Dragonmarks and Spellscars - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Dragonmarks and Spellscars

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
mystictheurge
Sep 26, 2008 7:58:17 So I was kind of hoping that since it's been hinted that Dragonmarks will work like Spellscars, and now that we've actually seen how Spellscars work, that someone would have written up some Dragonmarks in the same vein.

But no one's posted anything yet.

Personally, I'm terrible at getting the mechanics for stuff like this balanced, so is anyone out there working on something along these lines?
#2
misterfido_dup
Sep 26, 2008 15:55:06
Personally, I'm terrible at getting the mechanics for stuff like this balanced, so is anyone out there working on something along these lines?

I've been staring at it for a few weeks now, trying to figure out how I'll make it work for my campaign.

Currently, a direct translation would work something like this:

* You gain a dragonmark. It provides you penalties and bonuses.
* You choose to expand your dragonmark from this completely neutral base with the "Dragonmark Heir [Multiclass Dragonmarked]" feat. This feat provides a few bonuses, probably different then the ones from Student of the Plague.

I actually really like that. The 'neutral dragonmark' allows the DM to just hand out dragonmarks at any point in the adventure he likes, to anyone he likes. Until now, if a DM wanted to let a player discover he's a lost heir to House Vol... the player pretty much has to choose to sacrifice a feat for it. Now the DM can dictate it--or the player can ask for it--and in either case, it's handy. I don't really like the current bonuses and penalties, but it can be tweaked.
And then, players can truly become dragonmark scions if they want to expand their abilities with feats. The problem, though, is the next step in this process, a pretty damning one:

* Player selects Novice Power, Acolyte Power, Adept Power to add new powers to his repetoire at the expense of his class powers.

...okay... this poses a problem. Not only does it mean pages and pages and pages of dragonmark ability writeups--more than most writeups, since you need healing powers for halflings, shadow powers for elves, travel powers for humans, and so on--but with few exception, there are no dragonmark powers in the Eberron Campaign Setting which cause DAMAGE or--at least--not as their primary purpose. You have Aberrant marks, Death marks, and Warding marks.

So what it comes down to is, either this huge writeup can completely change the face and feel of the dragonmark houses, taking large artistic liberties in the process, but allow you to take all three multiclass feats... or there's a smaller writeup, but you can only take Acolyte Power to select new UTILITY powers.

Or, alternatively, there is a third plan... since we've heard that Eberron dragonmarks are going to be cross-race, for players at least, there could be a single list of writeups... attack spells are for Kundarak and Tarkanan, and maybe a few odd ones for Thuranni or Deneith. And utility spells to suit all houses. And then the players get to pick and choose their powers. Want to be a normal House Cannith human? Select only Cannith-labeled powers. But a truly Prophecy-marked character could have a Cannith dragonmark, traced in red Aberrant lines, and part of the dragonmark resembles the Mark of Shadow... becuase you drew your powers from all three sources.

I'd like to hear what other people have to say on that matter. Which route is the best one to take, considering such a set of rules--merely to tide us over till Eberron comes out, of course--would change a lot of the face of the houses, if any rule besides the extremely restrictive and boring one is taken.

EDIT: Or, I suppose, horridly generic abilities. A generic teleport power which applies to Orien or Phiarlan/Thuranni, for instance, or a trapping fire power that works for Tarkanan or Kundarak. Or scrying powers for Tharashk/Phiarlan/Thuranni to split up by renaming, redescribing, and rekeying them.
#3
need_a_life
Sep 27, 2008 15:04:11 Well, it shouldn't be that hard to translate.

Jorasco's healing could be a low-damage attack (basic attack, deal str-modifier damage to adjacent target or somesuch) with an effect stating: "An adjacent ally heals damage as though they had spent a healing surge"

Or am I totally missing something??
#4
Tharag_Bocc
Sep 29, 2008 3:13:30 One thing that I'd like to point out is that that it would be highly impractical for Dragonmarks to exactly mimic Spellscars. Most notably due to the sheer number of powers that would be invovled. Over the course of a all 30 level a player slects 7 encounter powers, 7 daily powers, and 5 utility powers. If each of the 12 true Dragonmarks were givien a full set of powers at ever level that would come to 228 powers, (over THREE times the number of Dark Pack and Spellscared powers combined). That seems like far too many pages to dedicate to a single asspect of the setting, especialy since the slection of powers for each individule mark would be very narrow. With only one possible choice at each level, what classes can benefit from each mark would be rather restrictive.

