovers, he can go right back to power attacking.

Thats how feats are SUPPOSED to work.
But the "higher ups" decided that they would just break the rules with no justification or errata, and say that you can throw all the prereqs for Dragonmarks right out the freaking window, and they still work.

By the official ruling, your burly half-orc can reincarnate into an effiminate little pixie, and still keep full use of his Mark of Finding. No, it doesn't make sense from a rules perspective. No, they never made official errata to the dragonmark feats or the feat prereq rules in general, but there it is all the same.

WotC has been putting out more and more conflicting rules lately (and I don't mean on the "Oh, this obscure rule doesn't mesh with that obscure rule" type conflict, I mean "Doesn't follow the rules in the PHB" kind of conflicts), and then they bend over backwards to try to make their new rule look right without ever trying to make it actually WORK correctly. Which is why I always rely on one of the original rules. "If any suppliment rule conflicts with any rule in the core books, unless it is specifically stated to override the original rule, than the core books are considered correct, and the suppliment is in error".
Kid SixXx
03-30-07, 08:07 AM WotC has been putting out more and more conflicting rules lately (and I don't mean on the "Oh, this obscure rule doesn't mesh with that obscure rule" type conflict, I mean "Doesn't follow the rules in the PHB" kind of conflicts), and then they bend over backwards to try to make their new rule look right without ever trying to make it actually WORK correctly.

Well, in defense of WoTC, most of the early problems with rules came from older rules being created by devs who had no clue that some other concept would come about that would completely smash their rule.

I'm fairly certain that when the Warshaper PrC was created, no one really expected Eberron to create a LA+0 race that could immediately hurdle the shapeshifter pre-req just by being himself.

The new conflicts are a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and creating a situation that really screws players over. Things get even more complicated when the new rule has the kewl factor working for it (ie. the dreaded last level of progression for the beloved Renegade Mastermaker PrC.).

The appeasements (ie. Reincarnation & Dragonmarks, Monks being able to take Improved Natural Attack) are supposed to cut down on ruleslawyering and meta conflicts but they end up creating more. At least there's stuff on paper to serve as "official ruling" & cut down on board flame wars, even though the letter of some of the laws are really quite poor.
goblin_pride
03-30-07, 02:09 PM WotC has been putting out more and more conflicting rules lately (and I don't mean on the "Oh, this obscure rule doesn't mesh with that obscure rule" type conflict, I mean "Doesn't follow the rules in the PHB" kind of conflicts), and then they bend over backwards to try to make their new rule look right without ever trying to make it actually WORK correctly. Which is why I always rely on one of the original rules. "If any suppliment rule conflicts with any rule in the core books, unless it is specifically stated to override the original rule, than the core books are considered correct, and the suppliment is in error".

Sounds somewhat like the "Infernal Bovine Dictum" that I follow. When a supplement contradict any other source in the canon, the source bearing the name of the Infernal Bovine is always correct. In cases where the Infernal Bovine's name is borne by both sources, the source bearing less creator's names is correct. This simple rule allows you to be certain that you're following closer to his Infernal Bovine Majesty's original vision.
Vharuck
03-30-07, 04:27 PM Well, in defense of WoTC, most of the early problems with rules came from older rules being created by devs who had no clue that some other concept would come about that would completely smash their rule.

I'm fairly certain that when the Warshaper PrC was created, no one really expected Eberron to create a LA+0 race that could immediately hurdle the shapeshifter pre-req just by being himself.

The new conflicts are a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and creating a situation that really screws players over. Things get even more complicated when the new rule has the kewl factor working for it (ie. the dreaded last level of progression for the beloved Renegade Mastermaker PrC.).

The appeasements (ie. Reincarnation & Dragonmarks, Monks being able to take Improved Natural Attack) are supposed to cut down on ruleslawyering and meta conflicts but they end up creating more. At least there's stuff on paper to serve as "official ruling" & cut down on board flame wars, even though the letter of some of the laws are really quite poor.

While I generally would agree with this, even if only for playing devil's advocate in order to get everyone to think from different perspectives, I feel obligated to agree with Edy here. Well really, not so much Edy, but the biggest rule of feats since they existed: if you don't meet the prerequisites, you can't use the feat.

This isn't two branches with communication problems. This is a horrible decision that goes against the PHB, the corest of the core books according to the core books.
The White Sorcerer
03-30-07, 04:35 PM This is a horrible decision that goes against the PHB, the corest of the core books according to the core books.

