But... wow.
The "logic" basically is "we want people to take dragonmarks, and we want PCs to be able to make any sort of PC they like."
By the same logic a human fighter should be able to take all the dwarf feats in the book that they want.
It's a shame that the whole concept of dragonmarked races and houses is being jettisoned in favor of what... making a bunch of supercharged feats that every class feels like they have to take to stay on the power curve?
Whatta revolting development..
Obviously, I liked Eberron as a place with a story, and an internal narrative. I wonder if wizards was worried they couldn't sell Eberron as Eberron and just felt like they had to pour on the "juice" (i.e. crunch).
It would have been nice to see the marks reenforce the original key function in the story, (i.e. you are a member of a dragonmarked house).
Maybe they felt like intrigue and story-roleplaying element was too "niche"; that Eberron needed to match up perfectly with "superpowered people running running around killing stuff" that is the DnD power fantasy?
It's a shame that the whole concept of dragonmarked races and houses is being jettisoned in favor of what
They aren't being jettisoned. The houses are still there, and the majority of the holders of a mark(basically every NPC) still correspond to the appropriate race. The PCs having the option of having a mark not normally associated with their race is supposed to be a rare and unusual event that has major storyline implications. It isn't just that suddenly half the people on the continent woke up with a random mark. It is that at most a few people ended up with an unusual mark resulting in a large number of movers and shakers becoming interested in why it happened(and possibly preventing anyone else from becoming aware of the fact that it happened).
Take a deep breath, relax.
Couple concepts we need to reinforce before we continue.
1) The dragonmarked feats no longer have racial requirements.
2) In 4th edition the rules for NPCs and PCs are not the same. NPCs don't recieve feats generally do not recieve feats at all.
3) PCs are special.
4) In 3.5 there was an adventure that marked undragonmarked races. Eyes of the Lich Queen.
5) According to the Lore in the Eberron Player's Guide and the Eberron Campaign Setting the Houses are made up of the races they always have been. Dwarves bare the mark of Warding, they always have, House Kundarak is a house of Dwarves. There has never been a human with the mark of warding.
Alright, we got that? The history of the setting has not changed. However the fact that the dragonmarks are the prophecy written on the flesh of the mortal races is being played up, so yes a human fighter PC could choose to bare the Mark of Warding. Because he's special, because the prophecy has marked him.
This isn't common, in fact its unheard of. Imagine the reaction you just had, now magnify it by about 20. Imagine the reaction of House Kundarak to this. Or the Dragons of Argonessen. Keith has said that races with the improper mark will be adressed in the ECS, they're conidered Aberrant, and unnatural, and may well have some of the most powerful organizations in the world gunning for them.
Or not, you know your table, your choice. Feats are for PC building, not NPC building or world building.
And behold... I appear from an internet hotspot at UK Games Expo to attempt to soothe fears.
There are no racial restrictions on the dragonmark feats themselves. However, both the EPG and ECG have a lot of text discussing the significance of race, highlighting the fact that the marks are tied to race, but "as a player character, you can choose to be an exception, because player characters are uniquely significant individuals." The ECG goes into this in more detail, noting that such a character might be one of the first in history to develop such a mark, and could potentially be targeted for extermination by the houses. So if you take the marks in isolation - stripping setting away - they have no restrictions. However, within Eberron there ARE racial connections and consequences for ignoring them.
In short, what you're getting now are just glimpses of a big picture. People posting things often haven't read through all the information or are only presenting part of it. I won't say any more, because *I'M* under NDA and because I'm traveling and really don't have the time. But bear in mind that brief spoilers may miss the greater depth of the book.
As pointed out "marks in weird places" was a common theme in 3.5.
Adventures game them to random people; books featured protagonists with "wrong" mark/race match-ups, etc.
KB had someone carring around one a bottle, even.
Nope, storymiester Wyatt's Eberron Design and Development post is claiming this is their "major innovation".
Why do that if it's not a change.
You may feel it's an awesome change; but if they're writing whole design articles devoted to it then it's meant to be a significant change.
They could have come up with something that supported and built on the Dragonmarked Houses, not tore upart the logic that underpinned their exisitence.
The Dragonmarked houses are the same, the history is the same, the fluff from the book dragonmarked is the same. At individual game tables someone can take a dragonmark not of the proper race, but its impact on the world is decided by the DM at that table. This change has not altered the world.
Yet still people are flipping out about it. So yeah they wrote an article explaining why they did it.
An example was given: The Mark of Healing. In theory, a Jorasco healer should be one of the pre-eminent healers of the day ... instead, since it was racially restricted to halflings, you got a rogue with a 1/day cure light wounds, which paled behind the cleric (and the three wands of cure he invariably toted about).
i don't see any problems, personally...
I don't think Epic Fail means what you think it means.
Don't think I'm overreacting...
As pointed out "marks in weird places" was a common theme in 3.5.
Adventures game them to random people; books featured protagonists with "wrong" mark/race match-ups, etc.
KB had someone carring around one a bottle, even.
Then what is your issue? The capacity for dragonmarks to (rarely) appear on the "wrong" people has been in the setting all along. Now it's in the rules, specifically the rules for PCs. As others have pointed out, the Houses still exist, are still limited to single races, and still have their economic monopolies. Even if you have 5 PCs who *all* have "wrong" dragonmarks, that's five people on the entire planet. Five people who have just attracted the attention of the Houses and probably every other major organization in the world.
Deadstop
I don't think Epic Fail means what you think it means.
Inconceivable! :P
Well if this is our spell plague and 100 year jump, then you know what? I think I'll manage to survive this terrible ordeal.:D
I agree, anything seems reasonable after the butchery the Realms went through.
So what I've read from the original poster. Wrong-race marks are fine and have been here since the setting began. Now that there are rules for players (If which a typical game has 3-6) it has broken the entire setting of Eberron and dragonmark houses are somehow doomed to extinction.
I agree, anything seems reasonable after the butchery the Realms went through.
And both settings are better as a result.
Whatta revolting development..
You do realise it takes 5 seconds to house rule don't you?
Nope, storymiester Wyatt's Eberron Design and Development post is claiming this is their "major innovation".
*shrug*
Read the quote from me above. I'm directly refering to the material IN the book. Both the EPG and ECG emphasize that while it is POSSIBLE to have an out-of-house mark, it is a HUGE thing that is potentially extraordinarily dangerous for your character. Can it be done? Yes. But it is anything but trivial.
*shrug*
Read the quote from me above. I'm directly refering to the material IN the book. Both the EPG and ECG emphasize that while it is POSSIBLE to have an out-of-house mark, it is a HUGE thing that is potentially extraordinarily dangerous for your character. Can it be done? Yes. But it is anything but trivial.
The Infernal Bovine speaks the truth. The idea behind removing the racial restrictions on dragonmark feats for PCs is to not disallow them for PCs as a rule, especially within the context of an edition of the game that includes more and more PC races as the game progresses. I don't think any Eberron module will treat the idea of out-of-house dragonmarks as a commonplace occurrence, and, at the same time, all Eberron modules will push the idea of in-house dragonmarks.
I have said this before but this is the trick with RPGs. Fans of RPGs are lucky. Unlike fans of other hobbies like TV shows, Comics, and Novels we have total control over the games and campaigns we run. If the designers change something you loved or added something you hate you can ignore it. Free will and imagination helps us do that. Fans of novels, comics and TV shows are at the mercy of the designers/producers, they cannot change much about their favorite show/comic/book. They have to watch/read whatever is put out. We have more power than that. We can alter things to work for us and our games. We always had this power and always will.
I read where this was true if someone took an actual Aberrant Mark (Mark of Contagion,etc.) but I am sure that it mentioned that if a person took a normal mark (i.e. Mark of Warding) that didn't belong to their race, it would be the Draconic Prophecy given felsh, but that the Houses would actually show little interest in them.
I, personally, plan on ruling that all non-normal Marking will be treated as Aberrant.
3. You take any Dragonmark, regardless of what race you are. The Dragonmarked houses show no interest and the Dragonmark is considered a direct manifestation of the Prophecy.
An example was given: The Mark of Healing. In theory, a Jorasco healer should be one of the pre-eminent healers of the day ... instead, since it was racially restricted to halflings, you got a rogue with a 1/day cure light wounds, which paled behind the cleric (and the three wands of cure he invariably toted about).
That is still true for PCs. For NPCs... the main ability (grant a saving throw) is not very useful. So it will depend on how common the ability to use rituals is. But magewrights and adepts should be able to perform the rituals of the Mark of Healing as well. (I don't think the level requirement is waived for Dragonmark rituals ?)
Well if this is our spell plague and 100 year jump, then you know what? I think I'll manage to survive this terrible ordeal.:D
True enough - when you put it like that, it makes it hard to criticize anything about 4E Eberron.
Number 3 on the 4 examples of taking a Dragonmark:
3. You take any Dragonmark, regardless of what race you are. The Dragonmarked houses show no interest and the Dragonmark is considered a direct manifestation of the Prophecy.
I'd rather deal with Dragonmark houses than anyone who's interested in the prophecy. The Lords of Dust, Chamber, and others aren't too nice.
I don't think that this is a huge issue, but can someone point me to where in the EPG it talks about where, if someone takes a Mark not normally associated their race, the Dragonmarked Houses would take an interest and that it could possibly be a dangerous interest in the PC?
It's actually called out in more detail in the ECG, specifically page 18 of the ECG. Since I don't think it's too huge a reveal, a sample quote is "The houses might not be sure what to do with a character like this - the character is probably the first such case they've ever seen, so there's no precedent to fall back on. Some people would probably try to recruit the character into the house, while others would argue for the character's extermination to keep the house's bloodline - and its economic monopoly - secure."
Your interpretation of the third example as "You take any Dragonmark, regardless of what race you are. The Dragonmarked houses show no interest and the Dragonmark is considered a direct manifestation of the Prophecy" is flawed. The specific quote is "In this case your dragonmark is a direct manifestation of the Prophecy and has nothing to do with the bloodline of the house. You'll probably never meet an NPC in the world like you, and House Lyrandar would not claim you."
There's a WORLD of difference between "would not claim you" and "shows no interest." What's said is that House Lyrandar WON'T accept you as a member of their house - that you WON'T get a tiefling in House Sivis. Which in turn leaves you open to persecution, because the house won't provide you with shelter. It also calls out that you'll probably never meet an NPC like you - meaning that we're talking about six people in the world that may have such marks, and that the houses themselves are going to remain pure.
So I certainly take issue with your interpretation of that third example. As *I* interpret the four examples given on page 86 of the EPG, they are:
- 1. If you are of the appropriate race, you can be a member of the dragonmarked house. Nothing new here.
- 2. If you are of the appropriate race but don't want to have anything to do with the house, you can be an orphan or excoriate, as outlined in Dragonmarked in 3E. Nothing new.
- 3. If you are of the wrong race, but really really want a dragonmark, you can. This is a direct manifestation of the Prophecy. You won't meet any NPCs like this, and the house won't take you in. You're a weird freak on your own. This is obviously the new thing, and it's the point clarified further on page 18 of the ECG, which provides suggestions for DMs about dealing with out-of-house marks.
- 4. You can have an aberrant mark. Even here, it's called out that aberrant marks "are more common among those races that have dragonmarked houses". So it's possible to have an aberrant marked warforged, but it's freaky and weird - and it does highlight that aberrant marks may cause hostility.
So yes, #3 presents a new option. But it's called out as the freakish touch of destiny, and in the ECG specifically highlighted as something that could have you targeted for extermination. Again, not a casual thing.
and, at the same time, all Eberron modules will push the idea of in-house dragonmarks.
True. The dragonmarked characters in Khyber's Harvest all have the appropriate race for their marks. And again, you won't see NPCs with out of house marks. It's a weird character option, but one with minimal impact on the SETTING - just something you can choose to do in your game. Again, the ECG specifically calls out that such a character may be the first in history to manifest such a mark.
I'd rather deal with Dragonmark houses than anyone who's interested in the prophecy. The Lords of Dust, Chamber, and others aren't too nice.
An excellent point, and one that SHOULD be called out on page 18 of the EPG and sadly isn't... but yes, anything tied to the Prophecy risks entanglement with these forces.
