Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Games_R_life 11-30-07, 10:33 PM	Strange question, so here goes: Say a 'mark was transformed into a monstrous humanoid, what would happen to the dragonmark? Would it stop working or become abberant? Would it stay with them? Pretty random, but it should serve a purpose... it would be a good twist on a campaign, but I really don't want to have players lose any power... :confused:
Nived 11-30-07, 11:00 PM	No, by the rules a dragonmarked character who is polymorphed, shapechanged, or wildshaped retains their mark. In fact if a dragonmarked character is killed and reincarnated they still keep their mark. So a Hobgoblin might have the Mark of the Hospitality because he is reincarnated. However the rules explicitly state that in such a rare occurrence as permanent race change they'll never be able to pass on a true mark to children.
Games_R_life 12-01-07, 12:16 PM	Sweet! Thanks! :D
Edymnion 12-01-07, 11:06 PM	It should be mentioned that the whole reincarnate thing is not in any book, only a dragonshard, and it was put there at the command of the higher ups, not Keith himself. It should also be pointed out that it goes against the rules, and there is no question at all about that. Dragonmarks are feats. All the rest of the flavor aside, they are feats. They have prereqs, which include being the appropriate race. If you reincarnate, you are no longer that race, and by the rules, your dragonmark no longer works. THAT is why Vol's mark doesn't work, because she is no longer a <insert whatever races the Mark of Death can appear on>, her type changed to Undead. Just like a marked character taking Renegade Mastermaker would lose access to their mark after completing the PrC and becoming a warforged. So no, you would not see a Hobgoblin with a working Mark of Healing, no matter what kind of reincarnation mumbo jumbo gets thrown around. No more than a fighter that reincarnates as a Strength 7 pixie would get to keep his Power Attack. Remember, no matter what else gets said, Dragonmarks are feats. Any question about if you'd get to keep it or not are pretty easy to answer. Look at the feat prereqs, do you still meet them? If so, you keep your dragonmark. If you don't, then you don't, its that simple. However, it should be noted that you do not LOSE your dragonmark for reincarnating, you still keep all of your feats. Just like a strength drained fighter still has Power Attack, he just can't use it until his strength is once again 13 or higher. A dragonmarked character that no longer meets the feat prereqs lose the ability to use their dragonmarks until they once again meet the prereqs, aka they return to being human/elf/dwarf/whatever is appropriate for that mark.
Nived 12-01-07, 11:46 PM	Hate to tell you Edy but it is in a book. Dragonmarked page 7. Oh I agree with you, but on a president and technical standpoint. However between that dragonshard and Dragonmarked there is an exception for that, whether you like it or not that is the answer.
ArcTan 12-02-07, 01:21 AM	Books are allowed to change how things like feats work. (It's important to recognize that dragonmarks as feats in the first place fundamentally changed the concept of what feats were, since the original concept of feats was that feats *could not* be magical in their operation or be physical attributes of a person, rather than simply abilities one knew how to perform.) The "You keep your damn dragonmark" interpretation passes the "It's what the books say" test, the "It's what Keith Baker himself the Grand High Founder said" test, and the "It makes logical sense and won't unnecessarily penalize and tick off a player" test. Apparently it doesn't pass the "Is entirely commensurate with how feats generally work" test or the "Makes Edymnion happy" test, but D&D rules aren't required to do that.
Games_R_life 12-02-07, 11:14 AM	Now I'm confused. If I have a Elf witht he mark of shadow, and all, and he gets changed into a minotaur... what happens?
ArcTan 12-02-07, 12:14 PM	By the rules in Keith Baker's Dragonshard, the rules in Dragonmarked, and the flavor of the dragonmarks in general (that they're attached to the soul, not the body) the answer is the same -- he retains the Mark of Shadow and the ability to use it, but cannot pass it on to offspring while in minotaur form. Note that this applies to very temporary transformations, like alter self and polymorph, as well as big ones like being reincarnated or hit with a Deck of Many Things (the new one). To me it wouldn't make sense to take away someone's dragonmark for casting alter self on themselves, much less to, say, take away a Cannith scion's dragonmark for becoming a Renegade Mastermaker, and so on.
Games_R_life 12-02-07, 05:30 PM	Thank you, this clears thing up! :)
skrap-san 12-02-07, 05:32 PM	I really fell for the idea of making dragonmarks aberrant if someone with one was reincarnated as something different.
Edymnion 12-02-07, 09:32 PM	Hate to tell you Edy but it is in a book. Dragonmarked page 7.Oh you are :censored:ing kidding me. *goes to check* No, thats not what it says. It says they keep their dragonmark, it says nothing about it being usable. Vol still has her Mark of Death, she just can't use it. And no it doesn't pass the "Its what Keith said", Keith specifically said he got told by the higher ups "this is the way its going to be, put it in the article". Somebody show me in a book where it says you get to retain the use of your dragonmark after you stop meeting the prereqs. You still have the feat, you just can't use it.