Yeah, because, OMFG, how dare they have exceptions in the rules? :mad:
Cifer
03-30-07, 04:55 PM Yeah, because, OMFG, how dare they have exceptions in the rules?
Every exception adds to the rules jungle. Every exception that is not needed does so unnecessarily.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Raziel_Brokodar
03-30-07, 05:02 PM What about a box of donuts?

Most definitely!
Edymnion
03-31-07, 10:22 AM Well, in defense of WoTC, most of the early problems with rules came from older rules being created by devs who had no clue that some other concept would come about that would completely smash their rule.

I'm fairly certain that when the Warshaper PrC was created, no one really expected Eberron to create a LA+0 race that could immediately hurdle the shapeshifter pre-req just by being himself.

The new conflicts are a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and creating a situation that really screws players over.And I specifically said in my previous post that I wasn't talking about "Item W in suppliment X conflicts with Y in suppliment Z", because that is to be expected. You get this many books out, you will get things that don't mesh properly, like the Warshaper and the Changeling. Thats not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about things that directly contradict things in the PHB and DMG. There is *NO* excuse for that. Those rules have been on paper for upwards of 7 years now, and *EVERYTHING* in the game is supposed to build off of those books. If a designer can't be bothered to double check that their rules work with the core rules or not, they don't deserve to be writing these things in the first place. Stick to flavor, and leave mechanics to somebody thats willing to take the extra 5 minutes to double check their math.
Yeah, because, OMFG, how dare they have exceptions in the rules? :mad:There is a differance between having a specific exception, of which there are many, and just flat out making a mistake in the rules and then trying to cover it up with more rules mistakes. Either flat out say "Yeah, we screwed up on that one, just ignore that bit" or issue official errata to make the new rule officially work.

If you're going to say in a web enhancement and the FAQ "These feats continue to work, even after you lose the prereqs for them", then you had darned well better tag it with a "This is an exception to the normal rules as found in the PHB" line, or go back and errata the PHB to say that feat prereqs only count for taking the feat, and you can't lose the use of them afterwards.

I've got nothing against new rules, new revisions to rules, etc, as long as it is handled properly. What I do have a problem with is when somebody in an official position just tosses out their opinion, without anything to back it up, and suddenly everybody else has to scramble to cover for them.Most definitely!Sure, you want Homer on the box, or Vash?
DrOfDemonology
04-01-07, 01:43 PM I'm still trying to understand the basics of dragonmarks.

