Do you like new dragonmarks?
What do you like about the Dragonmarks?
Do you think the new design philosophy of dragonmarks worked? (That being dragonmarks for every race, no tiered dragonmarks and dragonmarks are for specializing and not for dabbling.)
I will wait to see what everyone else says before I chime in. Please keep in respectful and constructive. :D
I'd hit it.
I'm a new convert to Eberron--as in, I bought the 4e EPG the day it came out, and fell in love. As such, I'm not familiar with the old versions, which can be a positive or a negative, depending on your stance on the matter. As someone looking at them as a new thing, rather than a revised thing, I love the flavor and such they add. It's also worth noting that they aren't 'for everyone' (NPCs), and that any PC with a mark not generally found on his/her character's race will be the first in history to have done so.
Sweet concept, and I love the relationship of the marks to their corresponding Houses.
I was pondering an aberrant character recently, and aberrant marks + Spellscarred + 2 normal mark feats would make a neat mixed-mark character. Hell, take out the 2 normal mark feats and it'd work for any aberrant marked character.
Much like Keith said in another post, the new Dragonmarks are like ritual books. They are the power and the book, so you can perform the rituals without a book.
I take it one step father, and its a homerule. Dragonmarks for us do not just eliminate a need for a ritual book (for its specific associated rituals that is), but it also removes any need for components. The mark is the component.
For us, this makes them more inline with the novels and how they use their powers. A mark of healing doesn't need to go hunt down an x item to heal you, the mark simply glows warm, and the power flows.
What about the Mark of Scribing?
DMrk of Scribing doesn't get a house list of rituals they can cast, they just get the ritual caster feat along with all the other stuff the mark gives.
With your house rule could one have the DMrk of Scribing and be able to cast all rituals with no component cost?
I love the house rules for dragonmarks, we are trying to think them up ourselves...but every time we think of a cool house rule the DMrk of Scribing is there to over balance things LOL
I'd house rule that all dragonmarks except Sivis dragonmarks don't requrie you to use a ritual book. The Mark of Scribing needs a book to scribe in to work, though. :P
Though, to be clear, the Raincaller's Guild can still function, because Raincaller NPCs don't have the Mark of Storm feat. They just have the Mark of Storm, and the powers they get from it can be completely different from the ones PCs get from taking the feat.
I like them and like the newer abilities.
Much like Keith said in another post, the new Dragonmarks are like ritual books. They are the power and the book, so you can perform the rituals without a book.
I take it one step father, and its a homerule. Dragonmarks for us do not just eliminate a need for a ritual book (for its specific associated rituals that is), but it also removes any need for components. The mark is the component.
For us, this makes them more inline with the novels and how they use their powers. A mark of healing doesn't need to go hunt down an x item to heal you, the mark simply glows warm, and the power flows.
I don't know if you really thought this one through...
As I Recall...Mark of Making allows you to cast "Enchant Magic Item"...
Allowing players to make Free Magical Items seems a bit...much.
I'm considering adding Control Weather to the Storm ritual list and replacing the +1 fly speed with something like the elf racial ability "wild step:" you can ignore difficult terrain when shifting. That gives non-casters something useful without being gear-dependent or forced to pick thunderwave (or similar) as their dilettante power.
For instance, we're beginning an Eberron game where I'll be playing the first Kalashtar to ever manifest the Mark of Handling (or a Dragonmark all together). Due to the mark manifesting at first level (though we're saying it manifest long before he began taking levels as a PC), he was able to understand animals' behavior/communication much more than others of his race. As such he became a Druid... his reasons for training as a Druid seem quite obvious.
Hopefully, he'll be as fun to play as he was to make.
So, to answer OP's original question, I'm digging the new Dragonmarks in the EPG!
The non tiered Dragonmarks I dont mind either though I will miss the expanded things you get when you focus on developing your Dragonmark though.
I dont however like the way they are designed. I guess no one else has a problem with the Dragonmarks being designed for specific character types and roles. When I listened to the Eberron podcast, James Wyatt said that they were designed so that Dragonmarked characters could no longer dabble but had to specialize to get the real benefit of the mark and that I dont like. The fact that before you could dabble or specialize and now its pretty much pointless to take a Dragonmark if you arent a specific type of character that they want you to be irks me.
The fact that you gain rituals that other characters can also gain by simply taking ritual caster (except for the two Mark or Warding rituals they added) IMO makes the ritual part of the Dragonmark almost useless. Since you have to cast them the same way and still pay for component costs. I dont even understand now why you would take a mark unless you are the specific type of character they designed the mark for or for the simple flavor of being Dragonmarked. The benefits are miniscule for characters that the mark doesnt fit.