Nived 12-02-07, 09:59 PM	You're really splitting hairs here man. I don't see why this is so damn important to you. Personally I read it that you keep your dragonmark. It doesn't say 'you keep the magical tatoo but you lise any use of it.' it says you keep your dragonmark, to me that means you retain its use. Which goes along with what the Dragonshard says. Why would they even mention it if you lose its use, why would they mention that you keep it but not that you lose the use? Why does the thought ofthis rule being in place get you cussing mad?
ArcTan 12-03-07, 12:17 AM	Oh you are :censored:ing kidding me. *goes to check* No, thats not what it says. It says they keep their dragonmark, it says nothing about it being usable. Vol still has her Mark of Death, she just can't use it. And no it doesn't pass the "Its what Keith said", Keith specifically said he got told by the higher ups "this is the way its going to be, put it in the article". You say this like this matters somehow, as though "higher-ups" (i.e. other designers who work at WotC full-time, like Bill Slavicsek) aren't allowed to make decisions about the setting. If Keith has said one thing over and over when giving us his opinions, it's that Bill Slavicsek actually runs Eberron, not him, that Eberron only exists in its present, heavily altered form from his original contest entry because of a lot of work by WotC (that he usually speaks highly of), and that his own opinions as a freelancer are unofficial. I really don't like this dance we're playing here, on the one hand saying "Keith's REAL opinions are more important than WotC's!" and on the other saying "This very general ruling from WotC trumps ANYTHING specific WotC OR Keith says about dragonmarks!", which all boils down to "Rules authorities have precedence in the order that ends up supporting Edymnion's opinion".
ArcTan 12-03-07, 12:22 AM	By the way, technically, what you're talking about is having the feat on his sheet but not being able to use it -- like having too low Str to use Power Attack -- right? Then the *only* place he'd still have a dragonmark would be on his sheet. Logically, the physical manifestation of a dragonmark is just as much an effect of the feat as the SLAs you can use with it. (The social aspect of having a mark is, indeed, one of the "effects" of the feat -- after all, in Eberron we have a feat, Favored in House, that has nothing *but* social effects.) This is why it was originally a rule that feats could only be abilities based on skill, not magic powers or physical features -- because losing "access" to a feat that said you had a third arm would make that arm suddenly shrivel up and disappear, only to suddenly regrow again when your ability damage (or whatever) went away, and that would be stupid. Since Eberron has gone and broken this assumption with the idea of making dragonmarks feats, it's only logical that we would have to treat dragonmarks differently from feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise. Otherwise, yes, you *would* have to suddenly have the dragonmark shrivel away and vanish, since the feat *is the dragonmark*.
Games_R_life 12-03-07, 07:02 PM	Ok, sorry I made this a fight... So, my players new minotuar couldn't use the mark? Right. Its till there on the sheet, but unusable?
AvonRekaes 12-03-07, 07:32 PM	Your player's new minotaur can use his mark. It's what the official webarticle says, it's what Dragonmarked implies. Just because Edymnion says no doesn't mean you have to play by his rules.
Games_R_life 12-03-07, 07:43 PM	Thank you.
Zippis 12-05-07, 07:20 AM	Your player's new minotaur can use his mark. It's what the official webarticle says, it's what Dragonmarked implies. Just because Edymnion says no doesn't mean you have to play by his rules. BTW: when monk takes his "Bonus Feat" for example, he can take it even without prereqs ... but following Edy's idea he cannot use them, because rules say "A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them." ... But they are silent about ability to use them without prereqs ;) I don't say there couldn't be a rule specificaly about dragonmarks, canceling their effect after race change ... but following my knowledge and idea about Eberron, there is no strong reason for that. If the Spirit inside of the body is still the same ...
Edymnion 12-05-07, 12:48 PM	I really don't like this dance we're playing here, on the one hand saying "Keith's REAL opinions are more important than WotC's!" and on the other saying "This very general ruling from WotC trumps ANYTHING specific WotC OR Keith says about dragonmarks!", which all boils down to "Rules authorities have precedence in the order that ends up supporting Edymnion's opinion".That was in response to you saying it was in Keith's dragonshard, obviously playing up the angle of "Well, the setting creator says...", I was clearing it up that he didn't say it because thats what he thought was right, he said it because he was told thats the way it was going to be. BTW: when monk takes his "Bonus Feat" for example, he can take it even without prereqs ... but following Edy's idea he cannot use them, because rules say "A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them." ... But they are silent about ability to use them without prereqs ;)Except for, you know, the class ability to ignore the prereqs.I don't say there couldn't be a rule specificaly about dragonmarks, canceling their effect after race change ... but following my knowledge and idea about Eberron, there is no strong reason for that. If the Spirit inside of the body is still the same ...So basically, you happily rule that any race can have any dragonmark they want, just as long as we stick "Well, I was reincarnated" in the background? Good to know that we can totally throw the entire idea of marks only appearing on select races by sticking a whole 3 words into our backgrounds. DM: Wait, you can't be a Hobgoblin Exotic Weapon Master with the Mark of Healing. Player: Sure I can. He used to be a halfling, but got reincarnated as a hobgoblin. Now I can kick ass with the best of them, and can patch myself up when I'm done.