That is still true for PCs. For NPCs... the main ability (grant a saving throw) is not very useful. So it will depend on how common the ability to use rituals is.
Personally, I provide dragonmarked NPCs with a +2 bonus to skill checks to the roll and a 10% discount to ritual costs (something I'd consider letting a PC do with a feat... although if I wanted to be mean, I'd say that this specifically reflects house training from an early age and that out-of-house characters can't get this feat). It's not a big bonus and might not be worth it to PCs, being most useful when dealing with the Mark of Making (given which I might rule it out for the creation of magical or alchemical items). But it does help to establish the house as having a clear economic edge over competitors; if they can either do things cheaper or make more profit when charging the same price, it's easy to see how they succeed. But this is ABSOLUTELY a personal house rule, and I dubt you'll see it in a book.
I also allow dragonmarked PCs to perform the rituals in question without need for a ritual book, though all other restrictions and costs apply. To me, the idea of the ritual is something that has developed as a tool to allow others to duplicate the effects the houses have been using since for centuries. So there was a time when the only source of arcane lock was a dragonmarked dwarf; sometime over the past few centuries, the Arcane Congress successfully crafted a ritual to duplicate the effect.
House rule, again, but it's the flavor I'm going to use in whatever material I work on. One of the core ideas of the Eberron setting is evolution of magic within society. So the idea that many rituals are relatively recent and follow a path of magical research and development is important to me... and the idea that for quite some time the houses have been the sole source for these things is a logically foundation for their current power, even if the rituals now exist for other people to provide those services.
As a note, I'm traveling and have poor internet access, so it's unlikely that I'll respond to direct questions - I shouldn't be spending the time I have right now writing this, but the issue is important to me, as dragonmarks are an important part of the setting. I quite like the interpretation of dragonmarks in 4E, but there are things I will certainly emphasize in my personal campaign, as outlined above.
And both settings are better as a result.
Agreed! I would have never player 3.5 Realms.
Eradis d'Vol, an elf half-greendragon, was born with the mark of death.
She wasn't even completely off her race, been half elf, and yet the dragons and elves both made a truce to ally in the extermination of House Vol. And as we know, that was the end of the Mark of Death.
So yeah, off-race marks are not new, but are a big deal.
Well, lets remember what happened that the last time in recorded history that a dragonmark appeared in it's wrong race:
Eradis d'Vol, an elf half-greendragon, was born with the mark of death.
Indeed, good example.
Though just to pick nits, I personally don't use the "d'" prefix with Erandis Vol (and I believe the 4E books bear this out) since the Line of Vol was never part of the Twelve.
If you have some player that goes around being an idiot by doing all sorts of wierd stuff like trying to gain every mark possible then put a stop to it. My point is that there is nothing to fuss about. Anybody that is going around and complaining about this is probably overreacting. You are the DM, and you can change what ever in the whole blasted world you want to. So instead of freaking out calm down and say "I don't like that, I'll just tweak it a little bit and forget about it."
If you’re going to complain about the 'Marks then don't complain about something that makes sense to easily fix. I admit I'm a little disappointed that there is no Least, Lesser, and Greater Marks but that can easily be changed or forgotten. So hear by a I am not going to complain about any changes.
So if you're going to complain, keep it to yourself.
I also allow dragonmarked PCs to perform the rituals in question without need for a ritual book, though all other restrictions and costs apply. To me, the idea of the ritual is something that has developed as a tool to allow others to duplicate the effects the houses have been using since for centuries. So there was a time when the only source of arcane lock was a dragonmarked dwarf; sometime over the past few centuries, the Arcane Congress successfully crafted a ritual to duplicate the effect.
You mentioned that in another thread and I'll definitely nab it. It makes a lot of sense.
Personally, I provide dragonmarked NPCs with a +2 bonus to skill checks to the roll and a 10% discount to ritual costs (something I'd consider letting a PC do with a feat... although if I wanted to be mean, I'd say that this specifically reflects house training from an early age and that out-of-house characters can't get this feat). It's not a big bonus and might not be worth it to PCs, being most useful when dealing with the Mark of Making (given which I might rule it out for the creation of magical or alchemical items). But it does help to establish the house as having a clear economic edge over competitors; if they can either do things cheaper or make more profit when charging the same price, it's easy to see how they succeed. But this is ABSOLUTELY a personal house rule, and I dubt you'll see it in a book.
I had a similar idea - I was going for a 20% discount (but I don't know the actual rituals yet). It'd indeed help to explain the continuing near-monopolies of the Houses.
Weird plot idea: one of the usual culprits (Mordain, the Lords of Dust...) is trying to create (aberrant) dragonmarks that can emulate other rituals.
It's not one of the usual "the Prophecy says that..." scenario, it's more like "what happens if we do that ?".
Is it just me, or do all threads with the phrase "Epic Fail" in the title turn out to be someone getting hysterical about some small detail?
I don't think Epic Fail means what you think it means.
QFT
Weird plot idea: one of the usual culprits (Mordain, the Lords of Dust...) is trying to create (aberrant) dragonmarks that can emulate other rituals.
It's not one of the usual "the Prophecy says that..." scenario, it's more like "what happens if we do that ?".
Nice PC background.
"You were not born, you were made. You're one of Mordain's wrong biology projects gone awry and he set you loose just for the lulz."
That could lead to all sorts of bizzare stories...
They go back 'home' and no one in town rememebers them, most will think something has happened to everyone else, not that they never lived there.
It'd be fun to run so long as the player was willing to go along with it. Its a delicate plot point, to be done with care, you don't want a player to feel 'screwed'.
Luckily my players are fans of Call of Cthulhu, Silent Hill, and Ravenloft so I think they'd give me room to run a mind screw.
Swordburst + Arcane Admixture + Arcane Reach + Heavy Blade Opportunist + Resounding Thunder + Mark of Storms = burst 2 within 2. Any enemy hit takes 1d6+int thunder and force damage and is slid 1 square. This power is at-will and may be used on opportunity attacks...
Feat heavy investment, sure, but... that monster is at-will. It makes the Swordmage arguably as much a controller as a defender..
Or to put it another way, just as renegade drow seemed to outnumber the normals so too might the non-marked find themselves outnumbered.
I'm afraid I never understood that statement. Isn't every group's scampaign or series of campaigns a world of its own? Why assume that other PCs exist in your campaign and can actually change the demographics?
I'm afraid I never understood that statement. Isn't every group's scampaign or series of campaigns a world of its own? Why assume that other PCs exist in your campaign and can actually change the demographics?
What I mean is that everyone and their brother tends to play or wants to play the marked character, same as how so many people seemed to want to use renegade drow. Yes, your table and mine might never meet, but if in both our games at least half the people have marks, and the marks are nonstandard race it can start to feel sort of strange. Or to put it another, if stranger sounding, way if everyone plays giant purple snorklewackers then giant purple snorklewackers become the new common thing, instead of being a special or unique part of a setting or character as the setting would indicate instead they seem to be all over the bloody place.
What the rules theoretically allow is not the same as what must happen in your individual games - and I certainly don't care what some other joker does in his games!
Regardless of what it says in the Eberron Player's Guide, as the DM I can ask my players to stick to the canonical dragonmark-race correspondences. Or I can choose to run a game where one or more of the PCs has an "aberrant" dragonmark, and make that an explicit focus of the story.
What the rules theoretically allow is not the same as what must happen in your individual games - and I certainly don't care what some other joker does in his games!
Oh sure, I recognize that too, that being said rules modification can happen in any game to make it better fit the overall program.
if in both our games at least half the people have marks, and the marks are nonstandard race it can start to feel sort of strange.
If you rely on players to provide a representation of the world then you're going to end up with a very strange world or a very boring campaign.
What I mean is that everyone and their brother tends to play or wants to play the marked character, same as how so many people seemed to want to use renegade drow. Yes, your table and mine might never meet, but if in both our games at least half the people have marks, and the marks are nonstandard race it can start to feel sort of strange. Or to put it another, if stranger sounding, way if everyone plays giant purple snorklewackers then giant purple snorklewackers become the new common thing, instead of being a special or unique part of a setting or character as the setting would indicate instead they seem to be all over the bloody place.
Not really, no. Those five giant purple snorklewackers may be the only five in the entire gameworld. The fact that they happen to comprise your PC party is irrelevant; coincidences happen. Unless the DM actually makes them commonplace amongst the regular population, they remain rare.
In the case of a party full of off-race marks, well, it's part of a prophecy, right? Obviously, these five guys with nonstandard marks have met and united for a reason.
Your interpretation of the third example as "You take any Dragonmark, regardless of what race you are. The Dragonmarked houses show no interest and the Dragonmark is considered a direct manifestation of the Prophecy" is flawed. The specific quote is "In this case your dragonmark is a direct manifestation of the Prophecy and has nothing to do with the bloodline of the house. You'll probably never meet an NPC in the world like you, and House Lyrandar would not claim you."
Cool! Thanks my bovine friend...I didn't have the book in front of me, and I was actually getting the wording from another message board...I can see that the wording I saw..."No interest in you" makes a big difference when compared to the actual wording. It's basically up to me as the story teller to decide how the houses (or specifically the particular members of the houses) react to such a mark. I can totally see a Warforged with a Mark of Making being used as a pawn between the factions of House Cannith...
It also allows for certain things that 3.5 didn't allow. If you went by the race rules in 3.5 it didn't allow what it think was the true meaning of the dragon marks. It wasn't about the race its self but those particular famlies. One of my questions was allways why can't a 1/2 elf be allowed to have a elf dragon mark if they were born in that family, or why a changling couldn't have one of the human ones if born in one of the families.
Cool! Thanks my bovine friend...I didn't have the book in front of me, and I was actually getting the wording from another message board...I can see that the wording I saw..."No interest in you" makes a big difference when compared to the actual wording. It's basically up to me as the story teller to decide how the houses (or specifically the particular members of the houses) react to such a mark. I can totally see a Warforged with a Mark of Making being used as a pawn between the factions of House Cannith...
This gives me an idea...
A Warforged with the dragonmark of making appears in the vaults of Sharn.
A Magebreed animal with the mark of healing is born.
The pastoral lands that Lyrandar Windwrights cultivate, start growing a vegetation with the mark of storms imprinted.
The Prophesy is moving, from the flesh of the artists, to the very works of their art.
And Lady Vol finnally has a good chance of reviving the Mark of Death.
Not really, no. Those five giant purple snorklewackers may be the only five in the entire gameworld. The fact that they happen to comprise your PC party is irrelevant; coincidences happen. Unless the DM actually makes them commonplace amongst the regular population, they remain rare.
In the case of a party full of off-race marks, well, it's part of a prophecy, right? Obviously, these five guys with nonstandard marks have met and united for a reason.
If it's occaisionally it's one thing. I think some of my frustration is that it feels like the feats have become somewhat less flavorful if that makes any sense. When they had the racial restrictions and idea of being tied to specific bloodlines it produced in my mind the idea of a sort of conspicuous form of wealth and propserity, the mark was shown off frequently to remind others that you were someone of consequence, someone of importance and power. The mark also tied your character deeply into the setting and story, the decision was made less for power and more for concept. With the new changes I guess part of me feels like we're going to see people taking the marks because they give cool powers for a build instead of for a plot or character concept.
And I will admit that in a lot of ways I'm glad the feats are more useful and no longer a sort of 'dump' for the sake of story. The problem is that part of me feels like the marks became a bit less interesting, a bit more generic.
This gives me an idea...
A Warforged with the dragonmark of making appears in the vaults of Sharn.
A Magebreed animal with the mark of healing is born.
The pastoral lands that Lyrandar Windwrights cultivate, start growing a vegetation with the mark of storms imprinted.
The Prophesy is moving, from the flesh of the artists, to the very works of their art.
And Lady Vol finnally has a good chance of reviving the Mark of Death.
That actually sounds like a pretty cool concept idea, I might actually look at using that in an Eberron game that I run.
I think what's more worrying is the fact that Dragonmarks will be appearing in Living Forgotten Realms... The Mark of Storms is going to be a regular trait of most LFR Swordmages with any inclination towards min-maxing...