No, they can't. The ECS book is very clear on which races have access to dragonmarks, and how they can improve them (if possible). Just do a bit more careful re-reading :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Jake 03-27-07, 01:56 AM	I'm still trying to understand the basics of dragonmarks.
The White Sorcerer 03-27-07, 06:59 AM	No. Only humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, and half-orcs can become heirs of Siberys.
Bartimaeus 03-27-07, 01:48 PM	This is gonna sound mean, but I don't mean it that way. But seriously HOW hard is it? Dragonmarks are Feats--just take a second to look at the Prerequisites and you'll know who can and can't get a dragonmark.
Vharuck 03-27-07, 04:09 PM	This is gonna sound mean, but I don't mean it that way. But seriously HOW hard is it? Dragonmarks are Feats--just take a second to look at the Prerequisites and you'll know who can and can't get a dragonmark. While this is true, dragonmarks often go beyond the realm of easy to define statistical qualities. However, when it comes to race, then yeah, it's set in stone (barring Rule 0, but that can just be assumed all the time).
AvonRekaes 03-27-07, 04:12 PM	I think the confusion might come up from a statted NPC in one of the books who's a Half-Daelkyr with a dragonmark. If I recall correctly, that is. If I am right, then of course the book is in error. Half-Daelkyr should not have any access to dragonmarks, despite being largely human. Dragonmarks are more than genetic, they're mystical. The taint the makes a human child be born as a Half-Daelkyr also changes it's race and even creature type. They are no longer human and therefore no longer meet the prerequisites for any of the dragonmarks.
Lazaro 03-27-07, 05:04 PM	What in the nine hells was I thinking....
The White Sorcerer 03-27-07, 05:33 PM	Half-daelkyr do qualify for abberant marks. Page reference?
Macrovore 03-28-07, 04:55 PM	I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them.
The White Sorcerer 03-28-07, 06:02 PM	I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them. Out of those three only empty vessels have the human subtype. Kalashtar and daelkyr half-bloods are not humans.
Daydreamer 03-28-07, 06:37 PM	I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them. NOt that i mind, but recently several ppl have nicked my sig :). Im just starting to notice it. thx for tha luv.
goblin_pride 03-28-07, 06:51 PM	While this is true, dragonmarks often go beyond the realm of easy to define statistical qualities. However, when it comes to race, then yeah, it's set in stone (barring Rule 0, but that can just be assumed all the time). The fluff is pretty clear the response the Dragons have on some of the half-breeds getting marks as well. If you think they went overboard on that whole mark of Death thing, how do you think they'll react when a half-daelkyr suddenly manifests? Think Custer. The dragons gave the orcs druid magic to stop the Daelkyr getting in, if they start manifesting marks I would imagine they'd nuke every seal, kill anything within a few hundred miles, kill anything that ever saw a seal, anything that ever read about a seal, anything that ever mentioned a gatekeeper seal in passing.......... The Daelkyr aren't from Eberron, their offspring manifesting marks goes to a whole new level of bad. We're talking about more than just crossing the streams* here, it's more like trying to tie a windsor knot in the bloody things. A half-daelkyr with a mark should be hunted at every second of it's life after manifesting. * sorry for the Ghostbusters reference, I couldn't think of any other way to make the statement have the appropriate level of dire consequence. If you didn't catch the reference, you need to see the movie.
Vharuck 03-28-07, 06:51 PM	I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them. And here's where the dragonmark's flavor restrictions kick in. The person has to be human and nothing else. Empty vessels aren't really human either, even less than kalashtar, as theyh were manipulated by breeding with other races and (hinted at) outsiders of fiendish blood.
AvonRekaes 03-28-07, 07:04 PM	I have seen the reference that subraces qualify for abberant marks. However, Half-Dealkyr aren't a subrace. They're the wrong creaturetype, and they do not have the Human subtype. The only way a Half-Dealkyr can get a dragonmark, abberant or otherwise, is to have a lenient DM that takes story over mechanics.
Edymnion 03-28-07, 07:40 PM	While this is true, dragonmarks often go beyond the realm of easy to define statistical qualities. However, when it comes to race, then yeah, it's set in stone (barring Rule 0, but that can just be assumed all the time).Yeah, its set in stone. Until it becomes inconvenient, then everybody bends over backwards to re-interpret the rules so that they don't lose out on their precious feat. Even the designers do it. I mean, just look at the official ruling on Dragonmarks and Reincarnate. You wanna be a minotaur with any dragonmark you want? Sure, just claim you were reincarnated. Oops, your PrC just turned you into a half-dragon? Thats okay, just claim you're still human, despite the fact that you're covered in scales, breath fire, and have giant wings coming out of your back, and you'll be fine! :rolleyes:
Vharuck 03-29-07, 12:04 AM	Yeah, its set in stone. Until it becomes inconvenient, then everybody bends over backwards to re-interpret the rules so that they don't lose out on their precious feat. Even the designers do it. I mean, just look at the official ruling on Dragonmarks and Reincarnate. You wanna be a minotaur with any dragonmark you want? Sure, just claim you were reincarnated. Oops, your PrC just turned you into a half-dragon? Thats okay, just claim you're still human, despite the fact that you're covered in scales, breath fire, and have giant wings coming out of your back, and you'll be fine! :rolleyes: I know what you mean. Man's ability to rationalize truly shines brightest when manipulated into getting one something one should not be able to achieve.