Nived 12-05-07, 01:11 PM	Can't say I've ever had that problem.
DragoonDarkfire 12-05-07, 01:37 PM	DM: Wait, you can't be a Hobgoblin Exotic Weapon Master with the Mark of Healing. Player: Sure I can. He used to be a halfling, but got reincarnated as a hobgoblin. Now I can kick ass with the best of them, and can patch myself up when I'm done. I'm not exactly sure I'm 100% confident on this but what exactly is so unbalanced again? He's still wasting one, two or possibly even three feats (that do require him to be a certain level still) in order to gain a spell like ability to heal himself so what makes this example more overpowered than a halfling barbarian with a dinosaur who ALSO has the mark of healing? I mean flavor wise it does make dragonmarks a bit more of a "OH COOL I CAN DO THIS!" than a flavorful peice that they're suppose to be but mechanically I don't exactly see the problem.
Games_R_life 12-05-07, 06:03 PM	Obviously, this situation just comes down to DM preference. I honestly don't care what the hell any of you think, but I am going to make the character a minotaur. His mark will work. There will be a quest for him to be changed back. I don't know what way its suppose to be. But neither do you. I thank you all for the help, but no one has really made it clear what is correct. ... After all this is Eberron... and stranger things have happened...
ArcTan 12-05-07, 07:09 PM	Good to know that we can totally throw the entire idea of marks only appearing on select races by sticking a whole 3 words into our backgrounds. ...If the DM allows that background, yes. Just like I can start as a level 20 character if the DM allows that as my background, too. Saying that an in-game event that's randomly rolled and therefore likely to be detrimental to any character it happens to (reincarnation) is game-breaking because you can *write it in your background* that it happened in a beneficial way is totally wrongheaded.
ArcTan 12-05-07, 07:11 PM	Obviously, this situation just comes down to DM preference. I honestly don't care what the hell any of you think, but I am going to make the character a minotaur. His mark will work. There will be a quest for him to be changed back. I don't know what way its suppose to be. But neither do you. I thank you all for the help, but no one has really made it clear what is correct. ... After all this is Eberron... and stranger things have happened... *shrug* The Dragonshard is the only thing from any official source that directly addresses this issue, and it says what it says. Dragonmarked pretty clearly implies that the Dragonshard is correct, Edy's weird "You have the mark but can't use it, because having the feat on your sheet = having the mark on your skin" interpretation notwithstanding.
Edymnion 12-05-07, 08:30 PM	Edy's weird "You have the mark but can't use it, because having the feat on your sheet = having the mark on your skin" interpretation notwithstanding.Yeah, it is weird that I intepret it the way the rules say it should be done, instead of what is more convenient for the player. Again, IMO, its no different than getting reincarnated as something with a low strength score and not being able to use your Power Attack anymore. Either the prereqs matter, or they don't.
ArcTan 12-06-07, 01:32 AM	Yeah, it is weird that I intepret it the way the rules say it should be done, instead of what is more convenient for the player. Again, IMO, its no different than getting reincarnated as something with a low strength score and not being able to use your Power Attack anymore. Either the prereqs matter, or they don't. What I meant was that if you don't have the feat anymore, logically you simply should not have the dragonmark anymore. Can you give me a reason why you should keep the *physical* manifestation of a feat if your logic is that lacking the prereqs means we should treat the character as lacking the feat in all ways? Notice that there are very few examples of feats with physical manifestations in the rules, because, as I pointed out, dragonmarks change the rules for what a feat is supposed to represent. Yes, saying that the dragonmark vanishes if you're of the wrong race directly contradicts Dragonmarked. You're the one who seems to have no trouble pretending Eberron-specific material doesn't exist for the sake of the integrity of the "core" rules.
Games_R_life 12-06-07, 08:00 AM	Thank you! Now that you are acting civil again the situation is clear! Because they are feats her can no longer use them... until he gets changed back! (Sorry for the snippy remark- I just wanted to get a straight answer not a "blah blah ihateyou lbah yes/no" answer!)