Swordburst + Arcane Admixture + Arcane Reach + Heavy Blade Opportunist + Resounding Thunder + Mark of Storms = burst 2 within 2. Any enemy hit takes 1d6+int thunder and force damage and is slid 1 square. This power is at-will and may be used on opportunity attacks...
Feat heavy investment, sure, but... that monster is at-will. It makes the Swordmage arguably as much a controller as a defender..
As per CCG 1.9, Dragonmarked rules and Eberron backgrounds are NOT LFR legal.
Hope that helps a bit.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20051024a
In Eberron, the dragonmarks are associated with races; but in the Player's Guide, it freely gives them away to any player who wants them: A player who doesn't know anything about Eberron will take the feat not realizing what he's doing; minmaxers will take it without regard to plot; and to quote The Incredibles: "If everyone is special, then no one is." That is, if at a table of five players, if all five have dragonmarks associated with the wrong races, it doesn't end up feeling SPECIAL and PROPHETIC... it ends up feeling cheesy. This Cheese Factor... it is not a possibility. It is inevitable. We as DMs, the people who BUY these books, feel as if we've just purchased weeks worth of headaches from people taking these feats when we don't want them to.
If I'm running a game as a DM, sure, I could just say "this feat is not available to you!" as a house rule, but that's really asinine that I have to house rule a racial restriction to a racially-restricted rule. I think this "innovation" by the developers was approached very poorly: I think that if they really wanted to "innovate" this idea, they should've had the racial prerequisites as we wanted, and in a sidebar in the feat section, describe how players who want to defy these prerequisites should approach their DM and ask for a house-ruling in their favor.
In other words, we shouldn't be house ruling to restrict something that SHOULD have been restricted; we should be house ruling to allow use of something that is otherwise not allowed. This just feels like a cheap attempt to make it easier for programming into the Character Builder: no house rule flags go up to sully a character sheet, though of course the DM can tell players not to click on that option, at merely the cost of having to constantly read over everyone's shoulder!
I'm a DM who likes to keep my house rules to a minimum. This addition to this edition tacks on one more house rule to my list, and I don't like it.
I agree with most of my points made in that quote, some I disagree with; I just want to provide a single, cohesive, coherent summary of all complaints regarding this rule change. Hopefully, so people can quote me, 'cause who doesn't want to be quoted, really? =P
Hopefully, so people can quote me, 'cause who doesn't want to be quoted, really? =P
Well your wish has come true. :D
In Eberron, the dragonmarks are associated with races; but in the Player's Guide, it freely gives them away to any player who wants them: A player who doesn't know anything about Eberron will take the feat not realizing what he's doing; minmaxers will take it without regard to plot; and to quote The Incredibles: "If everyone is special, then no one is." That is, if at a table of five players, if all five have dragonmarks associated with the wrong races, it doesn't end up feeling SPECIAL and PROPHETIC... it ends up feeling cheesy. This Cheese Factor... it is not a possibility. It is inevitable. We as DMs, the people who BUY these books, feel as if we've just purchased weeks worth of headaches from people taking these feats when we don't want them to.
If I'm running a game as a DM, sure, I could just say "this feat is not available to you!" as a house rule, but that's really asinine that I have to house rule a racial restriction to a racially-restricted rule. I think this "innovation" by the developers was approached very poorly: I think that if they really wanted to "innovate" this idea, they should've had the racial prerequisites as we wanted, and in a sidebar in the feat section, describe how players who want to defy these prerequisites should approach their DM and ask for a house-ruling in their favor.
In other words, we shouldn't be house ruling to restrict something that SHOULD have been restricted; we should be house ruling to allow use of something that is otherwise not allowed. This just feels like a cheap attempt to make it easier for programming into the Character Builder: no house rule flags go up to sully a character sheet, though of course the DM can tell players not to click on that option, at merely the cost of having to constantly read over everyone's shoulder!
I'm a DM who likes to keep my house rules to a minimum. This addition to this edition tacks on one more house rule to my list, and I don't like it.
I think that pretty much says what everybody’s getting so worked up about. Like you said there a few points that are disagreeable, but that's pretty much it.
I can see why some people are getting worked up about this, but is it really something to get that fussy about? Sure you may want to not have so many House rules and have the books have them in there instead so that you don't have to. That would be called "being lazy". :D
Now imagine it's a Mark of Making.
Such a character could easily be the lynchpin of a new War of the Mark. I think I'm going to make this character now.
Such a character could easily be the lynchpin of a new War of the Mark. I think I'm going to make this character now.
Why did it never occur to me before I read that post. What if the manifestation of true dragonmarks outside the 'pure bloodlines' was part of the motivation of the first war of the mark?
Granted some of the d-marked houses were only formalized as a result of that war (Medani was content to keep to themselves before the killing started), but its a possibility.
Why did it never occur to me before I read that post. What if the manifestation of true dragonmarks outside the 'pure bloodlines' was part of the motivation of the first war of the mark?
Granted some of the d-marked houses were only formalized as a result of that war (Medani was content to keep to themselves before the killing started), but its a possibility.
Well, wasn't the War of the Mark fought mainly between Dragonmarked bloodlines and those bearing Aberrant Dragonmarks (Which would now include out of race Dragonmarks)?
I mean, if my memory is correct in this matter, then in all likely hood you've hit the nail square on the head.
If you have some player that goes around being an idiot by doing all sorts of wierd stuff like trying to gain every mark possible then put a stop to it.
Actually, that sounds pretty cool. I'd allow it, if only to have an excuse for a Cult of the Dragon Below to skin him alive. :angelhide
Of course that could just be what they told everyone "They were dangerous aberrants!"
I get the feeling that is is Exactly what the Houses told everyone. Hmm...Ninja'ing this idea for my Eberron games. :D
hat is, if at a table of five players, if all five have dragonmarks associated with the wrong races, it doesn't end up feeling SPECIAL and PROPHETIC... it ends up feeling cheesy.
That sounds like a personal problem to me.
PCs are the Heroes, and if you have a problem with that, you need to talk with your players.
That sounds like a personal problem to me.
PCs are the Heroes, and if you have a problem with that, you need to talk with your players.
The PCs are heroes yes, but that doesn't mean that all of them are supposed to be kings or nobles. The thing with me is that the dragonmarks were flavor/RP feats as much as mechanical choices. They were made with an eye towards making a concept character. Now, with the combination of making them general and giving special powers it feels more like the feats are going to be charop fodder. People choosing the feats for the powers involved instead of what the marks represent.
Maybe it's me being a bit of a grognard, but it feels like it got rid of something that helped make the dragonmarks feel interesting, unique, now they're just another feat. Yeah, there are all kinds of story ways I can play this, as has been shown on the forums, but it still doesn't quite feel right.
It feels like they wanted to make them useful and fun for the concept character.
I do like that the feats are mechanically useful. And as I said before, I might just be foolish for feeling irritated at the change. It just feels like something that felt like a very dynamic part of the setting has become just another feat. I might change my mind eventually, probably will once I get used to it, it just feels off to me.
Well, considering that my players regarded marks as a sort of "tax feat"(except from the mark of passage) for playing a actual marked member of a dragonmarked house, I definitely prefer the current situation. It's not as if you'll get a mark outside its race without the respective dangers.
If you want it to be a fluff choice with little to no meaning in crunch, have it be a background instead of a feat.
If its a feat, I'd like it to have some actual purpose. I can roleplay a noble all I like. I don't need to take a "noble" feat. So why should I have to take a "merchant" feat that has no actual use?
If you want it to be a fluff choice with little to no meaning in crunch, have it be a background instead of a feat.
If its a feat, I'd like it to have some actual purpose. I can roleplay a noble all I like. I don't need to take a "noble" feat. So why should I have to take a "merchant" feat that has no meaningful use?
Our point exactly.
That sounds like a personal problem to me.
PCs are the Heroes, and if you have a problem with that, you need to talk with your players.
Ah yes. That must be it. I hate how my players are the heroes. That's exactly the point I was trying to get across.
And not that taking the Mark of Scribing was infinitely better than Ritual Caster, and thus, RAW, anyone and everyone who wants to be a Ritual Caster should take it instead.
Not that most players, especially new ones, will be tempted to take the marks for the stats, not the story; for the very powerful benefits, not the heroics.
Well, considering that my players regarded marks as a sort of "tax feat"(except from the mark of passage) for playing a actual marked member of a dragonmarked house, I definitely prefer the current situation. It's not as if you'll get a mark outside its race without the respective dangers.
I'm with you except for the respective dangers thing. The problem is that most players aren't going to see that and if/when the DM does that the player is likely to feel like they're being singled out for some weird reason. But on the other hand I really like that the feats are useful and worth taking...my mental scales are still arguing on this, purist on one side and the proponent of fun on the other.
I'm with you except for the respective dangers thing. The problem is that most players aren't going to see that and if/when the DM does that the player is likely to feel like they're being singled out for some weird reason.
To quote Hellcow...
It's actually called out in more detail in the ECG, specifically page 18 of the ECG. Since I don't think it's too huge a reveal, a sample quote is "The houses might not be sure what to do with a character like this - the character is probably the first such case they've ever seen, so there's no precedent to fall back on. Some people would probably try to recruit the character into the house, while others would argue for the character's extermination to keep the house's bloodline - and its economic monopoly - secure."
There's a WORLD of difference between "would not claim you" and "shows no interest." What's said is that House Lyrandar WON'T accept you as a member of their house - that you WON'T get a tiefling in House Sivis. Which in turn leaves you open to persecution, because the house won't provide you with shelter. It also calls out that you'll probably never meet an NPC like you - meaning that we're talking about six people in the world that may have such marks, and that the houses themselves are going to remain pure.
[*]3. If you are of the wrong race, but really really want a dragonmark, you can. This is a direct manifestation of the Prophecy. You won't meet any NPCs like this, and the house won't take you in. You're a weird freak on your own. This is obviously the new thing, and it's the point clarified further on page 18 of the ECG, which provides suggestions for DMs about dealing with out-of-house marks.
So yes, #3 presents a new option. But it's called out as the freakish touch of destiny, and in the ECG specifically highlighted as something that could have you targeted for extermination. Again, not a casual thing.
It seems to me that it's only the natural progression of things. Definitely not a "weird reason". The DM should warn the plyer what she's getting into before she chooses to manifest a mark outside its normal race and, thus, singling out herself. Of course, we'll have to wait until the ECG comes out to get the complete picture but from what we've seen so far, a "wrong" mark has its consequences.
To quote Hellcow...
It seems to me that it's only the natural progression of things. Definitely not a "weird reason". The DM should warn the plyer what she's getting into before she chooses to manifest a mark outside its normal race and, thus, singling out herself. Of course, we'll have to wait until the ECG comes out to get the complete picture but from what we've seen so far, a "wrong" mark has its consequences.
The players guide doesn't really give much detail about it though both in terms of how odd it would seem and what sort of backlash and problems they might have. IE the player might expect a few RP things, not the assassins and the party being unable to buy or sell anything in town.
The players guide doesn't really give much detail about it though both in terms of how odd it would seem and what sort of backlash and problems they might have. IE the player might expect a few RP things, not the assassins and the party being unable to buy or sell anything in town.
To me, it feels like the Player's Guide is all sunshine and yellow smiley faces--and it's the DM's job to rain on everyone's parade by saying "Well, actually, that feat? You pretty much just started another war that spans the continent. Except, instead of it being a civil war, it's everyone against you. Just you." and other such minor details =P
You know, I take a fine point Sharpie and write errata in all of my books. I might just have to write the races next to all the feats and the prerequisites. Which is a slight shame. At least, races next to the feats themselves, since I don't think the feats include the little bit of flavor "Usually found on half-elves" or the like.
To me, it feels like the Player's Guide is all sunshine and yellow smiley faces--and it's the DM's job to rain on everyone's parade by saying "Well, actually, that feat? You pretty much just started another war that spans the continent. Except, instead of it being a civil war, it's everyone against you. Just you." and other such minor details =P
Except, of course, that doesn't have to happen unless the DM wants it to.
Except, of course, that doesn't have to happen unless the DM wants it to.