To me a more likely pattern would be that true Dragonmarks stay restricted to utility powers, as they mostly were back in 3.5 as well. Each mark could then be represented with a utility replacment power that is seperate from multiclassing. There could then be 3 Dragonmark feets (least=heroic, lesser=paragon, greater=epic) that would alow you to select between 2 utility powers related to your mark. Such a setup would require a much more reasonable 72 powers.

Ofcourse I haven't address aberrant Dragonmarks, but it seems to me that the variety of ways in which such marks manefest they might use a difrent mechanic. Additionaly their rarity in the setting makes me belive that it would be likely that such marks would be left out of the player's guid and insted become the subject matter of an enhancement article in Dragon magazine.
#5
need_a_life
Sep 29, 2008 14:11:53 Well, who's to say there'll be that many options?

1 daily, 1 encounter and 1 utility per mark seems enough for me, anyway.

Heck, I'd be satisfied with just a utility power.

Or even just keeping them as NPC powers :D

Though I did like being able to tell people that they were to refer to be as "Lord d'Cannith"...
What can I say, arrogance is a trait that's fun to play around with.
#6
Tharag_Bocc
Sep 30, 2008 1:37:11
Well, who's to say there'll be that many options?

1 daily, 1 encounter and 1 utility per mark seems enough for me, anyway

Without the required 228 powers it wouldn't work a multiclass option. Just 1 of each type of power per mark? How would the relevence of each mark scale as you gained levels? Sure you could make them like racial powers, which improve with level but for the cost of multiclassing your otions would be far to narrow and restrictive.
#7
rauric
Oct 05, 2008 20:43:10 Hellcow, will we be able to multiclass and still be Dragonmarked in 4E. I figure that question was worded in a way to get around the NDA right? ;)
#8
bwcmd1
Oct 06, 2008 15:33:58 I would rather see it similar to 3E, where you take a feat and get a power. I figure one Heroic tier (Least), one Paragon (Lesser), and one Epic (Greater). The type of power would depend on the Dragonmark--the mark of Sentinel would probably be mostly encounter or daily attack powers, while the Mark of Hospitality would include a lot of utilities.
#9
nerdicus
Oct 06, 2008 23:11:14 I haven't actually tried anything yet in an actual game, but I have been kicking around this little peanut for a few weeks now too. So far I like it best if it is a feat progression of sorts. Though, after read that idea of making it a free thing to get the neutral mark that gives you equal bonuses and penalties to various things( making it totally balanced with someone who didn't have it) and then making it feats that beef it up from there.

But I have also been considering doing it more case by case with the players. Let them give me an idea of what they see the mark doing for them and how they want to bring it into the game, and then figure out something that does just that and is balanced. Everything will have a template to go off off with the examples of feats, powers, multiclass feats and so on, so balance shouldn't be aproblem as long as it stay on par.
#10
skrap-san
Oct 07, 2008 13:45:18 I haven't worked with anything mechanical in the way of dragonmarks yet. But I think a very important thing to remember about them is that all of the true marks have non combat oriented powers. And all the aberrant marks are battle oriented.
#11
rauric
Oct 07, 2008 21:59:09 I like the idea that you can "multiclass" into it. Being a dragonmarked individual should be a big deal and choosing not to take another class so one can be part of the Prophecy is pretty neat to me. Being marked was more about roleplaying/storyline fun than anthing else.
#12
Veritatis
Oct 14, 2008 15:20:44 Followin the multiclass idea, and since I have a dragonmarked character in my most recent campaign (he even wants to have an elemental galleon by paragon tier), I worked the following conversion:

Dragonmarked
[Multiclass Dragonmarked]
Prerequisite: Appropriate Race for chosen dragonmark
Benefit: You gain the ability to focus your dragonmark to useful ends. You qualify for the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, and Adept Power feats (PH 209), treating Dragonmarked as the class into which you have multiclassed. You gain the House Status trait in addition to the skill training and bonus linked to the dragonmark you chose when picking this feat.