ArcTan 12-06-07, 04:03 PM	Um... there's a difference of opinion. That's why you can't get a "straight" answer, because there are multiple possible answers. Dragonmarked says you keep the dragonmark. Logically that means that you can keep *using* the dragonmark, since there's never anything that mentions a special rule about being able to physically keep the dragonmark but not use it. The Dragonshard and Dragonmarked together both make it pretty clear that dragonmarks are an exception to the normal rule about feats -- logically, since they may be mechanically represented by feats but are fundamentally different from feats like Power Attack (since they represent physical, magical attributes, not learned skills). My beef with Edymnion is that, in the face of common sense, he seems to interpret the line in Dragonmarked to mean that you can keep the mark but not use it, despite the fact that Dragonmarked would certainly *say* this if it meant this, and despite the fact that it's contradicted by the Dragonshard. (And, frankly, if Bill Slavicsek was the one who wanted it in the Dragonshard and not Keith Baker, if anything that makes it *more* official.)
Lord Psynister 12-07-07, 12:49 AM	My beef with Edymnion is that, in the face of common sense, he seems to interpret the line in Dragonmarked to mean that you can keep the mark but not use it, despite the fact that Dragonmarked would certainly *say* this if it meant this, and despite the fact that it's contradicted by the Dragonshard. (And, frankly, if Bill Slavicsek was the one who wanted it in the Dragonshard and not Keith Baker, if anything that makes it *more* official.) The argument of common sense does not hold up to the example given in the campaign setting itself mentioning that Vol lost the use of her dragonmark by becoming undead. She's still got he mark, it says that, but it's dormant and unable to be used. I seem to remember reading somewhere that if she were ever brought back to life then she would be able to use the mark again as well (don't quote me on that one though). Saying that there is nothing that specifically states that you loose the use of mark is not a valid arguement, because the rules clearly state you cannot use a feat that you do not meet the requirements for. You can't argue that you are able to do something simply because there isn't anything that specifically says that you can't when there is a general rule that says you can't. The rules clearly state you cannot use a feat you don't meet the reqs for, thus it covers EVERYTHING unless there is a specific exception noted. I don't recall seeing the dragonshard and I didn't notice a link to it here, so I don't know how it's worded, but unless it specifically states that you retain the use of your dragonshard's abilities, then you have to stick with the rules that are in place, which Edy mentioned, about not being able to use the effects of a feat that you no longer meet the requirements for. Saying that Power Attack is an obvious loss because you aren't strong enough any more is a weak argument. Take another feat, this one from Complete Arcane, Pierce Magical Protection which requires 13 Con and the Mage Slayer feat. The description of the feat says that it's your contempt for magic that grants the ability to you, not your physical traits, but if your Con drops below 13 then you can't use the feat. By this logic, the rules don't state that I can't have contempt for something because I only have Con 12, as long as I still hate mages I can keep on using this feat!...right... Why are there rules noting that the physical manifestation of the dragonmrk remains? Because the dragonmark symbols are tied into a mechanic of the whole campaign setting itself in the form of the Draconic Prophecy. One of the few stories mentioned in the official rulebooks concerning dragonmarks is the one I mentioned about Vol losing the use of her dragonmark by becoming undead, which helps to tie this point in. The rules say you can't use it, there is a specific example given in the setting of not being able to use it, and nothing exists (to my knowledge) that specifically overwrites that. All that aside, I couldn't care less what you do with your rules in your games; what you allow and what you don't. But when a question is asked concerning rules, you have to stick with the RAW to truely answer the question. If the OP wants a way to (ab)use the concept and wants to know ways that he could make this change, then what you are offering him is perfectly viable. To answer his question though, RAW says that you cannot use a feat if you don't meet the prereqs, end of story. Any exception to any rule is specifically stated as such, including what it is that the exception covers (often noting in a case like this something to the effect of "this overrides the normal rules for use of feets without meeting their prerequisits").
ArcTan 12-07-07, 09:16 PM	Any exception to any rule is specifically stated as such, including what it is that the exception covers (often noting in a case like this something to the effect of "this overrides the normal rules for use of feets without meeting their prerequisits"). It's *not* the end of the story, since the Dragonshard says *exactly that*. Edy seems to enjoy ignoring official material if he doesn't like it and pretending that the reason is it commits the high and holy sin of "contradicting RAW" (see Races of Eberron) and saying that "It's not what Keith said" (unless Keith did say it, in which case the criterion becomes "It's not what Keith said when he wasn't made to say it by 'higher-ups', who for some reason don't count). The Dragonshard clearly says you keep the power of the mark when reincarnated. If Dragonmarked wanted to dispute this, it could have. It didn't. For all the "RAW RAW RAW" crap going on here, do you honestly think if the *intention* of Dragonmarked was to say "You keep the dragonmark BUT YOU CAN'T USE IT", they wouldn't have said that? (As they *did* explicitly say when talking about Vol?) I'm aware it's fun to pretend the rules are a computer program and that REAL rules masters are the ones who can find the unexpected exceptions to the rules that show that you're more awesome than people who just read the rules as though they were plain English. ("But wait! If you page back here to the CORE rules several books away, these lines are all nullified! I'm awesome! I ignore things that are said in plain English based on 'logical' extrapolations from several other sources! I'm just like a C compiler!") But Keith (and the "higher-ups" who tell Keith what to do) has said that dragonmarks work when reincarnated. That *is* the official ruling unless something *clearly and explicitly* says otherwise.