I'm waiting for a player in my Eberron game to take a Mark out of Race. I'd really love to run a Fugitive campaign.
Except, of course, that doesn't have to happen unless the DM wants it to.
Precisely and having this decision as mine is fantastic. If I want it to be an issue I can do so. If I don't want it an issue to distract from something else in my game, then I don't have to have it that way or I can make it a sideplot. It provides me with options and these options not being written into the core book as direct canon is the best approach possible.
And not that taking the Mark of Scribing was infinitely better than Ritual Caster, and thus, RAW, anyone and everyone who wants to be a Ritual Caster should take it instead.
Not that most players, especially new ones, will be tempted to take the marks for the stats, not the story; for the very powerful benefits, not the heroics.
You're kidding, right? You are getting +4 languages, +2 Diplomacy, create scrolls in half the time, and in exchange, the Trust on your ass for life. I'd go with Ritual Caster. :P
Trust me, even the newest of new players will understand "scary gnome spies might capture you and have you dissected." Also, if you can find a powergamer who cares much about 4 languages, +2 to a skill, and being better at writing scrolls (who even does that?) then I'd be impressed.
Reading the book cover-to-cover, there is plenty of reinforcement for the traditional race marks. There's even a handy table.
Also, not to harp on that specific example, but if you actually want to excel at Ritual Casting you will likely be a bard or a wizard, and thus it doesn't matter that the Mark of Scribing gives that to you.
This is the other potential problem, RP drama queen type takes it to ensure that the game is essentially going to be all about them.
But Aegeri's dead on here. Taking a mark doesn't mean you WILL be hunted down and persecuted. It means you COULD be. How the houses respond is entirely up to the DM. They could seem him as a threat and take action. Or they could say "Eh, it's just one guy, as long as he doesn't actually start a competing business or have a child, we don't care." If you want to go halfway, they couldoffer the PC the chance to join the house, with a clear "Don't do this and you're a dead man" on top of it - but as long as the PC joins, everyone is happy.
If you as DM intend to make the mark a heavy burden, you should warn the player of this and say "You can do this, but it's going to make your life very difficult." But if you don't WANT to deal with it, you can either just say at the outset that you are restricting the marks to the races listed on the table on page 21... or just allow PCs to do what they want and not worry about it. At MY table it would likely be an issue... but I can certainly see how you could run it that the houses just don't get concerned as long as the PC doesn't actively pose a threat to their business. The houses dislike aberrant marks - but the War of the Mark was a long time ago, and at least on the surface, they are not taking direct, lethal action against aberrants; the PC could easily be treated like any aberrant, with that lingering threat that the houses will do something, but without it dominating every game (until you start the next War of the Mark and the PC needs to work with House Tarkanan...).
The key thing is that as DM it's your choice. The ECG doesn't say that they WILL be hunted down - it says that they COULD be. The player can't force you to make the adventure all about dragonmarked fugitive angst unless that's the story you want to tell.
As a side note, I'd also say that if you wanted to use spellscars in Eberron, they work relative well as aberrant marks (which as a rule are more aggressive than normal marks).
The key thing is that as DM it's your choice.
Thank you, Mr. Baker.
If you as DM intend to make the mark a heavy burden, you should warn the player of this and say "You can do this, but it's going to make your life very difficult."
This is somewhat the solution I went with. My players don't have the EPG (yay for Australia messing up!). So their knowledge about Eberron is limited entirely to what I tell them (which for me meant an hour scanning, OCRing and flat out typing word for word the Dragonmark sections).
This allowed me to undo the eladrin mark of shadows error (by the time they get the books they should be familiar enough with Eberron that me saying "that was a typo" shouldn't cause too much confusion). It also allowed me to emphasise that taking a Dragonmark is significantly different then taking any other feat. What I wrote on out of race Dragonmarks was:
You could be unique. You might manifest any sort of Dragonmark. Why the Dragonmarks appeared on certain races is a complete mystery to all. Except possibly the dragons, although if they know they're not sharing the reasons. If you are such a person you can choose a dragonmark of any kind. Although bearing such a mark would definitely cause interest among the Dragonmarked Houses and even the Dragons. Some might see you as a threat to their monopoly, others might see you as an opportunity, or perhaps even a sign that Dragonmarks will begin manifesting themselves on new races and that you hold the key to economic supremacy. Whatever the reaction, you're mere existence is sure to excite a lot of comment and interest. You would be the very first.
Does this mean they'll face death in the very first adventure? Absolutely not. But I hope it gets across the point that taking an out of race dragonmark is going to have consequences.
What sort of consequences will depend entirely on the mark, the character but more importantly, the player. My goal isn't to make the game unfun for someone with an out of race Dragonmark. I don't think that should be the goal of any DM.
Only a bad DM would allow their players to mix and match races and dragonmarks without a HUGE impact on the game. KB has come just short of saying this repeatedly on this board and others.
If you want to play a mismatched race/Dragonmark combination, you should do so knowing it's your characters biggest defining characteristic, bar none. Really, nothing else will matter in your character's life... he/she will always be the guy/chick with the aberrant mark that will more than likely get them killed.
The bottom line is this: if you're a good DM, you can handle it or just choose to disallow it (like we've done in my game.) Most everyone in 3.5 had that one book they wouldn't allow (mine was Exhalted Deeds, for the record) because it didn't fit their playstyle. This is one tiny feature that is easily ignored with one word: no.
In short: Shut up.
Only a bad DM would allow their players to mix and match races and dragonmarks without a HUGE impact on the game.
What arrogance. You're sitting here saying that someone is a bad DM because they don't do things the way you would, especially after Keith just posted on this thread saying it was entirely up to the DM how he wanted to handle the situation?
No, sir, that does not make someone a bad DM. It makes them a DM who does things differently than you, and nothing else. The unmitigated gall of your statement is appalling. What is right in your game is not right for every game.
In short: Shut up.
What arrogance. You're sitting here saying that someone is a bad DM because they don't do things the way you would, especially after Keith just posted on this thread saying it was entirely up to the DM how he wanted to handle the situation?
No, sir, that does not make someone a bad DM. It makes them a DM who does things differently than you, and nothing else. The unmitigated gall of your statement is appalling. What is right in your game is not right for every game.
In short: Shut up.
I agree with Salla, but with less condemnation. Essentially, you (Valgoth) seem to be saying that your kind of game, your interpretation of the backstory, and your rules interpretations are the One True Way, and everybody else who differs either commits rank heresy, or has, "BADWRONGFUN".
I agree with Salla, but with less condemnation.
I would have condemned more, but the forums have language filters.
A fine point Sharpie and a few minutes of effort:
Tack "Requires DM Permission" to the third choice of getting a dragonmark on page 86
Write the race names next to all the dragonmark descriptions
Write " or DM Permission" in the prerequisites table...
I absolutely HATE writing in my books =P Even errata, or writing my initials on the top of the leaves, is something it took me years to start doing.
But the quesiness of writing non-errata in my books was overcome by my urge to make absolutely sure that my PCs understood: Don't take the feat without asking!
I mean... creative input on the campaign is something I like... but in my games, if there was someone outside of that race with a mark, the plot would revolve around them. And I don't want that without them asking first =P Not that I'm opposed--I'm even planning on marking through category #3 in my next campaign.
Ah well. I'm satisfied with my house rule written right in my book now =P
I think the way I'll handle it is that any off-race mark is an aberrant mark. It may do the same thing as a true mark, but it's the wrong shape, wrong color, and is dotted with oozing pustules.
Good idea.
But the quesiness of writing non-errata in my books was overcome by my urge to make absolutely sure that my PCs understood: Don't take the feat without asking!
Do your players normally try to keep their feats secret from you?
I feel as if many of these posts assume a more adversarial relationship between players and their DMs/the flavor of the setting than I have ever found to be the case. For any of my players, reading page 1 of the feats section of the EPG would be more than sufficient for them to "get" dragonmarks and their significance outside of mechanics.
I think that people who actually want to play in Eberron are unlikely to think of dragonmarked as a simple power-booster.
I feel as if many of these posts assume a more adversarial relationship between players and their DMs.
That's my opinion too. If a player takes an off-race Dragonmark, the response should be "OOooh, this'll make for some fun adventures', not "OOooh, I get to torture him!"
If someone takes an off-race Mark in my game, it's an excuse for me to point the Story Spotlight on him. Not to kill him, screw him, or ruin the player's fun. Some people won't care. Some will think he's a curiosity. Some will think he's a resource to be exploited. Some will want him in the house. Some will want to make sure he never comes anywhere *near* the house. A few might try to have him killed, but not enough that the game becomes some bizarre stupid 'there's assassins around every corner of every building in every town on the face of the continent'.
Do your players normally try to keep their feats secret from you?
I feel as if many of these posts assume a more adversarial relationship between players and their DMs/the flavor of the setting than I have ever found to be the case. For any of my players, reading page 1 of the feats section of the EPG would be more than sufficient for them to "get" dragonmarks and their significance outside of mechanics.
I think that people who actually want to play in Eberron are unlikely to think of dragonmarked as a simple power-booster.
My players normally don't inform me of their feats, if they remember to add them to their sheet at all. Also, I play with a group of people as of yet unfamiliar with Eberron. Between that and half of them being a touch powergamerish/lack of roleplayish...
The answer to your question is: it will happen. In any of my various groups, which it's rather hard to keep track of all of them (it's a lot of players--like, 10-12 total or so, depending on the weather), someone will take the feat for stat reasons, and not inform me.
House ruling things, making the book obvious that I don't want them taking this feat without asking... I feel anyone who reads the EPG and decides they want to have that backstory of an out-of-race mark will get the message that they have to merely ask and keep me informed (not unreasonable since people at my table know me to be amiable), while those who want it without knowing the backstory of dragonmarks will be properly discouraged into at least asking first, if not backing down entirely until they understand the setting more.
I think this latter situation, of making a world-shattering feat choice require AT LEAST talking to the DM, rather than making it core and (let's face it) likely to happen in EVERY SINGLE Eberron campaign I run (I run 2 or 3 a year, it would get old after a while) with the feats being so powerful--this latter situation suits a story-oriented campaign much better than the stock EPG does.
It's only world-shattering if you choose to make it world-shattering.
"Hey Steve, does that tiefling have a Mark of Scribing?"
"Hey, yeah! Yeah he does!"
"Weird huh? So how're those everbright lanterns coming?"
"Eh, got phased out an edition ago..."
I consider it world-shattering just by nature of the setting, by nature of the story behind the dragonmark... and just in general, I can't stand the idea of a non-raced mark being NON world shattering--which is to say, I can't stand the idea of it being run of the mill.
"Weird huh? So how're those everbright lanterns coming?"
"Eh, got phased out an edition ago..."
There are still everbright lamp-posts in Eberron. They're just not important enough to write up in rules for the PCs.
I consider it world-shattering just by nature of the setting, by nature of the story behind the dragonmark... and just in general, I can't stand the idea of a non-raced mark being NON world shattering--which is to say, I can't stand the idea of it being run of the mill.
And that's fine, for your game. But you need to stop your canon-lawyery forcing of your ideas onto others who have different ideas.
Seriously, you're starting to sound like an FR-wonk. And it's scaring people away.
Seriously, you're starting to sound like an FR-wonk. And it's scaring people away.
Which part is FR-wonk-frightning? I'm unclear:
Writing my house rule in my own personal EPG?
Defending my decision in a calm and rational manner when asked about it?
Or discussing my opinion and house-rule decision compromise in a thread dedicated to that very same opinion?
Which part is FR-wonk-frightning? I'm unclear:
Writing my house rule in my own personal EPG?
Defending my decision in a calm and rational manner when asked about it?
Or discussing my opinion and house-rule decision compromise in a thread dedicated to that very same opinion?
I think it's the bit where you disagree with Stogoe.;)
Which part is FR-wonk-frightning? I'm unclear
It's the part where you blow up at Salla for disagreeing with your opinion:
I consider it world-shattering just by nature of the setting, by nature of the story behind the dragonmark... and just in general, I can't stand the idea of a non-raced mark being NON world shattering--which is to say, I can't stand the idea of it being run of the mill.
Or discussing my opinion and house-rule decision compromise in a thread dedicated to that very same opinion?