If I was say a Half-Elf Valorous Bard with no lightning or thunder powers, no fly speed and I already have ritual caster what is the benefit to taking the Mark of Storm? Do I have to take a lighning sword to gain a benefit?
Anyone else feel that way? I know my group does and we love everything else about the setting and new book.
In most groups, a half-elf Bard with no lightning powers and the Mark of Storm may be useless.
In my games it changes NPC interactions. Typically it'll change it from "What do you want?" to "How can I help you, Sir/Ma'am? Shall I simply send an invoice to house Lyrandar? Very good, Sir/Ma'am."
Unless you're trying very hard to not be recognized as part of the house...
Allowing players to make Free Magical Items seems a bit...much.
Agreed. Giving the PCs the ability to cast "Enchant Magic Item" without a component cost is probably as broken as it gets. That said, if your players won't abuse it, so be it.
As to the original question: I love the new approach to dragonmarks. I do have the same complaint about the Mark of Storm as has been mentioned above, but the others seem solid. The Mark of Making is perfect, as is the Mark of Sentinel.
I do not like the fact that every race can have such a mark, at least, not as a general rule. They should've added the races as a restriction. You can always house rule an expection, not make it a general rule...
Speaking of the Mark of Passage, I also dont understand why they didnt make the mark give you some sort of teleport instead of buffing your own teleport abilities. If you dont have any teleport abilities then your out of luck. So only characters with innate teleporting abilities can benefit from the mark.
IMO both of those marks say that you have to be playing a certain type of character to benefit from the mark. Thats the thing I have the most problem with about the Dragonmarks. Instead of them fitting any character and letting you choose weather or not to dabble or specialize they already chose for you and said these types of characters get benefits from these certain Dragonmarks instead of leaving it up to the player.
If you dont have any teleport abilities then your out of luck. So only characters with innate teleporting abilities can benefit from the mark.
I believe that mark also works on shifting, which is fairly common.
And wouldn't it also apply to any teleporting and shifting granted by item powers?
I am not really upset about specific marks its the design and design philosophy behind them. The fact that they are for certain kinds of characters and not all types, certain roles and not all roles and for certain power types and not all power types.
I guess not that many others feel the same way I do so maybe I am just being overly sensitive.
Every character I have ever played in Eberron has been Dragonmarked cause it gave you something that would benefit you no matter who or what you were. Now I have no desire to play one cause I dont think you get anything remotely interesting if your not the character they were designed for or you pick up some items to focus your Dragonmark through.
The rituals were a good idea but only two of them are unique. So if you are a fighter with the Mark of Storm your better off taking ritual caster and just being a part of the house itself. I think if they would of created more unique rituals that had Dragonmarks as the focus then that part would be better.
I do think you can never replace the roleplay portion of having a mark cause that is just awesome. However I do think the Dragonmarks arent as special as they used to be, and I am not one who looks back on the previous edition and whines and complains about the differences. This has been the first thing about 4ed that I have said I dont like.
Thats the thing I have the most problem with about the Dragonmarks. Instead of them fitting any character and letting you choose weather or not to dabble or specialize they already chose for you and said these types of characters get benefits from these certain Dragonmarks instead of leaving it up to the player.
I understand your feelings, but it makes sense that some marks are of greater utility in certain pursuits.
The Mark of Sentinel, for instance, is clearly targetted at Defenders, and especially Fighters. Obviously, it would be so suboptimal mechanically that a mage would likely never take it. If he does, he's a dedicated roleplayer for sure.
Is this a problem? I don't think so. If a dragonmarked scion of Deneith were to pursue the path of a wizard, he probably wouldn't expect to get much use out of his 'mark. The Deneith are warriors, not mages.
I'd rather have the persistent, if slightly pigeon-holed, benefits of these 'marks over the useless spell-like abilities of old. They are perfectly in line with the setting's fluff, for the most part, and offer some great benefits if you are playing anything remotely typical of an heir of the respective house.
They couldn't create reliable, enticing abilities/benefits for each mark that would work with any and all classes and/or roles. That would not only be unfeasible, but not even in line with the setting's fluff. The Houses are known for certain services (and by extension types of adventurers) for a reason. They excel in extremely specialized activities. I think the current marks represent this very well.
I may have rambled a bit more than necessary, as I was interrupted several times during my post, but you get my meaning.;)
The worst mark in the book is the Mark of Storm; which is incredibly niche.
Albeit Storm Sorcerers are going to love it.
