http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20051024a
Ok I'll bite; what's with the sigh?
Because that ruling flies directly in the face of the rules, and should never have been made. It came from when Keith was doing that dragonshard, and the higher ups basically overrode him and said "When you reincarnate, you keep your mark. Period, end of discussion, print it that way, or we won't publish this one."
The rules are quite clear on what should happen. Dragonmarks are feats, no more, no less. They are feats with racial prereqs. If you cease to meet the prereqs for a feat, then you cannot use it until you again meet those prereqs.
Just like a strength drained fighter can't Power Attack until his strength goes back to 13 or more, someone who's race has changed cannot use their dragonmark until they are restored to their original race. Thats why Vol can't use her dragonmark, not because of some special thing about being dead, its just because her type changed to undead, so she no longer qualifies as her original race.
Otherwise, you just open up a whole can of worms. Take any dragonmark you want, and just write into your backstory that you were reincarnated at some point. It only gets worse when you realize that you could potentially use this to gain multiple dragonmarks. If you can make the case that each dragonmark constitutes a different "feat", a reincarnated character would meet the prereqs for another true mark (notice that only the abberant marks say you can't get a second mark). Have a druid in the party, be a Fighter for bonus feats, and every time you're about to level and get a normal feat, get killed and reincarnate into another race and take their mark. Who needs a cataclysm mage when this little loophole lets you get all the marks you want at the same time?
Yes, you can houserule away most of the problems, but thats not the point. Oberroni Falacy, just because you can fix it doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place. If they had just stuck to the RAW, there wouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Not to mention a good reason for the character to adventure to restore their original race.
DM : Sure you keep your mark, but you know your current race isn't supposed to have one, or at least that one.
Player : Is that a problem?
DM : Hmm. Let's see, you bear a mark that belongs to a house that you CAN'T belong to. At best your a curiousity to be studied. Worst your a threat to the status quo. What do you think?
Player : Um...I think I need a long sleeve tunic?
DM : Couldn't hurt.
Could also houserule that it warps into an Aberrant Mark. Feat stays, but is changed to reflect modified circumstances?
Not a bad idea either, would make more sense than it just being a straight translation.
Course, having to house rule is one of those things Edymnion was annoyed with. :P
Which would effectively nullify the reincarnation wonkiness entirely.
Which would effectively nullify the reincarnation wonkiness entirely.
Because that would be a terrible idea. ~
Because that would be a terrible idea. ~
Yeah, but its much easier to just not use WotC's glorified houserule in the first place, or if you want to consider it canon, then houserule it out directly, rather than make a houserule to remove the bad conditions while leaving the original in place.
Take any dragonmark you want, and just write into your backstory that you were reincarnated at some point. It only gets worse when you realize that you could potentially use this to gain multiple dragonmarks. If you can make the case that each dragonmark constitutes a different "feat", a reincarnated character would meet the prereqs for another true mark (notice that only the abberant marks say you can't get a second mark).
If a character's player could make "that" reasoning, he could also reason that races that have more than one type of dragonmark, could pick different dragonmarks. So to say they could say they play a human and pick mark of making, handling, finding, and passage. Since they are all technically feats and by being human they qualify for the prereqs for all of them.