It's a compromise is it? From the way you put things?
You have a very strange understanding of the word "compromise".
It's the part where you blow up at Salla for disagreeing with your opinion:
Strange. I didn't realize, that saying "I can't stand it being one way," which is in fact my opinion, was 'blowing up'. But okay, as you wish.
It's a compromise is it? From the way you put things?
You have a very strange understanding of the word "compromise".
I don't like non-raced people being marked unless it's a part of the story. Stock Eberron now gives marks away to non-raced people.
I think making people ask before taking the feat is a fair compromise? But, to you as well: okay, as you wish.
I don't like non-raced people being marked unless it's a part of the story. Stock Eberron now gives marks away to non-raced people.
Where does it "give" it away again? Is the complete lack of saying "No you can't do this" as opposed to allowing a DM to make their own bloody mind up so horrible an idea to you?
I will make my mind up on a case by case basis. If it's not important or relevant to my campaign, I am glad that the book does not decide for me ahead of time that it should be. I do happen to pay attention to what my players do. If they take a mark I will know about it as I am the DM and I look at their characters. I will decide if it is appropriate or if it will cause issues based on my campaign. Based on my story. Based on if I want it to be a part of that story.
Not because the book tells me it should.
I think making people ask before taking the feat is a fair compromise?
There is a world of difference between asking and being told. I view myself as being firmly in the whole "asking" camp.
People who actually marker pen in restrictions to their own books are automatically giving me an impression they are not prepared to be reasonable about it.
But that is just me.
Pro: The dragonmarks can function outside of Eberron, marks like that can be said to be anything, runic tattoos belonging to certain bloodlines. Symbols of certain people in a magocracy, or even something relatively commonplace in a more high-magic setting where maybe each mark represents a holiday/month of the year and those born on that day bear that mark. The new changes allow for a much greater expanse and story, whereas previous editions locked the feats into Eberron.
Con: The change also essentially rewrites a large chunk of setting lore. The Eberron campaign books, novels, and even the new players guide talk about the power of the houses. They've been willing to disown family members if they do something embarrassing, murder those with 'improper' marks, and these people are more or less THE powers economically. With the marks widely available if I care at all about RP or setting it's going to create some large waves, and I don't need the player saying that I'm being unfair when they start getting RP difficulties due to the mark (Maybe shop owners won't buy or sell to them, maybe they're denied passage on airships).
Pro: The feats have been made mechanically more useful, rather than being dump feats and usually being a bad choice they are now mechanically viable and offering all kinds of useful features.
Con: It also means that the feats are more likely to be part of charop builds than a part of the story. Now the feats are more a focus of 'Design X' rather than someone focusing on a character who is a part of a dragonmarked house or is a renegade, in fact trying to put that in is more likely to frustrate the player who might feel the DM is trying to control their character.
Pro: Allowing for more open options is a good thing, the DM can also change things if they don't want the player doing it. The players become plot-central or risking victimization is also up to the DM. This way the default is open allowance rather than to set restrictions, since the feats are, at least in theory, balanced regardless of what race/class takes it.
Con: Yes, but in the case of restriction the DM is perceived as being unfair. Not to mention that it isn't like the DM wouldn't have some reason to think that a mark belonging to a non-standard race would cause some issues. Novels, previous books and articles in Dragon and Dragonshard all imply that if a house discovered something like that you'd risk quite a lot and would be faced with, on the low side intimidation and minor harassment, on the upper ends you might face assault and more overt actions by the houses.To give a different example, a setting has a world where you can take feats that give you powers, but also mark you as tied to a demon lord. The setting discusses how it might create some tensions, the books from the previous edition and the novels explain that those with these marks are hunted by temple knights and are often subject to torch and pitchfork wielding mobs. If I follow with the flavor background for the setting my player might think I'm being an ogre, the truth is I'm just trying to follow the settings theme as I have seen it explained.
People who actually marker pen in restrictions to their own books are automatically giving me an impression they are not prepared to be reasonable about it.
Also, that.
If I follow with the flavor background for the setting my player might think I'm being an ogre, the truth is I'm just trying to follow the settings theme as I have seen it explained.
This.
The EPG does not adequately explain how poorly the world will look upon people with Aberrant or Non-House-Race marks. And yet, I am a story teller: if someone takes one of these marks, they are going to be in a world of hurt.
Eberron is a world where mothers drown their children if they manifest Aberrant marks. Where the Houses go out of their way to make the common folk believe that people with aberrant marks are monsters, out to eat babies for breakfast and topple civilizations before lunch. Eberron's a place where if a dragonmarked scion had an Aberrant mark, he would be immediately excoriated at the least, but quite possibly he (as well as his children, parents, siblings, and spouse) would be murdered to cleanse the house of the taint.
And to me, if a goblin showed up with the Mark of Shadow, or even a changeling with the Mark of Travel... the Houses wouldn't know how to react at first. But they'd figure it out eventually. They'd realize, if this person lives, there might be a SECOND House of Travel... if this person lives, there might be a THIRD competing House of Shadow.
I'm very story-oriented. I simply find myself unable to wave off these inevitable events...
And again, the EPG does not explain how the world would react.
But I can.
I can explain it to the PCs. But only if they ask. Only if they come to me and say "What's up with this feat? Why did you restrict non-elves from taking it?"
And I can say "Come, I will explain to you why." and tell them about the Aberrant marks, and the Dragonmarks, and the Houses, and the Prophecy, and how people react to people with Aberrant marks..
But I can only explain [b]if they ask[/b]
But stock rules, there's no reason to ask. You look in the book, open the feats section, see a way overpowered feat, and TAKE it. No prerequisites? No reason to stop and ask.
"But wait... does it say "DM Permission" on the sheet? What's that about? Is he being a canon-freak? Is there some background I don't know about? Does it have a penalty I don't know about? Is this errata? Why would he write it in the book?
...Maybe I should... ASK"
Criticize me for restricting my PCs if you like. I'm not restricting them at all. I just want them to come to me and ask about the dragonmark--both so I, as a DM, can know which Dragonmarked Houses will be involved in the campaign (and if they have an out-of-race mark like that, the House _WILL_ get involved), and so they can know what they're getting into.
If they say "Hey, that sounds pretty dark and depressing--I'll take it!" then I'll stamp 'approved' on their forehead every single time. If they say "I don't know if I like that... can't I just take this dragonmark, but not have the ire of the dragonmarked houses?"
No. No they can't. Not from a story perspective, certainly--and from an 'overpowered feat' perspective, gaining dragonmarked ire is the penalty to offset the feat's power.
But players wouldn't know this fact. Because the EPG doesn't describe how much the houses hate aberrant marks of any shape or variety.
I can only tell them if they ask. And putting "Elf or DM Permission" in the book... it makes them ask.
EDIT: I don't micromanage my players. We're all adults, old enough to drink, drive, and vote--hopefully in that order--I'm not going to look over their shoulders like they were children saying "Ooh, that feats' good. No, that one's no good, no... I don't like this build you're making... this feat looks overpowered, you can't have it..."
But this situation is different than micromanaging in general. This is a specific instance where a PC is getting much more baggage with his feat than the description says he's getting. He deserves to be informed of what is about to happen to him if he takes the feat--and if the EPG isn't going to have a blurb about people wanting to murder him, then at least, let _ME_ tell him...
But without requiring me to micromanage. I have other things to do.
I doubt I will ever see a Mark of Storm in any of my games or a Mark of Shadow as two examples of almost useless dragon marks. Marks of Warding are probably much more common.
Also maybe I want to run an abberant and out of race marked campaign. Maybe I want a group of PCs encouraged to take a bunch of out of race/abberant marks because the campaign is about that. Not having that restriction makes such a campaign much easier to run, because I'm not going against anything I am simply following the core canon where it is going to a natural conclusion.
Again, I am also a storyteller but unlike you I view the story I want to tell as paramount and if something is tangential, but ultimately not as important to the actual narrative I want it set up then I want it to be my decision. Not canon. My decision. If my player is a Warforged Fighter and wants (for whatever reason) to have the Mark of Warding I think on numerous levels:
1) How important is this to the story that it should be a major issue?
2) Is this going to be of benefit to the party as a whole?
3) Does adding an element where House Cannith (or anyone else for that matter) takes an interest in a less than healthy way in the PC add or detract from the game and narrative?
If I can't think of a solid reason to restrict something then I don't.
I can only tell them if they ask. And putting "Elf or DM Permission" in the book... it makes them ask.
I didn't need to marker anything in my books, my players just naturally ask me and assume because I'm not marking things in my book that I will be perfectly reasonable about it.
This is a specific instance where a PC is getting much more baggage with his feat than the description says he's getting
We are clearly running around the mulberry bush here.
If.
You.
Make.
It.
That.
Way.
Then.
Yes.
But not every DM is going to run the game like you, where is that stipulation important in my game? Because quite frankly it isn't and I don't require it. But it doesn't matter because the book is there and you are the DM of your game. If I don't want people playing a mark I don't deliberately go out of my way to be incredibly passive aggressive; I just say no. If I let someone play an abberant mark or whatever, I don't deliberately make it the focus of the game to try to passively aggressively punish that player for their decision (which is the impression I get from you to be perfectly honest). It has consequences, but it does not become the major focus of the game because if I felt it would be; I WOULD SAY NO (it's that easy!).
This is of course an inherently different way of DMing we're getting into here. But unless I want to make something like this the FOCUS of the game, I don't want it to be written into canon that it should be. I also like the option of non-race marks being accepted normality for PCs, which is what the EPG provides but giving me the option of using it for story or plot progression if I want.
To me getting an out of race mark is epic storyline stuff that can cause problems to a PC is it becomes widely known. Nothing wrong with that. If a DM does not want to use it like that then no biggie either. Sake with Aberrant marks but they are not as epic IMO as out of race marks.
This seems to be all one big net misunderstanding. Silly, silly stuff ;).
I don't micromanage my players. We're all adults, old enough to drink, drive, and vote--hopefully in that order--I'm not going to look over their shoulders like they were children saying "Ooh, that feats' good. No, that one's no good, no... I don't like this build you're making... this feat looks overpowered, you can't have it..."
But this situation is different than micromanaging in general. This is a specific instance where a PC is getting much more baggage with his feat than the description says he's getting. He deserves to be informed of what is about to happen to him if he takes the feat--and if the EPG isn't going to have a blurb about people wanting to murder him, then at least, let _ME_ tell him...
But without requiring me to micromanage. I have other things to do.
I don't have to scribble all over my books to achieve this result. I wrote up 2 pages that describe Character Creation. I said:
* Everything in PHBs, Power Books, Adventurer's Vaults and Dragon issues are legal.
* What races from the MMs are available unmodified.
* What races from the MMs are available modified.
* A paragraph on Dragonmarks and how they work in-game-wise.
* Any other House Rules (e.g. Family heirlooms from the Adventurer's Vault).
I could have quite easily said Dragonmarks are restricted by race and included a list of what mark is available for which race. It would have only required 12 bullet points.
That doesn't require me to scribble in my book and it also doesn't require me to micromanage my players.
This.
The EPG does not adequately explain how poorly the world will look upon people with Aberrant or Non-House-Race marks. And yet, I am a story teller: if someone takes one of these marks, they are going to be in a world of hurt.
I think you forgot something here..."if the house finds out"...
I will be frank I am playing a out of house mark...my mark is on my back near my shoulder blades....odds that anyone will ever see it are slim. My DM would be a real jerk to have the house do anything against me...
Eberron is a world where mothers drown their children if they manifest Aberrant marks. Where the Houses go out of their way to make the common folk believe that people with aberrant marks are monsters, out to eat babies for breakfast and topple civilizations before lunch. Eberron's a place where if a dragonmarked scion had an Aberrant mark, he would be immediately excoriated at the least, but quite possibly he (as well as his children, parents, siblings, and spouse) would be murdered to cleanse the house of the taint.
ok so in theory I am a human and I have the mark of healing, but come from the mark of maker family...I develop my mark at level 4 when I take the feat...it is not visable ost of the time...where are these repercusions comeing from???