Raziel_Brokodar 03-29-07, 12:18 AM	I know what you mean. Man's ability to rationalize truly shines brightest when manipulated into getting one something one should not be able to achieve. Just make sure to buy your DM cookies! :cookie: I'd almost fall for a cookie...
Edymnion 03-29-07, 12:17 PM	Just make sure to buy your DM cookies! :cookie: I'd almost fall for a cookie...What about a box of donuts?
Cifer 03-29-07, 02:38 PM	What about a box of donuts? And never, ever underestimate the power of ice cream...
Caul 03-29-07, 02:57 PM	Yeah, its set in stone. Until it becomes inconvenient, then everybody bends over backwards to re-interpret the rules so that they don't lose out on their precious feat. Even the designers do it. I mean, just look at the official ruling on Dragonmarks and Reincarnate. You wanna be a minotaur with any dragonmark you want? Sure, just claim you were reincarnated. Oops, your PrC just turned you into a half-dragon? Thats okay, just claim you're still human, despite the fact that you're covered in scales, breath fire, and have giant wings coming out of your back, and you'll be fine! :rolleyes: Actually, were it me, I would certainly allow that minotaur or that dragon to maintain their dragonmark. They would still be marked by the prophecy...only one small problem...it wouldn't work anymore. Think Vol...
Vharuck 03-29-07, 07:33 PM	What about a box of donuts? Not a big fan of donuts myself. And it owuld depend on the kind of cookie. A large, chewy cookie with half-melted chocolate chips would make me even agree with a player being a dragon from the fourteenth moon. But the true way to my heart is through Cheez-Its.
korcheck 03-29-07, 07:48 PM	I believe they have the "Human" subtype, and therefore are a subrace of humans, thus allowing them to take Abberant Dragonmarks. Oddly enough, this also allows kalashtar and Inspired to have them. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that secrets of sarlona mentions that dragonmarks won't or don't show up on people from that continent for some reason I think has to do with the monoliths.
The White Sorcerer 03-30-07, 07:02 AM	I still maintain the opinion that the appearence of dragonmarks on Khorvaire and Aerenal has something to do with both continents having Eberron dragonshards. Sarlona = no Eberron shards = no dragonmarks.
Kid SixXx 03-30-07, 07:10 AM	I know what you mean. Man's ability to rationalize truly shines brightest when manipulated into getting one something one should not be able to achieve. D&D Rule 1.1.1 All things are undeniably reasoned away with the inclusion of a good backstory. The more ludicrous the backstory, the better. Eberron example: Well you see, my drow stowed away on a ship bound for Breland when he was about three years old, and then......
Edymnion 03-30-07, 07:17 AM	Actually, were it me, I would certainly allow that minotaur or that dragon to maintain their dragonmark. They would still be marked by the prophecy...only one small problem...it wouldn't work anymore. Think Vol...Yeah, thats the way it SHOULD work. When you no longer meet the prereqs to a feat, you lose the ability to use the feat until you again meet the prereqs, but you still have it. For example, the Fighter that gets Strength drained down to 12 Str can no longer Power Attack, because that feat has Str 13 as a prereq. However, as soon as he recovers, he can go right back to power attacking. Thats how feats are SUPPOSED to work. But the "higher ups" decided that they would just break the rules with no justification or errata, and say that you can throw all the prereqs for Dragonmarks right out the freaking window, and they still work. By the official ruling, your burly half-orc can reincarnate into an effiminate little pixie, and still keep full use of his Mark of Finding. No, it doesn't make sense from a rules perspective. No, they never made official errata to the dragonmark feats or the feat prereq rules in general, but there it is all the same. WotC has been putting out more and more conflicting rules lately (and I don't mean on the "Oh, this obscure rule doesn't mesh with that obscure rule" type conflict, I mean "Doesn't follow the rules in the PHB" kind of conflicts), and then they bend over backwards to try to make their new rule look right without ever trying to make it actually WORK correctly. Which is why I always rely on one of the original rules. "If any suppliment rule conflicts with any rule in the core books, unless it is specifically stated to override the original rule, than the core books are considered correct, and the suppliment is in error".
Kid SixXx 03-30-07, 08:07 AM	WotC has been putting out more and more conflicting rules lately (and I don't mean on the "Oh, this obscure rule doesn't mesh with that obscure rule" type conflict, I mean "Doesn't follow the rules in the PHB" kind of conflicts), and then they bend over backwards to try to make their new rule look right without ever trying to make it actually WORK correctly. Well, in defense of WoTC, most of the early problems with rules came from older rules being created by devs who had no clue that some other concept would come about that would completely smash their rule. I'm fairly certain that when the Warshaper PrC was created, no one really expected Eberron to create a LA+0 race that could immediately hurdle the shapeshifter pre-req just by being himself. The new conflicts are a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and creating a situation that really screws players over. Things get even more complicated when the new rule has the kewl factor working for it (ie. the dreaded last level of progression for the beloved Renegade Mastermaker PrC.). The appeasements (ie. Reincarnation & Dragonmarks, Monks being able to take Improved Natural Attack) are supposed to cut down on ruleslawyering and meta conflicts but they end up creating more. At least there's stuff on paper to serve as "official ruling" & cut down on board flame wars, even though the letter of some of the laws are really quite poor.