Edymnion 12-08-07, 11:18 PM	What I meant was that if you don't have the feat anymore, logically you simply should not have the dragonmark anymore. Can you give me a reason why you should keep the *physical* manifestation of a feat if your logic is that lacking the prereqs means we should treat the character as lacking the feat in all ways?No, you do not lack the feat. You still have the feat, its still on your sheet, you just can't use it. The reincarnated pixie with Power Attack still knows how to make Power Attacks, they just aren't strong enough to do it anymore. You slap a Bull's Strength on 'em, and boom, they're strong enough, and they can start PA'ing again. Same with a Dragonmark. You still have the feat, you just can't use any of the abilities it grants. Mechanically, having a dragonmark only gives you some spell-like abilities and usually a small skill check bonus to things like Balance or Handle Animal. It doesn't grant you membership to a house, it doesn't give you bonuses to interaction skills (although circumstance bonuses/penalties would play in, but thats not a function of the mark), or any of the rest of that. Hence, you would not lose any of that. As for me ignoring rules I don't like, show me where in the books it says you keep full use of your dragonmark when you change your race. Don't show me "You still have it", because the dragonmark itself is simply the mark on your skin. Show me where it says in one of the books that you get to keep your spell-like abilities when you no longer meet the prereqs for them. And yes, I'm a hardass when it comes to that sort of thing. Hardcopy books always take precedence over web articles (save for errata) IMO. If a web article says Fighters get a d12 for hitdice, I'm not going to say that overrides the PHB unless it gets into the errata. I'm going to call it a mistake from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about and ignore it. Only time I would consider letting a web article re-write core mechanics is if it says "This material supersedes what is written in the PHB". And even when it does get put in a hardcopy book, I still discount it if it conflicts with a more primary source. Races of Eberron says a Warforged Barbarian with Adamantine Body still gets to use his fast movement. The primary source says they don't. Hence, I consider what was said in RoE to be a mistake, and I ignore it. So yes, show me where it says in one of the books, officially, without doubt, that you get to keep your feat granted spell-like abilities when you no longer meet the feat prereqs. And no, I don't accept off-handed comments in secondary sources unless they specifically say that they override the normal rules (like saying "You may pick from one of these feats, even if you do not normally meet their prereqs").
ArcTan 12-09-07, 02:25 AM	Same with a Dragonmark. You still have the feat, you just can't use any of the abilities it grants. Mechanically, having a dragonmark only gives you some spell-like abilities and usually a small skill check bonus to things like Balance or Handle Animal. No, those are the mechanical *effects* of having a dragonmark. Having the dragonmark itself is itself an effect of the feat. That's pretty clear, actually -- no one who has a dragonmark doesn't have the feat and no one who has the feat (that we've actually seen in the books) doesn't have the dragonmark. And yes, I'm a hardass when it comes to that sort of thing. Hardcopy books always take precedence over web articles (save for errata) IMO. If a web article says Fighters get a d12 for hitdice, I'm not going to say that overrides the PHB unless it gets into the errata. I'm going to call it a mistake from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about and ignore it. Okay, see, realistically, the Dragonshard was clearly *writing a new rule*, not making a "mistake" in interpreting what an old rule was. New material is allowed to create new rules. That is the *point* of new material. Dragonshards create all kinds of new material. They create spells like the Medusa spell for depetrifying people. They shuffle around what the weapon proficiencies and favored classes should be for various races to make them more "Eberron". Again, THAT'S THE POINT. Every single one of those statements contradicts the PHB (like giving Dhakaani Bugbears a different favored class). That's why they're there -- to modify previous rules. If you yourself choose to ignore it because it's not "official" enough for you, fine. But don't go telling everyone else that they have to as well. When someone asks for what's true by "default" in Eberron, they mean the whole corpus of Eberron texts, especially official stuff written by Keith Baker for the website (*whether or not* his writing was influenced by "higher-ups", which everything he's written about Eberron since it became a WotC setting by necessity has to be). It is *not* a "mistake" in the sense of the RoE text. RoE was *misremembering* what was previously said in another book. The Dragonshard was *making up a new rule*. Blind quibbling over canon aside, you ought to be able to tell the difference between the two concepts. And yes, if a Dragonshard said "From now on, Fighters in Eberron have d12 HD", then that would be "official" at least *to a degree*. It would not be a *mistake* -- a mistake would be assuming *all* Fighters have d12 HD because that's what the PHB says. It would be a *modification*. And your constant refusal to see the difference between making a mistake and changing something (like RoE creating and introducing the flavor about Changeling sex-changing) is really annoying.