House Status: You gain +2 bonus to Charisma-based skill checks when used against members of your Dragonmarked House.

Detection: +2 Perception
Finding: +2 Perception (only when searching)
Handling: +2 Nature
Healing: +2 Heal
Hospitality: +2 Streetwise
Making: +2 Arcana
Passage: +2 Athletics
Scribing: +2 History
Sentinel: +2 Insight
Shadow: +2 Stealth
Storm: +2 Acrobatics
Warding: +2 Thievery

This is not actually a quote, but I found the format useful.

Now the work is in creating powers that are similar to the spell-like abilities showed in the Eberron CS. The best way to achieve this, in my opinion, is to have the power level to be twice the spell-equivalent level for the spell-like ability (since it is now much more like a caster level, and the caster level of the sorcerer to cast such a spell is twice the spell level). Things such as range and duration are converted according to that caster level, or as a promedium between min/max for the referred spell.

By the way, I apologize for any grammar mistake; english is just a learned language for me. For those who know how to read in spanish, I leave you with my campaign´s blog: http://codexanathema.blogspot.com/
#13
vanforge
Oct 14, 2008 23:12:41 While I still HATE the idea of spellscars for true marks.... Why did you make mark of warding give +2 thievery, they are the anit thief mark.
#14
Cyber-Dave
Oct 14, 2008 23:30:45 You know, what I like is the use of spellscars as aberrant dragonmarks...
#15
need_a_life
Oct 15, 2008 9:35:10 Well, if we want a quick-n-dirty solution until ECS4E/EPG4E comes out, then how about basing them off the Channel Divinity feats?

Melora's Tide would work excellently for Jorasco.
Instead of expending your use of Channel Divinity (which would make dragonmarks cleric-only), it could require you to sacrifice an encounter power, a healing surge or a daily power, depending on the strength of the power?

Say:
Least Mark: Sacrifice encounter attack power.
Lesser: Sacrifice a utility power.
Greater: Sacrifice daily attack power.
Syberis: ???

It'd be a question of balancing a least mark to be equivalent to an encounter power and so on.

Or simply make the marks scale by level a la racial powers, making the size of the mark a pure fluff aspect?
#16
Veritatis
Oct 15, 2008 11:29:40
While I still HATE the idea of spellscars for true marks.... Why did you make mark of wording give +2 thievery, they are the anit thief mark.

Because Anti-thieves must know how thieves think without being rogues themselves, so I thought it could be that the Mark of Warding give this special insight to trained heirs.

I was more worried about the "History" for the Mark of Scribing, instead of Diplomacy, which goes better for the House Sivis activities.
#17
rauric
Oct 15, 2008 22:31:12 theivery helps you disable traps I believe.
#18
Dargurd
Oct 18, 2008 14:06:24
You know, what I like is the use of spellscars as aberrant dragonmarks...

You know what, having bought the FRPG today and just read Spellscars I thought exactly the same thing - ooh aberrant marks....
#19
Cyber-Dave
Oct 18, 2008 14:22:21 Yea, it just fits. I mean, nearly perfectly as is...
#20
paideia
Oct 19, 2008 2:51:05 As the above posters I would reserve multiclass for the aberrant dragonmarks.

For the normal dragonmarks I would go with feats. Quite a few of you outlines what seems an appropriate solution: least=heroic tier, lesser=paragon, greater=epic. On the power subject I would definitely restrict it to utility powers. It seems to fit with 3.5 edition marks.
I count 86 spells in the list from the Eberron Campaign Setting. Naturally that list can be shortened somewhat. For instance the repair light/serious damage from the Mark of Making is pretty much obsolete with the change to warforged PC's. Other dragonmarks have spells that could be lumped together or simply taken out. On another note I have noticed, that a lot of the Dragonmark spells are rituals in 4.0. It makes it logical to draw inspiration from those. I don't see this making Dragonmarks obsolete as you would still be able to bypass casting time and cost with a Dragonmark.