I don't really mind them benefiting classes that use them moreso than others. There should be a clear reason why the Mark of Warding produces superior fighters/Wardens and other defenders. In effect this is the reverse of 3rd; where some marks were simply useless for classes that should theoretically be the ones who got a benefit from them.
If I hadn't been interrupted so many times while typing, maybe I would've kept things this concise.
I agree 100%.
The worst mark in the book is the Mark of Storm; which is incredibly niche.
Albeit Storm Sorcerers are going to love it.
Again, agreed. It's a shame, because I think a Close blast push effect could've been useful to just about any type of PC. This is one of the few marks for which such a universally useful power is so easy to design.
Ok so it works with shifting too, that is a good thing. The fact that it makes your items work better and not you still means squat to me.
It means, for example, that a ring of blinking will work better for an Orien Heir than for someone else. The mark rewards thematic item selection. At the risk of overgeneralizing, items rely more on the wielder in 4th edition than they did in previous editions. The mark allows characters to squeeze more power out of certain items; I find that nifty.
If I had the choice getting the ability to heal vs buffing your healing if you have any healing I would choose the former. If you have healing already then you gain more of it while if you dont have healing abilities you can get some.
I do see the benefits of the marks but why shouldnt a wizard be able to use the Mark of Protection. I do know that the Mark of Protection is mostly meant for defender type characters even in the previous version, but in the previous version it gave any character the ability to defend allies.
Character wise if you grew up in house Denieth you arent always going to go with the flow. You might choose a different path than most in your house and then manifest a Dragonmark. So you mean you cant learn how to use the mark with your own abilities.
I think it would give him a /defender secondary role if the wizard chose that mark. If they had been designed differently that would be something that is plausible. Possibly giving four different abilities, one for each role that exemplifies the mark and its many uses along with unique Dragonmark or House only rituals would of made me happy. Instead of rituals that anyone can use and abilities that benefit only a few types of characters.
It means, for example, that a ring of blinking will work better for an Orien Heir than for someone else. The mark rewards thematic item selection. At the risk of overgeneralizing, items rely more on the wielder in 4th edition than they did in previous editions. The mark allows characters to squeeze more power out of certain items; I find that nifty.
I see what you mean by that and it does make things a bit more interesting.
It's a shame, because I think a Close blast push effect could've been useful to just about any type of PC. This is one of the few marks for which such a universally useful power is so easy to design.
I think that would of been awesome.
I think it would give him a /defender secondary role if the wizard chose that mark.
No.
This is inherently going against the design of 4th edition and would be a terrible idea. No one feat should give you a secondary class role; short of multiclass feats and then later paragon multiclassing.
I didnt really think the spell like abilities of old were useless.
It's cool that you liked them, and I'm not knocking you for it, but they utterly failed to accomplish that which they were designed to do. The powers they gave were relatively weak and quickly outclassed by class features, spells, and the like of any and all other players, 'marked or not. (I should tag this with "in my opinion", though it's not mine alone. Several developers have expressed the same exact sentiment.)
They failed to represent why the dragonmarked houses were the best in their given fields. While the new 'marks aren't perfect, they do a much better job, in my opinion.
I do see the benefits of the marks but why shouldnt a wizard be able to use the Mark of Protection. I do know that the Mark of Protection is mostly meant for defender type characters even in the previous version, but in the previous version it gave any character the ability to defend allies.
Character wise if you grew up in house Denieth you arent always going to go with the flow. You might choose a different path than most in your house and then manifest a Dragonmark. So you mean you cant learn how to use the mark with your own abilities.
This is a fine character to play, but I don't see why he should expect to get as much utility out of his mark as a warrior would get. His family are warriors because that's where the benefit of their mark most strongly lies.
I think it would give him a /defender secondary role if the wizard chose that mark. If they had been designed differently that would be something that is plausible. Possibly giving four different abilities, one for each role that exemplifies the mark and its many uses along with unique Dragonmark or House only rituals would of made me happy. Instead of rituals that anyone can use and abilities that benefit only a few types of characters.
This might have been cool. It also might have felt sort of forced, to some. It's hard to say, really. I can certainly understand your point.
It definitely would've cut quite a bit into the page count of an already superficial sourcebook. Dragonmarked content already ate up a good portion of the book (and duly so). With WotC's "two sourcebooks per setting" limit, the sheer volume and complexity of content really does become an issue.
I can't think of anything I'd have had them cut in favor of more complex options for dragonmarks. I think they cut too much, as is.
This is inherently going against the design of 4th edition and would be a terrible idea. No one feat should give you a secondary class role; short of multiclass feats and then later paragon multiclassing.
Yeah I understand that no one feat should give you that power but thats also where higher tier Dragonmarks, feats that focus your Dragonmark and paragon paths come into play.