And to me, if a goblin showed up with the Mark of Shadow, or even a changeling with the Mark of Travel... the Houses wouldn't know how to react at first. But they'd figure it out eventually. They'd realize, if this person lives, there might be a SECOND House of Travel... if this person lives, there might be a THIRD competing House of Shadow.
I'm very story-oriented. I simply find myself unable to wave off these inevitable events...
may I suggest you consider other options as...
And again, the EPG does not explain how the world would react.
But I can.
I could easily for see other options...
1) the 'he is just one man' theory... it is just as likley they will only see him as a threat if he is doing something to make himself oen...
2) "Welcome to the family" I can see a changling with the mark of shadows being quicky recruited for a new house member...his specilty could HELP the house after all
(and if they have an out-of-race mark like that, the House _WILL_ get involved),
Where in what book are the houses described as more omni sentiant then most D&D gods??? I mean again...first someone has to see the mark, then they have to recognize it...then stories have to make it back tot eh house, then the house has to consider them credable, and then and only then...can they TRY to find the PC...I mean even if I have been in stories, and they belive them how hard is it to track me down....
If they say "Hey, that sounds pretty dark and depressing--I'll take it!" then I'll stamp 'approved' on their forehead every single time. If they say "I don't know if I like that... can't I just take this dragonmark, but not have the ire of the dragonmarked houses?"
No. No they can't. Not from a story perspective, certainly--and from an 'overpowered feat' perspective, gaining dragonmarked ire is the penalty to offset the feat's power.
wait...what??? what makes you think:
gaining dragonmarked ire is the penalty to offset the feat's power
and if the EPG isn't going to have a blurb about people wanting to murder him, then at least, let _ME_ tell him...
have you considered it doesn't say it becuse it is FAR from a fore gone conclusion...
edit: Have you considered if youwrote : See me when you take this feat...it woulb be both less advaseral, and more helpful...(since as you wrote it now right race could take it, and you not find out for games...)
I think you forgot something here..."if the house finds out"...
I was going to say exactly that. There's no reason for a character to flaunt his mark, especially if he knows it'll get him into trouble. Maybe he'll confide in his party members... or maybe not (depending on the player/campaign, the dragonmarks may flare dramatically when used... or may do nothing visible !).
Perhaps he'll take his secret to the grave, or perhaps once he is of a high enough level/famous enough he'll unveil his mark and demand admission to the House. Or found a rival House.
There are lots of possibilities to explore, for both DM and player.
IF you were running a game during the War of the Mark.
Fact is that as of 998 YK, Abberant marked individuals have been so minor and relatively harmless that most people would just ostracize the person from polite society, not kill them. A mother would not drown her child just for having one (Note that it'd be extremely rare for a baby to get any dragonmark anyway. They usually appear in young adulthood) anymore than a mother would drown a child with a lazy eye.
I have no doubt that such reactions are entirely plausible and expected for people living during a time when Abberants COULD call down brimstone and hail and summon city-devouring swarms of deadly poisonous vermin. But they can't do that now. They haven't been able to do it for a millenia. People have lived as abberant marked individuals and were discovered and were not hunted down by the houses or arrested by local law enforcement just for being abberant marked. They might've been, say, fired from their jobs, suffered a debilitating loss of influence in their noble circles, etc. But no one is hunting them down to murder them.
Also, consider that House Tarkanan might approach an abberant marked PC and offer them help concealing themselves from the Houses. You can make House-hate for wrong-race-marked individuals interesting without making it debilitating.
You say you're "story-driven", but if you can't figure out how to make a story fun, then you aren't thinking hard enough. Be imaginative.
Okay, if I write "The houses WILL get involved", I'm saying this because over the course of the campaign I think it's highly unlikely that NOBODY will find out about their mark. Even if the mark is hidden, adventuring parties go through too many events for not one of them to reveal the mark. "The mark is on my chest, so nobody has to see it!" only works if you never get KO'd, hospitalized from severe injuries, resurrected, spied on by your enemies, spied on by your friends, never have sex with a changeling spy, and so on.
You guys interpret my words waaay too hastily. I meant "over the course of events, someone might discover it, and the houses WILL get involved if they find out"
And before I get another "It's only that way if you make it!": No. Every NPC, down to the orc drudges, have motives. "Every character in your story should want something, even if it's only a glass of water" and all that. If there's a changeling spy nearby sneaking into the party's favorite brothel, it's because a chain of events lead someone to hire a spy, and it's already in my DM notes on where that spy will be sitting in town. If the party doesn't go to the brothel, they don't encounter it; if they do, they do. Same with being KO'd: Sometimes, the party will be fighting enemies who would rather capture, not kill, the party, but of course they steal their gear...
And I don't think I've had a single campaign where someone didn't receive a wound that requires hospitalization. It's a rare occurance, but things like being immersed in lava do things in-game besides damage HP: you're gonna want some House Jorasco skin-grafts after that...
As for my world being rather dark... well, yeah. I run rather dark campaigns. Bad things happen to the players. The world's at the brink of chaos, shadow wars are everywhere, most Houses have schisms... "My" Eberron is a place without sunshine and rainbows: the only reason the Houses aren't at everyone's throats is that they're secure in their positions. A non-racial mark would threaten that position.
Incidentally, for my interpretation of how the world reacts to Aberrant marks?
...yeah... I was just quoting Dragonmarked on that one... so "My Eberron" is actually more like "Stock Eberron", and "Your" Eberron is a little to bright and cheery for my tastes.
But of course, everyone's Eberron is different. That's what makes this a nice setting: it's so ambiguous, so morally gray, that everyone has different beliefs. It's a good thing. Which makes me wonder why everyone here is criticizing me for having a game different than yours...
This board is more hostile about 'canon' (and I'm still amused that I was quoting Dragonmarked for my canon) than any other board on these forums. Damn.
Okay, if I write "The houses WILL get involved", I'm saying this because over the course of the campaign I think it's highly unlikely that NOBODY will find out about their mark. Even if the mark is hidden, adventuring parties go through too many events for not one of them to reveal the mark. "The mark is on my chest, so nobody has to see it!" only works if you never get KO'd, hospitalized from severe injuries, resurrected, spied on by your enemies, spied on by your friends, never have sex with a changeling spy, and so on.
Your characters automatically undress one another when KO'ed or in need of resurrection ? ;)
Seriously though, each version of Eberron creates its own constraints. In your campaign, if I played a PC with an out-of-race or aberrant mark he'd likely be positively paranoid about hiding it. He'd hide it under bandages and warn his companions that there are not to be removed under any circumstance (he'd have a credible story explaining it). He'd keep his shirt on during the changeling sex.
Or it could be fun to play someone flaunting her mark... I'd just have another character ready for when the first one would be captured or killed.
And I don't think I've had a single campaign where someone didn't receive a wound that requires hospitalization. It's a rare occurance, but things like being immersed in lava do things in-game besides damage HP: you're gonna want some House Jorasco skin-grafts after that...
That's an interesting take on the healing system. I think I've only got 2 characters or so that might have ever needed hospitalization (judging from your post - I could be wrong about the criterions you're using), and 3.5E had Regenerate.
How do the characters manage when off exploring in Xen'drik ?
I'll have to check my books when I go back home. I wasn't aware of aberrant-marked heirs getting excoriated, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
But I'm a bit surprised that our campaigns would be deemed cheery just because we do that differently...
I do think people are taking this too seriously. :D
If you can't figure out how to make a story fun, then you aren't thinking hard enough.
'll have to check my books when I go back home. I wasn't aware of aberrant-marked heirs getting excoriated, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
But I'm a bit surprised that our campaigns would be deemed cheery just because we do that differently...
I do think people are taking this too seriously. :D
I feel as though others have taken this too seriously, putting me on the defensive so _I_ am taking it too seriously too. But I'm proud of my DMing, so defend I must
As for my comment on cheeriness, it was just me being rather irate that I've received nothing but criticism, which I can't defend against since criticism is criticism... but when someone said my games would become too dark, I COULD defend against that =p
As for the quote: Dragonmarked, The Aberrant Adventurer, Page 158:
Before a player takes an aberrant dragonmark, both player and Dungeon Master should discuss the idea ... It is possible to minimize the impact of aberrant dragonmarks in a campaign. If a character's mark is hidden on his body ... The DM might also decide that in her campaign, the majority of the population have let go of old prejudices ... One place where prejudice against aberrants remains in full force is the dragonmarked houses themselves ... Such characters are almos talway sforced from their house, especially if they are children of marked parents or scions of well-established dragonmarked families.
There's also another part, 157, Aberrant Dragonmarks in the Modern Day:
...In the aftermath of the War of the Mark, the propaganda of the dragonmarked houses depicted aberrants as terrifying monsters. Many aberrant children among the general population are thought to have been killed by their own parents. .... The old superstitions remain, but they are losing their power. ... the Last War have driven such concerns from the ind of the common folk
Parents killing children if caught with a mark, dragonmarked families kicking out aberrant scions (and we all know some of the houses aren't so friendly as just 'kicking out'). And it seems like the only reason people aren't COMPLETELY terrified of aberrant marks is because since the Karrnath undead armies rose up, Cyre exploded, the Emerald Claw commits war crimes, the monstrous nations rose to power, and even after the war all of the nations are building up huge amounts of destructive force Cold War style... well, even in our modern era, old fears tend to pale when new, fresh, in-your-face ones show up.
So really, the question is not "In stock Eberron, are people terrified of Aberrant marks?" since this answer seems to be quite clear, minus any DM intervention... the question is "Do people feel the same about non-racial marks as Aberrant marks?"
And for my campaign, I say yes. For yours, you may say no; but I humbly disagree. Not because people will say "Oh, that's a normal-looking dragonmark; I fear you now!" but because people will say "Hey, isn't that a human mark on a kobold?" to which the houses will tell people "IT'S A NEW KIND OF ABERRANT MARK! THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US ALL! AHHHHHHHH! AHHHHH! AHHH!"
And then the lynch mob forms. The House didn't directly kill any new-marked people, but they certainly influenced the common folk into doing it.
That's my take.
Misterfido, regardless of whether you're interpretation is from a quote from a book or not, I still stand by my ultimate point.
If you can't figure out how to make a story fun, then you aren't thinking hard enough.
We have fun =P It's just... the same sort of fun a revanent or a tiefling or a gnoll will have. Wearing a hood while in the city, going all-out while adventuring.
There are many, many, many types of 'outcast' character. They're my favorite kind to play--in fact, looking back, I don't think I've ever had a single player since 3.0 _NOT_ want to play a character with a little bit of 'outcast' flair.
Show
The evoker who looks like a necromancer, the revanent (house-ruled until they came out wit han actual undead race) gunslinger, the sorcerer self-flavored to be an outcast from his odd magics, a githyanki, a tiefling devil-worshipper, and a serial killer was my last party (not in Eberron though).
Before that it was a doppelganger (not changeling but doppelganger) pyromaniac, a simple elf ranger (I guess not so outcast =P), and a self-flavored thieves guild thug.
Before that, a full-body-bandaging maniac with a saw and a simple outcast gunslinger (full group of two people =P)
Before that, the good twin of a world-infamous necromancer, a lich, and a paladin of The Silver Flame (awesome party dynamics, by the way) kicked out of the church for befriending the former two.
Before THAT, I can't even remember that far, those lists span years and years of gaming.
Before that it was a doppelganger (not changeling but doppelganger) pyromaniac, a simple elf ranger (I guess not so outcast =P), and a self-flavored thieves guild thug.
Before that, a full-body-bandaging maniac with a saw and a simple outcast gunslinger (full group of two people =P)
Before that, the good twin of a world-infamous necromancer, a lich, and a paladin of The Silver Flame (awesome party dynamics, by the way) kicked out of the church for befriending the former two.
Before THAT, I can't even remember that far, those lists span years and years of gaming.
I was probably misinterpreting your position. It seemed to me that you were going to make playing a wrong-race-marked character next to impossible to play long-term, singling the person out for punishment and execution at every turn.
But if your players actually like being threatened with execution every step they take, then who am I to tell your players what not to like? :P
Happy gaming!
I was probably misinterpreting your position. It seemed to me that you were going to make playing a wrong-race-marked character next to impossible to play long-term, singling the person out for punishment and execution at every turn.