The Dragonmark Heir would make a fine paragon path, I think. Make the heroic tier Dragonmark feat the requirement and give them the next two feats for free (as in the Campaign Setting 3.5). It seems no problem to give players improved dragonmark abilities at 15th or 16th level (which seems most fair? If 15 you only need 4 levels to get improved mark, if 16 you only have four levels until greater mark) and again at 25th or 26th level . The Charisma modifier should be based on the principle as in the 3.5 setting: a +2 bonus to interactions with your own house for every 5 levels for a total of +6 at level 25/26.

Well, that's my take on the problem anyway.
#21
m4kitsu
Oct 28, 2008 3:44:24 Another thing to think about is that Dragonmark's are not supposed to grant combat capabilites; a few of them (Deneith, Jorasco, Thuranni) may be useful in combat, but house Vol was wiped out partially because their mark was different -if all your friends can make stuff well, or talk to animals or teleport, the ability to kill with a touch makes you something of a pariah to begin with. Any military the d'mark houses may be able to call upon is a function of the house as a business, not the power of the dragonmarks. Even Deneith, whose military probably rivals that of any of the Five Nations, is not so because of their mark. The d'mark houses are economic powers, not military ones.

I put forth that most of what 3.5 dragonmarks can do can be replicated by rituals in 4e.

Thus, having a dragonmark should allow you to cast one specific ritual for free, and probably at a reduced time as well. If they should grant spells at all, it should only be the least mark that does so -a small but useful effect specific to the house.

Given that, I really see no reason to build the d'marks as a complete MC-only class like the Spellscarred. As much as the comparison is obvious, doing the d'marks as anything other than feats is rather pointless and unnecessarily complicated.

I will quantify my previous statement with one exception, however: Siberys marks. The Heir of Syberys, with the sheer power that they grant (also notable for having one of the only true combat spells among the d'marks: Lyrandar's Storm of Vengeance), are simply begging for an Epic Destiny all their own.

I can also see PPs being built around the d'marks. Silver Keys, Blades of Orien, Windwright Captains, Nosomatic Chirurgeons and many of the other d'marked PrCs from Dragonmarked seem like perfect fodder for PPs.
#22
ramses_iii
Oct 28, 2008 4:21:15
On another note I have noticed, that a lot of the Dragonmark spells are rituals in 4.0. It makes it logical to draw inspiration from those. I don't see this making Dragonmarks obsolete as you would still be able to bypass casting time and cost with a Dragonmark.

Wait, you could be onto something big here. This sounds to me like exactly what the dragonmarks should do -- give the character access to a ritual without the burden of casting time and cost. Or maybe the casting time is still there, but can be bypassed if the character possesses a properly-attuned siberys dragonshard focus. This gets around the need to trade a class power for the dragonmark power, since the dragonmark power isn't a combat ability; if it's a limited-use deal then it's still worth keeping the magic items in the game that allow for alternative uses of dragonmarked powers.
#23
paideia
Oct 28, 2008 7:32:33
Or maybe the casting time is still there, but can be bypassed if the character possesses a properly-attuned siberys dragonshard focus.

Excellent idea. I have been wondering how to incorporate dragonshards and most of it ended up with bonuses to checks made for rituals, but in many rituals that is almost useless. This seems like a much better idea.
#24
wymarc
Oct 28, 2008 13:50:45 I don't like the idea of dmarks being ritual based. In 4th edition, everything is based on the PC's, and most PC's are going to be more interested in adventure and combat then mass producing +1 swords, and rituals are not suited for combat (casting time is too long). I do agree, however, that few of them should be attack powers. They should be utility powers. Taming and scribing are the only marks for which I can't think of a least ability for off the top of my head.