Edymnion 12-09-07, 05:10 PM	And your constant refusal to see the difference between making a mistake and changing something (like RoE creating and introducing the flavor about Changeling sex-changing) is really annoying.Funny, I was thinking the same thing about how you constantly take every off the cuff comment made by any book or article to be gospel.
Kreistor2 12-09-07, 05:28 PM	Does this issue really deserve this much anger guys?
skrap-san 12-10-07, 02:29 AM	Does this issue really deserve this much anger guys? Not really, but it seems verbal trench wars are fun and entertaining. At least they should be, all those forum flamers cant be wrong.
Kreistor2 12-10-07, 03:56 AM	Neither are flamers, usually. They both help people in their own ways. This is a bigger disagreement coming to a head. It looks like they've calmed down now, so no worries.
skrap-san 12-10-07, 04:52 AM	Ah I was afraid this was going to be misinterpreted. I did not mean to mark anyone is this discussion as a flamer. I was only trying to make a silly remark. I just keep forgetting that humor seldom works without some clarifying smilies, and I personally don't like smilies.
Edymnion 12-10-07, 08:35 PM	This is a bigger disagreement coming to a head.Yeah, one that can only come down one way, against me, and I know it. The more Eberron books get published, the more the setting is going to stray from it's original roots. Thats just the way the world works. We've already seen it happen just in the handful of years that the setting has already been around, and it will only get worse as time goes on. And every off-hand remark that gets put in the books just snowball into making it worse. WF suddenly had dulled senses (at best) because of a badly worded item, and instead of trying to fix it, everybody backpeddled to try and make it work. Some suits decided they didn't want to deal with the issues of losing a dragonmark, as per the rules, so they arbitrarily said you get to keep it. No real justification, just "we don't wanna deal with it, so this is the way its going to be". Each little thing is, on it's own, little. Not that big of a deal. However, they snowball. Ever hear of the slippery slope? The metaphore refers to a hill, where the farther down it you go, the harder it is to keep control, until finally you just slip and fall completely. Thats whats going on here. Each step in the wrong direction simply makes it that much easier to take another step in the same direction. Its also the basic principle behind power creep, where each new thing is just a hair more powerful than what came before, and suddenly the old material just can't keep up with the new stuff anymore. Think I'm exaggerating? Just how close did we come to having the Eberron metaplot advance? It was too big of a step in the wrong direction, and people baulked, but they tried to take that step. And perhaps more frightening than them trying to take that step, is how many people thought it was a good idea. But, thats the nature of things. The more new people that come in, the more they pull the setting away from what it originally was. Since we need those new people to keep the setting alive, its something that has to happen. Evolve or die. I don't like the direction its evolving in though. ArcTan apparently does. Thats fine. I'm converting the setting over to Mutants & Masterminds 2e anyway, so 4e and whatever Eberron turns into after that can leave me behind, and I can keep playing the original setting.
ArcTan 12-11-07, 12:08 AM	Yeah, one that can only come down one way, against me, and I know it. The more Eberron books get published, the more the setting is going to stray from it's original roots. Thats just the way the world works. That's the way publishing more books works, yes. It'd be a neat trick to actually somehow publish more books *without* changing the setting in any way from its "original roots". And every off-hand remark that gets put in the books just snowball into making it worse. "Worse" is a loaded term, that presupposes that the Eberron setting as presented in the Eberron Campaign Setting book was the best that Eberron could ever be, which I find annoying. You probably couldn't get Keith Baker to share that viewpoint even if you pumped him full of arrogance drugs. (After all, the ECS as published wasn't even really his sole creation anyway -- by the time any of us saw Eberron, WotC had done a great deal of work to adapt it from his original one-page proposal.) WF suddenly had dulled senses (at best) because of a badly worded item, and instead of trying to fix it, everybody backpeddled to try and make it work. Some suits decided they didn't want to deal with the issues of losing a dragonmark, as per the rules, so they arbitrarily said you get to keep it. No real justification, just "we don't wanna deal with it, so this is the way its going to be". Of course there was a justification. The Dragonmarks are linked to the soul, not to the body. There is a magical tie between marks and race when it comes to how a mark is *passed on*, but this too is spiritual, not physical (hence why marks don't follow the normal rules of genetics, as far as we can tell). A reincarnated Elf-as-Hobgoblin is a Hobgoblin with the soul of an Elf, who can be returned to his original form by wish or miracle. His children, however, will be true Hobgoblins, and therefore can't take the mark. By contrast, the Undead Lich form Erandis d'Vol has no true soul at all, but a twisted, corrupted thing of negative energy in place of a soul, hence the "Undead can't use Dragonmarks" rule. It makes perfect sense to me. Whether or not Keith came up with it personally has nothing to do with whether it makes sense -- the man is not immune to error, nor is everything that comes from a "suit" (i.e. a game designer *just like* Keith Baker who happens to hold a permanent position at WotC) automatically wrong because it's a lie of The Man. Each little thing is, on it's own, little. Not that big of a deal. However, they snowball. Ever hear of the slippery slope? The metaphore refers to a hill, where the farther down it you go, the harder it is to keep control, until finally you just slip and fall completely. Slipping to... what? The setting changes over time. It wasn't perfect