No threats of execution unless their dragonmark is revealed... and even then, the status of 'hero' can be earned. That's the best part of being an outcast, I think. If you're a normal or even a hero, you really don't have anywhere to go... but with being an outcast comes REDEMPTION. With being considered a freak of nature and a monster comes the opportunity to change people's opinions for the better.
After all, which 'cinematic' feels more rewarding, and just plain kick-ass, to a group of aberrant outcasts?
Populace: "Yay, we love our dragonmarked thri-keen hero!"
House: "Yay we love him too! Welcome to House Cannith!"
or
House Cannith: "Kill the freak! Kill the bearer of the mark of terror! IT HAS DESTROYED YOUR VILLAGE!"
Populace which formerly would gladly witch-hunt the aberrant thri-keen: "He just saved our lives."
House: "HE IS THE ONE WHO PUT IT IN DANGER!!!"
Populace: "He just risked his life to save ours. What have YOU done for us today?"
House: "...we are going to give you 5% off on rebuilding your village? Only 950,000 gold?"
Populace: "You have two days to move out of our town before we demolish your office and build a statue of our hero there."
House: "... ... ... 10%?"
Populace: "One day."
You can't feel loved unless you've felt hated first, I think.
And again... if this is how I'm going to run the game _ANYWAY_, I feel as though a touch of 'informed consent' is necessary. "There will be bad times before there are good ones" and whatnot.
Of course, if it's not discovered at all, which is entirely possible, it could always go like:
"Yay, we love our thri-keen, and have no reason to dislike him!
=P
As for the quote: Dragonmarked, The Aberrant Adventurer, Page 158:
It's interesting that in the post above you claimed this was "The way Eberron works" yet neither quote actually fully supports you.
Before a player takes an aberrant dragonmark, both player and Dungeon Master should discuss the idea ... It is possible to minimize the impact of aberrant dragonmarks in a campaign. If a character's mark is hidden on his body ... The DM might also decide that in her campaign, the majority of the population have let go of old prejudices ... One place where prejudice against aberrants remains in full force is the dragonmarked houses themselves ... Such characters are almos talway sforced from their house, especially if they are children of marked parents or scions of well-established dragonmarked families.
The quote there suggests that the interpretation the events of the War of the Mark have died down can be assumed to be correct. Not everywhere will indeed react with the same hostility to an aberrant mark or out of house mark; though it again notes what nobody has disputed that Dragonmarked houses certainly will.
There's also another part, 157, Aberrant Dragonmarks in the Modern Day:
This quote also doesn't support you.
..In the aftermath of the War of the Mark, the propaganda of the dragonmarked houses depicted aberrants as terrifying monsters. Many aberrant children among the general population are thought to have been killed by their own parents. .... The old superstitions remain, but they are losing their power. ... the Last War have driven such concerns from the ind of the common folk
Because again, we see in the immediate aftermath of the War of the Mark you are correct. But my game is set in the modern period, not in the aftermath of the War of the Mark so it makes sense people have forgot about things since then. The implication from your own quote is exactly this; people have forgot about the horrors the aberrant marks unleashed due to the effects of the last war. While I am certain such events may still happen, the way the quote is worded indicates to me it's not as much as a given in the modern time anymore as it was in the immediate aftermath of the War of the Mark.
So in effect, what I'm seeing is you keeping the timeline immediately after the War of the Mark; rather than the books implications that over time peoples views have become far less obviously homicidal over time (due to events like the great war). This has been my interpretation for a while and I don't think your quotes support what you think they do.
Returning to the original point "This is how Eberron works" I feel both quotes dramatically undermine your statement. Both quotes give immense room for freedom of interpretation to a DM about how aberrant marks are treated; albeit I think everyone agrees that Dragonmarked houses would hate the bits out of them. Neither quote conclusively proves "This is how Eberron works" because both quotes fully support the idea that aberrant marks may not be as poorly reacted to post-war of the mark anymore. It is more correct to state "This is one way Eberron could work" since the war of the mark. It would be more correct again to state "This is up to the DM to interpret how Eberron could work and here are reasons for and against that idea", which is what the book clearly presents to me.
And it seems like the only reason people aren't COMPLETELY terrified of aberrant marks is because since the Karrnath undead armies rose up, Cyre exploded, the Emerald Claw commits war crimes, the monstrous nations rose to power, and even after the war all of the nations are building up huge amounts of destructive force Cold War style... well, even in our modern era, old fears tend to pale when new, fresh, in-your-face ones show up.
Which is exactly the point that both of those quotes made. They are not describing the "Here and now" of aberrant marks. My interpretation (now I have that book as well) is that it's the absolute opposite: people in the modern day are far less worried about aberrant marks than they were in the War of the Mark; making many of these extreme reactions more rare than they were there. The main people I see being concerned about aberrant marks IMO are the dragonmarked houses; but they still have to find out.
I was probably misinterpreting your position. It seemed to me that you were going to make playing a wrong-race-marked character next to impossible to play long-term, singling the person out for punishment and execution at every turn.
This is also how I interpreted his position, hence my comment that it was "Passive aggressive".
As for the quote: Dragonmarked, The Aberrant Adventurer, Page 158:
[...]
There's also another part, 157, Aberrant Dragonmarks in the Modern Day:
[...]
Parents killing children if caught with a mark, dragonmarked families kicking out aberrant scions (and we all know some of the houses aren't so friendly as just 'kicking out'). And it seems like the only reason people aren't COMPLETELY terrified of aberrant marks is because since the Karrnath undead armies rose up, Cyre exploded, the Emerald Claw commits war crimes, the monstrous nations rose to power, and even after the war all of the nations are building up huge amounts of destructive force Cold War style... well, even in our modern era, old fears tend to pale when new, fresh, in-your-face ones show up.
So really, the question is not "In stock Eberron, are people terrified of Aberrant marks?" since this answer seems to be quite clear, minus any DM intervention... the question is "Do people feel the same about non-racial marks as Aberrant marks?"
And for my campaign, I say yes. For yours, you may say no; but I humbly disagree.
Ok, I read it and I rather disagree with you. I think your bias for a "dark" Eberron makes you focus on some things to the exclusion of others (but feel free to send this right back at me ;)).
What do you know ?
DC 10: Aberrant dragonmarks are similar to the marks of the dragonmarked houses, but carry different powers and are less predictable. Superstition once held that aberrant dragonmarks are a source of misfortune, madness, and death. Those who are known to possess aberrant marks are sometimes shunned. This prejudice has lost much of its power in the modern age.
(emphasis mine)
So to my mind the posters above were right when they asserted the climate you described was that of the War of the Mark and the years that followed.
edit: ah, the poster right above me reiterated that.
That said, the text from Dragonmarked is open-ended enough that it can support your interpretation and even if it didn't, well, you'd naturally be free to do as you wished.
As far as aberrant marks & excoriation go:
Occasionally, unmarked heirs of a dragonmarked house manifest an aberrant dragonmark. Such characters are almost always forced from their house, especially if they are children of marked parents or scions of well-established dragonmarked families.
Today, an excoriate must simply surrender her signet ring, any other property that can be claimed as a gift of the house, and the name of both house and family. Her likeness is circulated through the major enclaves of the house. Heirs of her house are forbidden to provide her with aid or succor, and the other houses typically shun excoriates of any line. Excoriation is a rare punishment, but is often a fate worse than prison for a dragonmarked heir.
In the past, the dragonmarked were excoriated for mingling bloodlines with members of other houses. Today, such dalliances are no longer a crime, but relationships between house heirs remain a dark and unspoken taboo (see the Mixed Marks sidebar, page 156). Excoriation is reserved for serious acts of treason, or for those who violate the fundamental principles of a house and bring shame to its name. Excoriation can be decreed only by a council of viceroys, and only a patriarch can rescind it.
So when you say "and we all know some of the houses aren't so friendly as just 'kicking out'" I can't really agree. Expulsion from the house is such a huge punishment that I don't see the Houses taking extra steps (except in the case of dangerous/mad/... individuals of course).
As for the outcast thing, I understand: I like to mix things up. I wouldn't play only outcasts though - I like me some "brave knight" or "bumbling fool" or "wizened sage" from time to time... ;)
I do think people are taking this too seriously. :D
Now you know the mindset of those who started the war of the marks. I'm sure that if it was up to the posters in this forum the war would start again in no time. :D
To best honest when I see someone post on how "X new rule ruins the system" my response from now on is going to be thus -
These are an evolution of rules, but nobody is holding a gun to your head and shouting "YOU MUST OBEY!" These are the rules and fluff/crunch as Wizards.com sees them. But they are not the final authority/arbiter, you as the DM are. If you do not like the rules, change them to suit your tastes. This is why D&D has so much more to give than video-games in their current generation. A computer game is limited to whatever parameters exist within it's Magic Circle (professional term).
D&D is limited only by your imagination. And if you don't like Dragonmarked Houses possibly having members who exist outside the archetypal race, rule against it. If you don't like Eladrin, don't have them appear suddenly post-Mourning. If you don't like Erandis d'Vol being a "waek Paragon encounter", boost her to Epic.
As the DM sole responsibility and control rests in your hands. And if you don't like the rules and feel they should be different, only you are to blame if at the next game session you don't like things as they unfold. To whomever has major grievances and seems to lack any solid, cogent backing evidence, please stop clogging up the various boards with your complaints.
What I would love to see is more threads saying "I disliked how wizards.com did 4e dragonmarks. So hey I'm going to be constructive and productive and put some differing rules together. Here they are, what do you all think and how can I Improve them (as opposed to negative/derogatory action)?
And by extension how can I (the DM and the Player) improve the D&D system?
Oh and the latter stuff on this topic about Aberrant Marks and the War of the Mark, great read! Nice to see how people interpret that ear of Eberron's history.
If you don't like Erandis d'Vol being a "waek Paragon encounter", boost her to Epic.
Incidentally, that reminds me of one of my favorite villains of all time. A seer, true neutral, who had no other abilities other than to know facts about the world around him. He couldn't even predict the future, and he could only (maybe) find information out if he realized the need to ask...
I converted him to 4th Edition... a level 10 half-elf minion with a dagger and Consult Mystic Oracle castable for free.
He's still one of my favorite villains of all time, just because he had an extremely complex set of motives and methods of accomplishing his goals. And in 4E terms, he's a level 10 minion
I don't see what people's problems with low-level villains are. They don't have to be level 33 solo monsters to have the ability to take over/ruin the world =P
They just have to be smart, and have the bare minimum of abilities...
I know the big final battle sequence is a big thing in D&D, but I also like those sequences where you fight through all of the lackeys, beat up the elite henchmen, and get to the leader and... you find out that she's not high level, or overpowered...
She's just really good at what she does. Which happens to NOT be 'fighting'
After all. Even a king can be heroic tier, and he rules a nation.
Not only do I agree with your post entirely, but you also have a pair of quotes from SMAC. You, sir, are awesome.
ROFL thank-you sir, it's a rare day when somebody actually recognises the references. You made my day truth be told.
And touche Misterfido in regards to "power-level" for villains. Raw strength is fine and all, but having complex and compotent enemies is where their real strength lies, not combat prowess. I'll tip my hat to you for that one ;) .
You do realise it takes 5 seconds to house rule don't you?
If you don't like something, change it. It is after all, your game.;)
Although I can appreciate everyones passion for a beloved setting, I must point out this quote, which basically sums it up.
If you don't like something, change it. It is after all, your game.;)
What if by the time you're done houseruling it, you realize theirs little reason to change? Eberron, the last nail in the coffin for me.
I could take the digital D&D, I could adjust the game to make it more difficult, but messing with perhaps the most creative setting I've ever played was the final straw. It's been reduced from a setting with many subtleties to what is essentially a giant dungeon.
What if by the time you're done houseruling it, you realize theirs little reason to change? Eberron, the last nail in the coffin for me.
I could take the digital D&D, I could adjust the game to make it more difficult, but messing with perhaps the most creative setting I've ever played was the final straw. It's been reduced from a setting with many subtleties to what is essentially a giant dungeon.
Overreact much?