Until the books come out I think I will just use dmarks as a secondary power source and possibly a background bonus (similar to the backgrounds for Scales of War). A warlock teleporting around the field is not using arcane magic, but their mark of passage. The Lyandar half-elf takes thunder wave as his dilettante power.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mystictheurge Sep 26, 2008 7:58:17	So I was kind of hoping that since it's been hinted that Dragonmarks will work like Spellscars, and now that we've actually seen how Spellscars work, that someone would have written up some Dragonmarks in the same vein. But no one's posted anything yet. Personally, I'm terrible at getting the mechanics for stuff like this balanced, so is anyone out there working on something along these lines?
#2 misterfido_dup Sep 26, 2008 15:55:06	Personally, I'm terrible at getting the mechanics for stuff like this balanced, so is anyone out there working on something along these lines? I've been staring at it for a few weeks now, trying to figure out how I'll make it work for my campaign. Currently, a direct translation would work something like this: * You gain a dragonmark. It provides you penalties and bonuses. * You choose to expand your dragonmark from this completely neutral base with the "Dragonmark Heir [Multiclass Dragonmarked]" feat. This feat provides a few bonuses, probably different then the ones from Student of the Plague. I actually really like that. The 'neutral dragonmark' allows the DM to just hand out dragonmarks at any point in the adventure he likes, to anyone he likes. Until now, if a DM wanted to let a player discover he's a lost heir to House Vol... the player pretty much has to choose to sacrifice a feat for it. Now the DM can dictate it--or the player can ask for it--and in either case, it's handy. I don't really like the current bonuses and penalties, but it can be tweaked. And then, players can truly become dragonmark scions if they want to expand their abilities with feats. The problem, though, is the next step in this process, a pretty damning one: * Player selects Novice Power, Acolyte Power, Adept Power to add new powers to his repetoire at the expense of his class powers. ...okay... this poses a problem. Not only does it mean pages and pages and pages of dragonmark ability writeups--more than most writeups, since you need healing powers for halflings, shadow powers for elves, travel powers for humans, and so on--but with few exception, there are no dragonmark powers in the Eberron Campaign Setting which cause DAMAGE or--at least--not as their primary purpose. You have Aberrant marks, Death marks, and Warding marks. So what it comes down to is, either this huge writeup can completely change the face and feel of the dragonmark houses, taking large artistic liberties in the process, but allow you to take all three multiclass feats... or there's a smaller writeup, but you can only take Acolyte Power to select new UTILITY powers. Or, alternatively, there is a third plan... since we've heard that Eberron dragonmarks are going to be cross-race, for players at least, there could be a single list of writeups... attack spells are for Kundarak and Tarkanan, and maybe a few odd ones for Thuranni or Deneith. And utility spells to suit all houses. And then the players get to pick and choose their powers. Want to be a normal House Cannith human? Select only Cannith-labeled powers. But a truly Prophecy-marked character could have a Cannith dragonmark, traced in red Aberrant lines, and part of the dragonmark resembles the Mark of Shadow... becuase you drew your powers from all three sources. I'd like to hear what other people have to say on that matter. Which route is the best one to take, considering such a set of rules--merely to tide us over till Eberron comes out, of course--would change a lot of the face of the houses, if any rule besides the extremely restrictive and boring one is taken. EDIT: Or, I suppose, horridly generic abilities. A generic teleport power which applies to Orien or Phiarlan/Thuranni, for instance, or a trapping fire power that works for Tarkanan or Kundarak. Or scrying powers for Tharashk/Phiarlan/Thuranni to split up by renaming, redescribing, and rekeying them.
#3 need_a_life Sep 27, 2008 15:04:11	Well, it shouldn't be that hard to translate. Jorasco's healing could be a low-damage attack (basic attack, deal str-modifier damage to adjacent target or somesuch) with an effect stating: "An adjacent ally heals damage as though they had spent a healing surge" Or am I totally missing something??