when it came out, and everyone who works on it adds something of themselves to it, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. That's how it should be, with any kind of continually published shared-world fiction. The alternative is to cease production on it entirely and freeze the ECS in amber. Thats whats going on here. Each step in the wrong direction simply makes it that much easier to take another step in the same direction. Its also the basic principle behind power creep, where each new thing is just a hair more powerful than what came before, and suddenly the old material just can't keep up with the new stuff anymore. I honestly don't see much of a problem with "power creep" in D&D. People seem to use it to pretend that an unconscious process lies behind what seems to me to be conscious, honest attempts to fix balance issues in D&D -- Tome of Battle "creeps" the power of melee characters upward, sure, because it was objectively very low to start with, compared to magic characters. Think I'm exaggerating? Just how close did we come to having the Eberron metaplot advance? It was too big of a step in the wrong direction, and people baulked, but they tried to take that step. And perhaps more frightening than them trying to take that step, is how many people thought it was a good idea. Yeah. I think it's a better idea to have in-character justifications for the inevitable modifications necessary to the setting to make it mesh with the new D&D edition than to instead use clunky retcons to try to preserve the setting's "purity". BoooOOOOooo. Scary. But, thats the nature of things. The more new people that come in, the more they pull the setting away from what it originally was. Since we need those new people to keep the setting alive, its something that has to happen. Evolve or die. Well, yes. I just don't see much coherency in what, specifically, you are objecting to about the "changes" to the setting. They're all *different* changes that occur for different reasons, and you seem to categorically oppose all of them simply because the ECS is the Golden Mean and whatever deviates from it is Wrong. How does that make sense? I don't like the direction its evolving in though. ArcTan apparently does. Thats fine. I'm converting the setting over to Mutants & Masterminds 2e anyway, so 4e and whatever Eberron turns into after that can leave me behind, and I can keep playing the original setting. Cool with me.
Kreistor2 12-11-07, 02:40 AM	Well, Edy, you responded to me so I feel required to reply. I think you've pretty much admitted that whatever you're detecting is something you blame yourself for. I think in this case, you're right. Eberron is designed by committee. Hellcow provided the original source material, but grand sweeps of it came from other people's efforts. We don't know that entire process, but we do know that one man does not rule this world. What that means is that there is no "original root" in the first place. Your personal interpretation of what the first "Ten things you need to know" that denied subraces in Eberron was evidence that you did not actually recognize what Eberron was about in the first place. You set yourself up for a fall. You wanted Eberron to be one thing and another, when there was no intent for that in the first place. Any time you have to argue to prove anything against others who have clear interpretations that deny your own interpretation, you must second guess your own interpretation, as right as it may seem to be. What I'm saying is that you approached Eberron with your own beliefs about what a setting should be like and applied them to Eberron, instead of approaching Eberron without preconceptions. Some of them matched up, so you tried to make all of them match up, and that you are a good debater didn't help your situation. That you could win some arguments did nto prove you right, it only proved you were a good debater. (That's one of the great fallacies of debating, online or offline: you don't prove anything except that you are a good debater. You don't figure out what is true or false or how the world works.) Winning debates provides the illusion of being correct, and that illusion can not result in anything except confusion when things turn out differently than you predicted. Ultimately, no setting can be 100% consistent with itself. You can't approach a product designed by dozens of people, many of which may not be allowed to speak with each other to avoid anyone knowing the whole before release, and expect consistency. Devoting time to fixing mistakes does not make money, especially when the buyers are perfectly capable of figuring out a solution for themselves. Lost time is lost money, and lost money means the death of WotC. WotC may not be as good as you want them to be, but they are far more than most of the companies that died thanks to the 1992 introduction of MtG. So many systems gone and dead. So many good ideas lost. With that said, I want to face one issue you raised. That's the issue of Dragonmarks working after Rez. Well, I think that is a problem of character death and PvP balance. If you force someone to retain a feat that is useless, but was also integral to the identity of the character, then you are stripping away both a) character effectiveness, and b) personality. The character concept is dead, even if the character is still available to play. Some people revel in that kind of acting opportunity, but not all roleplayers enjoy the same kind of roleplaying. The key to a game is for everyone to have fun, and if you do something to a player that ensures tehy will not enjoy the game, then you're putting the player in position to want to leave. What one does to his players has to take into account what the expected reaction of that player will be. No matter how much a decision fits with a DM's concept of what is fun for himself, if it is not fun for the player, the DM must reconsider the consequence and select one that will be fun. All the designers did in this case was ensure that the player would enjoy the result of Reincarnation: the character has a new problem, one of external identity, but not one of internal identity which destroys concept and is really no different from character death for some players.