All the subtleties are still there. They changed the Dragonmarks from the way they were in 3rd because they weren't doing what they were supposed to do, and now they do. That's 100% positive from where I sit.
Overreact much?
All the subtleties are still there. They changed the Dragonmarks from the way they were in 3rd because they weren't doing what they were supposed to do, and now they do. That's 100% positive from where I sit.
Yeah I do.
The way I see is that many of the changes in both the way the game is structured and the campaign weaken or destroy the types of games you can play.
You can play whatever setting like, but I'm going to let you know that this Eberron isn't the one I fell in love with as a DM. No matter how much you try to obscure the truth, that will never change. :D
In my 3.5e Eberron campaign, I ran the characters all the way through the published adventures, starting with the one out of the back of the book and working my way up. We started on Eyes of the Lich Queen. Remember that part where the non-marked characters get marks and the marked characters marks change? My players were outraged. It was the end of the campaign because no one wanted to play anymore. One of the previously marked characters felt that his mark was now an aberrant mark and he would be thrown out of the house, if not killed outright if the house found out. Another previously marked character was upset because he felt that getting another use of his least mark power wasn't as powerful as the warforged getting a completely new power. And the warforged and shifter just kinda said...'huh. I never asked for this, why did you do this to me?'. I never anticipated this response, and I really wasnt prepared for the vehemence that messing with the dragonmark status quo would engender.
So Eberron 4e came out, and I revived my campaign. One character wants to remake his Lyrandar windwright captain, another his talentan halfling sorceror, and another his Warforged paladin of the Silver flame. I'm thinking, great, we can get back to a campaign with flavor and some real investment behind the characters. And the two new people go and make an eladrin wizard with the mark of passage and (get this) a genasi swordmage with the mark of storm.
I listened to nothing but griping for over a week from the lyrandar half-elf. And really, who can blame him? He has this character, with backstory and emotional investment and even a WIFE (house arranged marriage, no less), and here this FR-renegade class/race monstrosity comes in and steals his thunder(pardon the pun).
But I listened, and thought, and at 4 am one night when I couldn't sleep, the answer came to me. The genasi swordmage guy probably had no backstory anyway, so I made the most eberron-y backstory I could come up with, that neatly tied the new members of the party together. A daelkyr in khyber was experimenting on sentient races, especially those with dragonmarks, trying to find a way to transfer them to other beings. A botched experiment infused an eladrin swordmage, a marked lyrandar half-elf, and a lightning elemental into one creature. The mismarked eladrin was also held there for experiments, and the two were aided in escape by the changeling spy who works for House Thuranni.
A little harder was coming up with any reason why a staunch supporter of house lyrandar wouldnt murder such an abomination on sight. Well, my PC and a higher ranked lyrandar NPC were both involved in a fight at which the genasi is brought to their attention. The NPC asked the story of the creature, and finds out what caused it, and the identity of the former owner of the mark. His response is to instruct the PC to watch the genasi, and gives him the task of deciding whether the creature is something to be tolerated or destroyed. He also never refers to the genasi as anything other than 'it'...he does not view it as a person, at least not yet. He also instructs the PC to kill the mismarked eladrin if he shows any sign of establishing another marked house.
All in all, it would have been easier to say, no marks outside of appropriate races. But I think, all-in-all, it fit into the story well, and even made the story have more Eberron-ish flavor than it might otherwise have had. The PC who was playing within his race/house combo was mollified, because his character was vindicated in game as having the power of life and death over the two upstarts...even though he will almost definitely choose not to exert it.
I think a lot of people would have been happier if the marks had simply been listed in a way to make it more obvious what you were doing if you picked an 'inappropriate' mark. For instance, if the marks had been listed with racial restrictions, and then have a separate mark called 'Aberrant Mark', which listed the available true aberrant marks as possibilities, and also allowed one to take a mark from a different race than their own. In play, this would have worked out exactly the same as it currently does, but at least it would be more obvious to people unused to the system that they are taking something that could get them 'in trouble' so to speak.
I love Eberron, and I am more than happy with 4e Eberron as a whole. I guess it's too much to ask for players to not powergame. It's not going to happen.
I listened to nothing but griping for over a week from the lyrandar half-elf. And really, who can blame him? He has this character, with backstory and emotional investment and even a WIFE (house arranged marriage, no less), and here this FR-renegade class/race monstrosity comes in and steals his thunder(pardon the pun).
Your player is overreacting and whining. The fact that the genasi has a Mark of Storm takes absolutely nothing away from his character. He still has his ownbackstory. He still has his own personality. He still has his own place in the party.
A little harder was coming up with any reason why a staunch supporter of house lyrandar wouldnt murder such an abomination on sight.
He might be a useful resource. He might be a scientific (so to speak) curiosity. He might have a unique place in the Prophecy and killing him could be a terrible thing for the future. He may simply not see it as a big deal. There are several reasons why he wouldn't kill him on sight (and this is assuming the Genasi isn't hiding his mark).
I think a lot of people would have been happier if the marks had simply been listed in a way to make it more obvious what you were doing if you picked an 'inappropriate' mark. For instance, if the marks had been listed with racial restrictions, and then have a separate mark called 'Aberrant Mark', which listed the available true aberrant marks as possibilities, and also allowed one to take a mark from a different race than their own. In play, this would have worked out exactly the same as it currently does, but at least it would be more obvious to people unused to the system that they are taking something that could get them 'in trouble' so to speak.
That is entirely under the DM's purview. In my game, off-race marks are not that big a deal because I like to encourage player choice and, as I stated above, the racially restricted marks did not do what the developers wanted them to do; they do now, and that is a positive.
I'm with Salla that it's fine for both DMs and players to have choices. Someone might have a really cool story idea for it, something that's NOT just about powergaming. At the same time, I prefer to leave things as they have been... and as a DM, I have the freedom to enforce that rule at my table, and I will.
MonkeyOnYourBack, have you actually read any of the ECG? As, well, the creator of the setting, I'm generally quite happy with it. Yes, I dislike out of house marks. But this ruling hasn't changed the flavor of the WORLD. The houses are as they always have been; that genasi with the Mark of Storm may be the first in history to develop such a thing. So the PC options have changed, but the history and flavor of the setting has not; the ECG specifically discourages DMs from creating NPCs with out-of-race marks. So personally, I don't feel like my Eberron is suddenly unrecognizable and hopelessly compromised. If I tell players that they can't play out-of-race marks without my permission - and I will - the REST of the setting remains intact. If there were now teiflings in House Sivis and dragonborn in Deneith, then I'd feel the setting was compromised; as is, I make one ruling and the rest of the setting remains the same.
Beyond that, I feel the ECG actually strengthens many of the core principles of the world. The impact of the Last War is brought into the spotlight, along with the shift in power between the Twelve and the monarchs. The Prophecy is explained in more detail. There's lots of little things, like the Blood of Vol being much closer to my original vision. So sure, letting PCs have out-of-race marks is a change that I may not use... but I don't think the core principles have been lost. And as Salla points out, the original marks didn't work the way we wanted them to in the first place; while I might hold them to the original races, I am happy with the implementation of the marks themselves.
the racially restricted marks did not do what the developers wanted them to do; they do now, and that is a positive.
Personally, it wasn't the fact that they were racially restricted that I ever had a problem with. It was the fact that they were not very appealing choices for PCs, and that they often didn't help the characters you'd expect them to help. The Mark of Making really wasn't that useful for artificers, and a cleric didn't really have much use for the Mark of Healing. Given that the marks were always supposed to have helped the houses get an edge on their fields, this seemed strange. Now a healer with the mark of Healing does have an edge on other healers. This is actually why I DON'T want widespread out-of-house distribution of the marks, since that hurts the idea of the bloodlines having an edge in a field... but even as is, it's clearly stated that the out-of-race marks are exceptionally rare, and thus have had a minimal impact on the history of the world.
So the MARKS didn't do what we wanted them to do. The racial restrictions are debatable. I completely understand the idea of giving players more freedom, and I've got no issue with that. But personally, I'll keep things the way they've been... but I don't feel any sort of difficulty doing that. And if I play in an RPGA game with someone who has an out-of-race mark, well, it's an RPGA game - I'm fine with that.
Yeah I do.
The way I see is that many of the changes in both the way the game is structured and the campaign weaken or destroy the types of games you can play.
You can play whatever setting like, but I'm going to let you know that this Eberron isn't the one I fell in love with as a DM. No matter how much you try to obscure the truth, that will never change. :D
I'm sure we will all miss you.
Just imagine, if you will, the way the houses would react if a Warforged manifested a dragonmark.
Now imagine it's a Mark of Making.
Such a character could easily be the lynchpin of a new War of the Mark. I think I'm going to make this character now.
While I'm skipping 3 pages of the thread to reply (sorry), I had to hit this post.
That concept is exactly how I'm adapting my Warforged Artificer to 4th Edition Eberron.
The Breakdown
His original origin was as an apprentice to a Cannith artificer in Cyre, where he eventually became somewhat of a replacement for the man's lost son, and almost his adopted heir. The man even etched the design of the Mark of Making into the warforged's arm, much as a formal symbol of adoption.
The character was in Sharn at the time of the Mourning, and thus lost everything, including any real connection to the house. Our adventures in 3E Eberron wound up being almost exclusively at the behest of House Cannith, South. He became somewhat of the de-facto "leader" of the group, given his greater drive and purpose than the others (trying to earn his way "back into the house"). Eventually the group of adventurers made personal contact with Merrix d'Cannith. Unfortunately, that's where our campaign stopped.
So, in adapting Hazir to 4th Edition, the "off-race dragonmarks" seemed absolutely perfect. The "during the break" background for him would now go something like this:
During his work for the house, Hazir's false mark actually manifested, much to the amazement of all. At first he kept it hidden, but as his role as a House Cannith "Agent" became more formal, he discussed the matter with Merrix d'Cannith. After the initial shock passed, the two agreed to investigate the matter further, while keeping Hazir close to the house. After some time and consideration, Merrix actually extends Hazir the protection of House Cannith, and formally "adopts" him into the house as a Dragonmarked Heir (much to the chagrin of Cannith East and West - which may actually be the intended consequence of Merrix's decision).
And so, today, Hazir's mark would be known of within the dragonmarked houses, but he would largely remain hidden while performing assignments for Cannith South.
The character was in Sharn at the time of the Mourning, and thus lost everything, including any real connection to the house. Our adventures in 3E Eberron wound up being almost exclusively at the behest of House Cannith, South. He became somewhat of the de-facto "leader" of the group, given his greater drive and purpose than the others (trying to earn his way "back into the house"). Eventually the group of adventurers made personal contact with Merrix d'Cannith. Unfortunately, that's where our campaign stopped.
So, in adapting Hazir to 4th Edition, the "off-race dragonmarks" seemed absolutely perfect. The "during the break" background for him would now go something like this:
During his work for the house, Hazir's false mark actually manifested, much to the amazement of all. At first he kept it hidden, but as his role as a House Cannith "Agent" became more formal, he discussed the matter with Merrix d'Cannith. After the initial shock passed, the two agreed to investigate the matter further, while keeping Hazir close to the house. After some time and consideration, Merrix actually extends Hazir the protection of House Cannith, and formally "adopts" him into the house as a Dragonmarked Heir (much to the chagrin of Cannith East and West - which may actually be the intended consequence of Merrix's decision).
And so, today, Hazir's mark would be known of within the dragonmarked houses, but he would largely remain hidden while performing assignments for Cannith South.
Eladrin Wizard with a Mark of Passage? In game terms and rules he's an Eladrin, sure, but in-world? He's a human. 'Fey Step'? No, that's just a another wizard spell he's learned.
Genasi Swordmage with a Mark of Storm? Game rules Genasi, in-world Half-Elf. His Genasi racial abilities are just more Swordmage abilities.
ALTERNATELY:
The presence of the mark as a result of the feat is fluff. They don't have the feats 'Mark of Passage' or 'Mark of Storm', they have the feats 'Master of Teleportation Magic' and 'Master of Thunder Magic', that have the same mechanical benefits, but don't put tattoos on the bodies.
There, no off-race marks to 'mess up your game world'
, and the players get the abilities they want. Everybody happy happy peppy perky.