#4 Tharag_Bocc Sep 29, 2008 3:13:30	One thing that I'd like to point out is that that it would be highly impractical for Dragonmarks to exactly mimic Spellscars. Most notably due to the sheer number of powers that would be invovled. Over the course of a all 30 level a player slects 7 encounter powers, 7 daily powers, and 5 utility powers. If each of the 12 true Dragonmarks were givien a full set of powers at ever level that would come to 228 powers, (over THREE times the number of Dark Pack and Spellscared powers combined). That seems like far too many pages to dedicate to a single asspect of the setting, especialy since the slection of powers for each individule mark would be very narrow. With only one possible choice at each level, what classes can benefit from each mark would be rather restrictive. To me a more likely pattern would be that true Dragonmarks stay restricted to utility powers, as they mostly were back in 3.5 as well. Each mark could then be represented with a utility replacment power that is seperate from multiclassing. There could then be 3 Dragonmark feets (least=heroic, lesser=paragon, greater=epic) that would alow you to select between 2 utility powers related to your mark. Such a setup would require a much more reasonable 72 powers. Ofcourse I haven't address aberrant Dragonmarks, but it seems to me that the variety of ways in which such marks manefest they might use a difrent mechanic. Additionaly their rarity in the setting makes me belive that it would be likely that such marks would be left out of the player's guid and insted become the subject matter of an enhancement article in Dragon magazine.
#5 need_a_life Sep 29, 2008 14:11:53	Well, who's to say there'll be that many options? 1 daily, 1 encounter and 1 utility per mark seems enough for me, anyway. Heck, I'd be satisfied with just a utility power. Or even just keeping them as NPC powers :D Though I did like being able to tell people that they were to refer to be as "Lord d'Cannith"... What can I say, arrogance is a trait that's fun to play around with.
#6 Tharag_Bocc Sep 30, 2008 1:37:11	Well, who's to say there'll be that many options? 1 daily, 1 encounter and 1 utility per mark seems enough for me, anyway Without the required 228 powers it wouldn't work a multiclass option. Just 1 of each type of power per mark? How would the relevence of each mark scale as you gained levels? Sure you could make them like racial powers, which improve with level but for the cost of multiclassing your otions would be far to narrow and restrictive.
#7 rauric Oct 05, 2008 20:43:10	Hellcow, will we be able to multiclass and still be Dragonmarked in 4E. I figure that question was worded in a way to get around the NDA right? ;)
#8 bwcmd1 Oct 06, 2008 15:33:58	I would rather see it similar to 3E, where you take a feat and get a power. I figure one Heroic tier (Least), one Paragon (Lesser), and one Epic (Greater). The type of power would depend on the Dragonmark--the mark of Sentinel would probably be mostly encounter or daily attack powers, while the Mark of Hospitality would include a lot of utilities.
#9 nerdicus Oct 06, 2008 23:11:14	I haven't actually tried anything yet in an actual game, but I have been kicking around this little peanut for a few weeks now too. So far I like it best if it is a feat progression of sorts. Though, after read that idea of making it a free thing to get the neutral mark that gives you equal bonuses and penalties to various things( making it totally balanced with someone who didn't have it) and then making it feats that beef it up from there. But I have also been considering doing it more case by case with the players. Let them give me an idea of what they see the mark doing for them and how they want to bring it into the game, and then figure out something that does just that and is balanced. Everything will have a template to go off off with the examples of feats, powers, multiclass feats and so on, so balance shouldn't be aproblem as long as it stay on par.
#10 skrap-san Oct 07, 2008 13:45:18	I haven't worked with anything mechanical in the way of dragonmarks yet. But I think a very important thing to remember about them is that all of the true marks have non combat oriented powers. And all the aberrant marks are battle oriented.
#11 rauric Oct 07, 2008 21:59:09	I like the idea that you can "multiclass" into it. Being a dragonmarked individual should be a big deal and choosing not to take another class so one can be part of the Prophecy is pretty neat to me. Being marked was more about roleplaying/storyline fun than anthing else.