Zippis 12-11-07, 04:37 AM	Think I'm exaggerating? Just how close did we come to having the Eberron metaplot advance? It was too big of a step in the wrong direction, and people baulked, but they tried to take that step. And perhaps more frightening than them trying to take that step, is how many people thought it was a good idea. a little offtopic ... is it so easy to say, that it's the wrong direction? Some people disliked that idea some liked that, as usually ... it's hard to judge the situation just by screamers on forums (doesn't matter if they are for or against the advance). I don't blame them, they showed their feelings, but I would hardly judge the situation by them. At some point WoTC will have to judge again if move or not, may be they will find Eberron dying without that move ... anyone can just ignore that move if he doesn't like it. And we are back in dragonmark question ... lets split it in two parts, for me: 1. personal vision of the situation with Reincarnated character ... for some people the char should retain its dragonmark with full usage because dragonmark is integral part of chars soul. Others think that race change is something that breaks connection to dragonmark and its usage 2. rules ... some people follow idea that race change means losing prereq for the feat, so feat is present but unaccessible (and may be it also follows Keith original idea). Others follow dragonshard article which means for them an exception from rules (basicly a new rule), so for them dragonmark works even after reincarnation and race change. I'm glad that I don't have to argue with anyone which approach is more "legal" ... I don't see a point of that. Sometimes rules are unclear, sometimes on rule is against another ... if there is World Championship in D&D I'm pretty sure we will see some "100% legal ruling" before the tournament. But in my local group? Do you need feeling that you are 100% legal or your local agreement and DM judging work for you? If not ... please, write the sage, keith, customer service and so on and we will have to wait if they are able to give us that ruling. Otherwise we will end up in eternal debate without any "metter" to judge who is right or not. But keep debating, I like it :)
Edymnion 12-11-07, 09:50 AM	Ah, gotta love the internet. Where people jump you for not backing up your opinion, and when you do, they jump you because your opinion is wrong. Good thing I always have my reliable old fallback: "I'm not here to make you happy, I'm here to make me happy. If you don't like that, tough, see previous sentence."
DragoonDarkfire 12-11-07, 03:22 PM	Well if you got a problem with Eberron's deviations and advancements I don't personally see a problem with that nor will I exactly call you out for saying your a haggard old foggy who's too caught up in tradition to have fun with a game designed for entertainment (though I am very tempted...) I will say that an opinion is, simply put, a person's personification of facts and there interpretation of them. You can have facts oppose you and still keep with your opinion but the more facts or universal truths oppose your viewpoint (or multiple viewpoints for that matter) then the less we're dealing with an actual "problem" and more like we're dealing with minority’s personal complaints. While there's nothing WRONG with thinking that the campaign is getting worse cause of these changes. Stating that Eberron IS getting worse due to these changes and acting as though you are the victim here does have you come off as sounding a bit arrogant. Not only that but you're kind of missing the point of argument and debate. When you debate you say your opinion, try to back up that opinion with facts, examples or evidence and then present it to others for them to scrutinize. You seemed to have forgotten that when you speak your mind onto a website where the whole PURPOSE is that other people can respond to you. Are you honestly angry over the fact that other people don't agree with you and try to debunk the facts or examples you use for your opinion? I believe the term "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." comes to mind here. If you don't like the thought of other people criticizing your personal thoughts then isn't it best just to keep those thoughts to yourself? Of course on the opposite end of the spectrum you may feel that saying these things are best for informing the new generation and such but this all goes back to the argument of debate again. Not to mention that the internet is hardly the only place that this crap happens. It's just that plenty more of time people tend to keep quiet about it since when it comes to real life discussion it isn't the guy with the most logical or caring choice that wins the argument. It's the guy with the loudest voice. Oh but what's the point I'm trying to make? Simple. Don't speak your mind unless you're wiling to defend it. If you can't defend it then take your shrunken E-***** like a man and concede the point.
Nived 12-11-07, 06:49 PM	Ah, gotta love the internet. Where people jump you for not backing up your opinion, and when you do, they jump you because your opinion is wrong. Good thing I always have my reliable old fallback: "I'm not here to make you happy, I'm here to make me happy. If you don't like that, tough, see previous sentence." Pot meet kettle.
Kreistor2 12-11-07, 11:13 PM	Ah, gotta love the internet. Where people jump you for not backing up your opinion, and when you do, they jump you because your opinion is wrong. Good thing I always have my reliable old fallback: "I'm not here to make you happy, I'm here to make me happy. If you don't like that, tough, see previous sentence." You're passionate. I get that. Passion is fine. But when your passions turn out wrong, does that give you the right to be snarky about it to everyone else who didn't share your passions? Yes, I probably didn't need to post that last message. Maybe I shouldn't have. Probably I shouldn't have. But I did, so I apologize.