Yeah I understand that no one feat should give you that power but thats also where higher tier Dragonmarks, feats that focus your Dragonmark and paragon paths come into play.
IMO; that's where multiclassing feats and multiclassing comes into play.
Dragonmarks should not be a replacement for multiclassing.
Edit: I don't think I have responded well here, but effectively this raises a gigantic red flag immediately because this sort of system would be superior to multiclassing in every way. Dragonmarks as a feat already at their core do more than most other feats (assuming you are a member of a class that gets utility out of them currently). Making them an effective replacement for multiclassing, which does effectively the same thing you're asking I should point out, is going contrary to the way 4E is designed.
Dragonmark feats are IMO generally much more powerful than other feats in 4E (They give a generic bonus to class skills; they give you some other benefit often and ritual (even if restricted) access.
IMO; that's where multiclassing feats and multiclassing comes into play.
Dragonmarks should not be a replacement for multiclassing.
Why not? Spellscarred is and they did give us paragon paths for the houses albeit very limiting ones. Ranger only...you mean a primal character doesnt fit the mold that you want for a tracker or beast tamer.
Although riding a Griffon is cool as hell.
Yeah I understand that no one feat should give you that power but thats also where higher tier Dragonmarks, feats that focus your Dragonmark and paragon paths come into play.
I am much relieved to see "tiered" dragonmarks gone. There are already tons of quality feats that round a PC in other ways. I'd hate it if my 'marked PC had to sacrifice a handful of his feats in order to "level" his mark. I'd be right back to never playing marked members of the Houses.
Paragon Paths are a better option, for certain. That said, I like the dragonmarks and PPs we have.
Your ideas are all valid, Aeon. I think we could all come up with a few things we might change. Perhaps not all would arise from this big a frustration or disappointment. At least you're happy with the rest of the system.
Why not? Spellscarred is and they did give us paragon paths for the houses albeit very limiting ones. Ranger only...you mean a primal character doesnt fit the mold that you want for a tracker or beast tamer.
I hate the Spellscar setup in its entirety. I was very much relieved that they didn't follow take dragonmarks down that path. I was fearful of just such a thing.
I don't want to have to mutliclass my 'mark. That's just my preference, though.
Why not? Spellscarred is ...
I seem to recall the stated explanation being that the pseudo-class approach worked for Spellscars, but would have been prohibitively bulky for all twelve Dragonmarks.
Why not? Spellscarred is
I will stop you here and state I really REALLY hate spellscarred.
Edit: I hate it so much, I would never even let anyone remotely near it.
I hate the Spellscar setup in its entirety. I was very much relieved that they didn't follow take dragonmarks down that path. I was fearful of just such a thing.
HiFive.
I will stop you here and state I really REALLY hate spellscarred.
Lol, I never said I liked them I am just saying that they are a bigger part of your character than Dragonmarks are now IMO. I always looked at Dragonmarks as being a huge part of the character *shrugs* I guess I am one of the only ones who feel that way about them.
On the bright side I guess I can finaly play the warforged or changeling I have always wanted to play but chose to play marked characters instead. :D
HiFive.
I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion, as I don't have anything left to offer. Aeon and I are of very different views, and I don't want to keep opposing his/her views at every turn. It could start to look like I'm antagonizing, which is definitely not my intent.
Once I'm sitting in front of my books again, I think I'm going to brainstorm a little "what does this mark work with?" list for another thread. Nothing on the level of the CharOp boards, but something to suggest, for example, who the Mark of Storm is good for besides storm sorcerors, or how a wizard gets anything from the Mark of Protection.
Its all good, I didnt want this to be a flame filled discussion anyways since this is the only thing Im not too happy about with Eberron and 4ed in general. :D
I'm glad you don't take dissenting views askance.
I had a similar situation, a gripe with the EPG itself, and it keeps arising again and again as new-comers first encounter my posts. I try pretty hard to avoid sounding like an EPG-basher when expressing my gripes.
I think people here can tell the difference between "man, I wish this could've been the case" and embittered trolling.
I'm just happy to see a flurry of activity on the boards again.
Indeed. The Eberron forums are again upright and breathing.
Once I'm sitting in front of my books again, I think I'm going to brainstorm a little "what does this mark work with?" list for another thread. Nothing on the level of the CharOp boards, but something to suggest, for example, who the Mark of Storm is good for besides storm sorcerors, or how a wizard gets anything from the Mark of Protection.
This is a pretty cool idea. I've actually grown quite fond of the CharOp board in the past six months. They do good work there, and aren't at all how many imagine them to be (the 3E days were a different story).