#12 Veritatis Oct 14, 2008 15:20:44	Followin the multiclass idea, and since I have a dragonmarked character in my most recent campaign (he even wants to have an elemental galleon by paragon tier), I worked the following conversion: Dragonmarked [Multiclass Dragonmarked] Prerequisite: Appropriate Race for chosen dragonmark Benefit: You gain the ability to focus your dragonmark to useful ends. You qualify for the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, and Adept Power feats (PH 209), treating Dragonmarked as the class into which you have multiclassed. You gain the House Status trait in addition to the skill training and bonus linked to the dragonmark you chose when picking this feat. House Status: You gain +2 bonus to Charisma-based skill checks when used against members of your Dragonmarked House. Detection: +2 Perception Finding: +2 Perception (only when searching) Handling: +2 Nature Healing: +2 Heal Hospitality: +2 Streetwise Making: +2 Arcana Passage: +2 Athletics Scribing: +2 History Sentinel: +2 Insight Shadow: +2 Stealth Storm: +2 Acrobatics Warding: +2 Thievery This is not actually a quote, but I found the format useful. Now the work is in creating powers that are similar to the spell-like abilities showed in the Eberron CS. The best way to achieve this, in my opinion, is to have the power level to be twice the spell-equivalent level for the spell-like ability (since it is now much more like a caster level, and the caster level of the sorcerer to cast such a spell is twice the spell level). Things such as range and duration are converted according to that caster level, or as a promedium between min/max for the referred spell. By the way, I apologize for any grammar mistake; english is just a learned language for me. For those who know how to read in spanish, I leave you with my campaign´s blog: http://codexanathema.blogspot.com/
#13 vanforge Oct 14, 2008 23:12:41	While I still HATE the idea of spellscars for true marks.... Why did you make mark of warding give +2 thievery, they are the anit thief mark.
#14 Cyber-Dave Oct 14, 2008 23:30:45	You know, what I like is the use of spellscars as aberrant dragonmarks...
#15 need_a_life Oct 15, 2008 9:35:10	Well, if we want a quick-n-dirty solution until ECS4E/EPG4E comes out, then how about basing them off the Channel Divinity feats? Melora's Tide would work excellently for Jorasco. Instead of expending your use of Channel Divinity (which would make dragonmarks cleric-only), it could require you to sacrifice an encounter power, a healing surge or a daily power, depending on the strength of the power? Say: Least Mark: Sacrifice encounter attack power. Lesser: Sacrifice a utility power. Greater: Sacrifice daily attack power. Syberis: ??? It'd be a question of balancing a least mark to be equivalent to an encounter power and so on. Or simply make the marks scale by level a la racial powers, making the size of the mark a pure fluff aspect?
#16 Veritatis Oct 15, 2008 11:29:40	While I still HATE the idea of spellscars for true marks.... Why did you make mark of wording give +2 thievery, they are the anit thief mark. Because Anti-thieves must know how thieves think without being rogues themselves, so I thought it could be that the Mark of Warding give this special insight to trained heirs. I was more worried about the "History" for the Mark of Scribing, instead of Diplomacy, which goes better for the House Sivis activities.
#17 rauric Oct 15, 2008 22:31:12	theivery helps you disable traps I believe.
#18 Dargurd Oct 18, 2008 14:06:24	You know, what I like is the use of spellscars as aberrant dragonmarks... You know what, having bought the FRPG today and just read Spellscars I thought exactly the same thing - ooh aberrant marks....
#19 Cyber-Dave Oct 18, 2008 14:22:21	Yea, it just fits. I mean, nearly perfectly as is...
#20 paideia Oct 19, 2008 2:51:05	As the above posters I would reserve multiclass for the aberrant dragonmarks. For the normal dragonmarks I would go with feats. Quite a few of you outlines what seems an appropriate solution: least=heroic tier, lesser=paragon, greater=epic. On the power subject I would definitely restrict it to utility powers. It seems to fit with 3.5 edition marks. I count 86 spells in the list from the Eberron Campaign Setting. Naturally that list can be shortened somewhat. For instance the repair light/serious damage from the Mark of Making is pretty much obsolete with the change to warforged PC's. Other dragonmarks have spells that could be lumped together or simply taken out. On another note I have noticed, that a lot of the Dragonmark spells are rituals in 4.0. It makes it logical to draw inspiration from those. I don't see this making Dragonmarks obsolete as you would