goblin_pride 03-30-07, 02:09 PM	WotC has been putting out more and more conflicting rules lately (and I don't mean on the "Oh, this obscure rule doesn't mesh with that obscure rule" type conflict, I mean "Doesn't follow the rules in the PHB" kind of conflicts), and then they bend over backwards to try to make their new rule look right without ever trying to make it actually WORK correctly. Which is why I always rely on one of the original rules. "If any suppliment rule conflicts with any rule in the core books, unless it is specifically stated to override the original rule, than the core books are considered correct, and the suppliment is in error". Sounds somewhat like the "Infernal Bovine Dictum" that I follow. When a supplement contradict any other source in the canon, the source bearing the name of the Infernal Bovine is always correct. In cases where the Infernal Bovine's name is borne by both sources, the source bearing less creator's names is correct. This simple rule allows you to be certain that you're following closer to his Infernal Bovine Majesty's original vision.
Vharuck 03-30-07, 04:27 PM	Well, in defense of WoTC, most of the early problems with rules came from older rules being created by devs who had no clue that some other concept would come about that would completely smash their rule. I'm fairly certain that when the Warshaper PrC was created, no one really expected Eberron to create a LA+0 race that could immediately hurdle the shapeshifter pre-req just by being himself. The new conflicts are a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and creating a situation that really screws players over. Things get even more complicated when the new rule has the kewl factor working for it (ie. the dreaded last level of progression for the beloved Renegade Mastermaker PrC.). The appeasements (ie. Reincarnation & Dragonmarks, Monks being able to take Improved Natural Attack) are supposed to cut down on ruleslawyering and meta conflicts but they end up creating more. At least there's stuff on paper to serve as "official ruling" & cut down on board flame wars, even though the letter of some of the laws are really quite poor. While I generally would agree with this, even if only for playing devil's advocate in order to get everyone to think from different perspectives, I feel obligated to agree with Edy here. Well really, not so much Edy, but the biggest rule of feats since they existed: if you don't meet the prerequisites, you can't use the feat. This isn't two branches with communication problems. This is a horrible decision that goes against the PHB, the corest of the core books according to the core books.
The White Sorcerer 03-30-07, 04:35 PM	This is a horrible decision that goes against the PHB, the corest of the core books according to the core books. Yeah, because, OMFG, how dare they have exceptions in the rules? :mad:
Cifer 03-30-07, 04:55 PM	Yeah, because, OMFG, how dare they have exceptions in the rules? Every exception adds to the rules jungle. Every exception that is not needed does so unnecessarily. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Raziel_Brokodar 03-30-07, 05:02 PM	What about a box of donuts? Most definitely!
Edymnion 03-31-07, 10:22 AM	Well, in defense of WoTC, most of the early problems with rules came from older rules being created by devs who had no clue that some other concept would come about that would completely smash their rule. I'm fairly certain that when the Warshaper PrC was created, no one really expected Eberron to create a LA+0 race that could immediately hurdle the shapeshifter pre-req just by being himself. The new conflicts are a matter of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and creating a situation that really screws players over.And I specifically said in my previous post that I wasn't talking about "Item W in suppliment X conflicts with Y in suppliment Z", because that is to be expected. You get this many books out, you will get things that don't mesh properly, like the Warshaper and the Changeling. Thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about things that directly contradict things in the PHB and DMG. There is NO excuse for that. Those rules have been on paper for upwards of 7 years now, and EVERYTHING in the game is supposed to build off of those books. If a designer can't be bothered to double check that their rules work with the core rules or not, they don't deserve to be writing these things in the first place. Stick to flavor, and leave mechanics to somebody thats willing to take the extra 5 minutes to double check their math. Yeah, because, OMFG, how dare they have exceptions in the rules? :mad:There is a differance between having a specific exception, of which there are many, and just flat out making a mistake in the rules and then trying to cover it up with more rules mistakes. Either flat out say "Yeah, we screwed up on that one, just ignore that bit" or issue official errata to make the new rule officially work. If you're going to say in a web enhancement and the FAQ "These feats continue to work, even after you lose the prereqs for them", then you had darned well better tag it with a "This is an exception to the normal rules as found in the PHB" line, or go back and errata the PHB to say that feat prereqs only count for taking the feat, and you can't lose the use of them afterwards. I've got nothing against new rules, new revisions to rules, etc, as long as it is handled properly. What I do have a problem with is when somebody in an official position just tosses out their opinion, without anything to back it up, and suddenly everybody else has to scramble to cover for them.Most definitely!Sure, you want Homer on the box, or Vash?
DrOfDemonology 04-01-07, 01:43 PM	I'm still trying to understand the basics of dragonmarks. No, they can't. The ECS book is very clear on which races have access to dragonmarks, and how they can improve them (if possible). Just do a bit more careful re-reading :)