A relaxed, "CharOp style" thread is a nice idea.
Embittered Trolling is best seen on the FR boards.
I think they're more into low-key grumbling these days. You want to see trolls on exhibit, visit the D&D Insider or D&D General forums. There are some impressive specimens to be seen.
This is a pretty cool idea. I've actually grown quite fond of the CharOp board in the past six months. They do good work there, and aren't at all how many imagine them to be (the 3E days were a different story).
I respect the CO boards-- they put everything that comes out through some pretty ruthless scrutiny. Great place to lurk and learn, but I'm terrified of posting there. I think I'm simply not up to their rigorous standards.
A relaxed, "CharOp style" thread is a nice idea.
That's what I'll be going for. Only question is if it would be more appropriate for the "Lore" or "Running" board.
I respect the CO boards-- they put everything that comes out through some pretty ruthless scrutiny. Great place to lurk and learn, but I'm terrified of posting there. I think I'm simply not up to their rigorous standards.
Yeah, those guys are the best playtesters around, even when they are playtesting things that have already been released. If a deficiency exists, they'll find it.
I post some in CharOp, but I pick my spots. Like you, I don't presume to claim that level of number-crunching expertise. As you say, though, you can close the gap pretty quickly by lurking and learning.
That's what I'll be going for. Only question is if it would be more appropriate for the "Lore" or "Running" board.
I'd hoped to gain inspiration by looking at each forum's description. Only after returning to the D&D Worlds page did I discover the lack of said descriptions.
I'd say Running Eberron would be the place for such a thread. There are discussions there from both DM and Player perspective. It seems to be the "crunchy" forum, while this is the "fluffy". I'd suspected as much, by checked to make sure.
I'm glad you don't take dissenting views askance.
Yeah Im not one of those people that throws a fit when there is something they dont like and say Im never going to buy another D&D book again until 5ed so goodbye everyone till 5ed.
I do miss Siberys marks though and hope they return. I do find it interesting that you didnt like the marks before and now I dont. So I guess we have changed places. ;)
I do miss Siberys marks though and hope they return.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Siberys Marks are a big enough deal that I'd be surprised if Dragon doesn't eventually have such an article. I hope it's not an Epic Destiny, though, as they certainly weren't an Epic-only feature in the past.
I do find it interesting that you didnt like the marks before and now I dont. So I guess we have changed places. ;)
Indeed. That's why I quickly realized I had little to offer in our previous discussion beyond a sympathetic ear.
On a more serious note, I've decided I like the current marks, with the exception of Shadow and Storm; both are very niche, as previously noted. I also think the bonus to defense that warding got would be better suited to sentinel, but that's what, three lines of text in my houserule document?
All in all, I'm very pleased. A few mor PPs to be homebrewed or culled from the 'net, and I'll be prepped for some DMing!
Host, this level of... maturity... is galling! Why aren't you two flaming each other's heads off yet? I paid for a show, and by the Six and Nine, I want to see one! :P
Well, Aeon, the mob has spoken. It looks like I have to challenge you... to a duel!
The Mark of Making feat gives you access to Alchemy, which the Artificer's Ritual Caster feature does not. The Mark of Making also, as you noted, lets you craft magic items of your level + 2.
The Ritual Caster feature gives you access to all rituals, while the Mark of Making on its own just gives you access to creation rituals. The Ritual Caster feature also lets you perform Disenchant Item for free.
There's a lot of synergy and overlap, but the Mark of Making definately does not make the Ritual Caster feature obsolete. Rather, they compliment each other very well.
Its not that this bothers me horribly. Its not that I can't house rule it easily. But I really wish there was an official fix for it.
For instance, when taking the Mark of Storm you'd always get the rituals. Then you could choose between the current benefit and some (not-too-strong) power - maybe like Gust of Wind as was suggested.
Something like a Minor action, Blast 2 encounter power that works as follows:
Attack: score-of-your-choice + 2/4/6 (depending on Tier) vs Ref
Hit: it pushes the target 2 squares
Special: it knocks the target prone if you crit.
Of course it's quite a bit more work to do that for most Marks... but IMHO it would be worth it.
(And one could imagine an epic feat to make it a burst 2 that only target enemies, etc...)
The cost of material components for rituals are reduced by 20% for every healing surge the dragonmarked ritual caster wishes to spend up to a maximum of four in a given day.
But that's me, and my houserule idea.
Whenever you use a power that causes forced movement, increase that forced movement by 1.
You may ignore difficult terrain while shifting.
Since every class has forced movement powers, this is MUCH less niche, while maintaining the proper flavor.
I'm less sure on how to fix shadow, though...