still be able to bypass casting time and cost with a Dragonmark. The Dragonmark Heir would make a fine paragon path, I think. Make the heroic tier Dragonmark feat the requirement and give them the next two feats for free (as in the Campaign Setting 3.5). It seems no problem to give players improved dragonmark abilities at 15th or 16th level (which seems most fair? If 15 you only need 4 levels to get improved mark, if 16 you only have four levels until greater mark) and again at 25th or 26th level . The Charisma modifier should be based on the principle as in the 3.5 setting: a +2 bonus to interactions with your own house for every 5 levels for a total of +6 at level 25/26. Well, that's my take on the problem anyway.
#21 m4kitsu Oct 28, 2008 3:44:24	Another thing to think about is that Dragonmark's are not supposed to grant combat capabilites; a few of them (Deneith, Jorasco, Thuranni) may be useful in combat, but house Vol was wiped out partially because their mark was different -if all your friends can make stuff well, or talk to animals or teleport, the ability to kill with a touch makes you something of a pariah to begin with. Any military the d'mark houses may be able to call upon is a function of the house as a business, not the power of the dragonmarks. Even Deneith, whose military probably rivals that of any of the Five Nations, is not so because of their mark. The d'mark houses are economic powers, not military ones. I put forth that most of what 3.5 dragonmarks can do can be replicated by rituals in 4e. Thus, having a dragonmark should allow you to cast one specific ritual for free, and probably at a reduced time as well. If they should grant spells at all, it should only be the least mark that does so -a small but useful effect specific to the house. Given that, I really see no reason to build the d'marks as a complete MC-only class like the Spellscarred. As much as the comparison is obvious, doing the d'marks as anything other than feats is rather pointless and unnecessarily complicated. I will quantify my previous statement with one exception, however: Siberys marks. The Heir of Syberys, with the sheer power that they grant (also notable for having one of the only true combat spells among the d'marks: Lyrandar's Storm of Vengeance), are simply begging for an Epic Destiny all their own. I can also see PPs being built around the d'marks. Silver Keys, Blades of Orien, Windwright Captains, Nosomatic Chirurgeons and many of the other d'marked PrCs from Dragonmarked seem like perfect fodder for PPs.
#22 ramses_iii Oct 28, 2008 4:21:15	On another note I have noticed, that a lot of the Dragonmark spells are rituals in 4.0. It makes it logical to draw inspiration from those. I don't see this making Dragonmarks obsolete as you would still be able to bypass casting time and cost with a Dragonmark. Wait, you could be onto something big here. This sounds to me like exactly what the dragonmarks should do -- give the character access to a ritual without the burden of casting time and cost. Or maybe the casting time is still there, but can be bypassed if the character possesses a properly-attuned siberys dragonshard focus. This gets around the need to trade a class power for the dragonmark power, since the dragonmark power isn't a combat ability; if it's a limited-use deal then it's still worth keeping the magic items in the game that allow for alternative uses of dragonmarked powers.
#23 paideia Oct 28, 2008 7:32:33	Or maybe the casting time is still there, but can be bypassed if the character possesses a properly-attuned siberys dragonshard focus. Excellent idea. I have been wondering how to incorporate dragonshards and most of it ended up with bonuses to checks made for rituals, but in many rituals that is almost useless. This seems like a much better idea.
#24 wymarc Oct 28, 2008 13:50:45	I don't like the idea of dmarks being ritual based. In 4th edition, everything is based on the PC's, and most PC's are going to be more interested in adventure and combat then mass producing +1 swords, and rituals are not suited for combat (casting time is too long). I do agree, however, that few of them should be attack powers. They should be utility powers. Taming and scribing are the only marks for which I can't think of a least ability for off the top of my head. Until the books come out I think I will just use dmarks as a secondary power source and possibly a background bonus (similar to the backgrounds for Scales of War). A warlock teleporting around the field is not using arcane magic, but their mark of passage. The Lyandar half-elf takes thunder wave as his dilettante power.