Eberron Feats - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Eberron Feats

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
FearOfTheDark
Jul 19, 2010 21:10:05 I'm in a non-Eberron world and I would like to use some of the feats (Dragonmarks and Channel Divinity). I read somewhere that each Eberron deity has a non-Eberron counterpart, does anybody know who's who?

Any other ideas on how to incorporate a Dragonmark feat for a character that's not in Eberron?
#2
salla
Jul 19, 2010 21:12:24 As far as the Dragonmark feats go, you can just rename them. Their connection to the prophecy in Eberron is a story consideration more than a balance mechanism.
#3
Cohen95
Jul 19, 2010 23:50:09 As far as the Channel Divinity feats go, I guess you could go two ways. Either you can just look at the Eberron...dieties...and see which non-Eberron dieties they best fit with, or you can compare domains. There's a Dragon Magazine Article that lists which Domains (from Divine Power) correspond to which Eberron dieties. Compare this with the dieties from Divine Power (or from the same Dragon article, if you're using FR), and translate the Channel Divinity feats to whichever dieties have the closest portfolio. That's more time consuming, but may give you more "accurate" results.
#4
FlashbackJon
Jul 20, 2010 11:29:20 As a DM, I just let the Dragonmarks represent whatever the player wants: special training, divine prophecy, what-have-you.

I don't even bother tying them to one another unless several players have them and express interest in making it a storyline element.
#5
FearOfTheDark
Jul 20, 2010 15:45:27 Thanks for the responses everybody.

Any ideas about the dragonmarked paragon paths? I'm thinking that for a non-Eberron campaign we should be allowed to take them, whether we have the dragonmark feat or not. Having the feat seems more like fluff to me.
#6
Ogiwan
Jul 20, 2010 16:58:03 The thing is that the feats are supposed to enhance what a class would already be doing, and the PPs would do so even more. So, I'd say you might want to take the feat.

That said, ask your DM if you can use Eberron DM feats and PPs. Its his/her call, being the DM.
#7
FlashbackJon
Jul 21, 2010 16:02:00 I would absolutely require the dragonmark feat for access to the associated paragon path, but as mentioned, would allow both in any setting.
#8
CorrinAvatan
Jul 27, 2010 19:49:08 I'm completely boggled by the idea of not taking an associated dragonmark, but taking the paragon path. To me, that's like saying "I don't want to move people around when I have lots of thunder and lightning powers, but I DO want to take the paragon path that was designed assuming that I would have that dragonmark."

I mean, the Jorasco Jadehand PP level 11 benefit becomes a LOT less useful, since you don't have the feat that allows EVERY healing power you have to grant a saving throw. If you don't have the Mark of Handling, the Griffonmaster PP makes your beast companion essentially have a -1 penalty to AC, a -2 penalty to speed, and you can't make use of the special properties of your griffon mount.

I mean, I'd allow it in a non-eberron game. But it just seems like an attempt to be a sub-standard optimization.
#9
FearOfTheDark
Jul 29, 2010 20:16:59
I'm completely boggled by the idea of not taking an associated dragonmark, but taking the paragon path. To me, that's like saying "I don't want to move people around when I have lots of thunder and lightning powers, but I DO want to take the paragon path that was designed assuming that I would have that dragonmark."

I mean, the Jorasco Jadehand PP level 11 benefit becomes a LOT less useful, since you don't have the feat that allows EVERY healing power you have to grant a saving throw. If you don't have the Mark of Handling, the Griffonmaster PP makes your beast companion essentially have a -1 penalty to AC, a -2 penalty to speed, and you can't make use of the special properties of your griffon mount.

I mean, I'd allow it in a non-eberron game. But it just seems like an attempt to be a sub-standard optimization.

My original thought had been while looking at my current character, a non-Eberron Artificer. He has the Master Mixer and Master Crafter feat. Looking at the Mark of Making feat, it seemed kind of pointless for me to take it (I do understand that I can always re-train). Just my train of thought, although it doesn't make too much sense.
#10
FlashbackJon
Aug 02, 2010 14:20:13 If you're in non-Eberron, I would possibly allow you, as a houserule, in that specific instance, to get the Paragon Path without the painfully redundant entry feat. Obviously, you've already invested more than required...
#11
FearOfTheDark
Aug 06, 2010 13:06:00
If you're in non-Eberron, I would possibly allow you, as a houserule, in that specific instance, to get the Paragon Path without the painfully redundant entry feat. Obviously, you've already invested more than required...

Thanks for the support, but I'm probably going to be a Clockwork Artificer....although I was debating Alchemist (despite other posts talking about how pointless Alchemy is).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 FearOfTheDark Jul 19, 2010 21:10:05	I'm in a non-Eberron world and I would like to use some of the feats (Dragonmarks and Channel Divinity). I read somewhere that each Eberron deity has a non-Eberron counterpart, does anybody know who's who? Any other ideas on how to incorporate a Dragonmark feat for a character that's not in Eberron?
#2 salla Jul 19, 2010 21:12:24	As far as the Dragonmark feats go, you can just rename them. Their connection to the prophecy in Eberron is a story consideration more than a balance mechanism.
#3 Cohen95 Jul 19, 2010 23:50:09	As far as the Channel Divinity feats go, I guess you could go two ways. Either you can just look at the Eberron...dieties...and see which non-Eberron dieties they best fit with, or you can compare domains. There's a Dragon Magazine Article that lists which Domains (from Divine Power) correspond to which Eberron dieties. Compare this with the dieties from Divine Power (or from the same Dragon article, if you're using FR), and translate the Channel Divinity feats to whichever dieties have the closest portfolio. That's more time consuming, but may give you more "accurate" results.
#4 FlashbackJon Jul 20, 2010 11:29:20	As a DM, I just let the Dragonmarks represent whatever the player wants: special training, divine prophecy, what-have-you. I don't even bother tying them to one another unless several players have them and express interest in making it a storyline element.
#5 FearOfTheDark Jul 20, 2010 15:45:27	Thanks for the responses everybody. Any ideas about the dragonmarked paragon paths? I'm thinking that for a non-Eberron campaign we should be allowed to take them, whether we have the dragonmark feat or not. Having the feat seems more like fluff to me.
#6 Ogiwan Jul 20, 2010 16:58:03	The thing is that the feats are supposed to enhance what a class would already be doing, and the PPs would do so even more. So, I'd say you might want to take the feat. That said, ask your DM if you can use Eberron DM feats and PPs. Its his/her call, being the DM.
#7 FlashbackJon Jul 21, 2010 16:02:00	I would absolutely require the dragonmark feat for access to the associated paragon path, but as mentioned, would allow both in any setting.
#8 CorrinAvatan Jul 27, 2010 19:49:08	I'm completely boggled by the idea of not taking an associated dragonmark, but taking the paragon path. To me, that's like saying "I don't want to move people around when I have lots of thunder and lightning powers, but I DO want to take the paragon path that was designed assuming that I would have that dragonmark." I mean, the Jorasco Jadehand PP level 11 benefit becomes a LOT less useful, since you don't have the feat that allows EVERY healing power you have to grant a saving throw. If you don't have the Mark of Handling, the Griffonmaster PP makes your beast companion essentially have a -1 penalty to AC, a -2 penalty to speed, and you can't make use of the special properties of your griffon mount. I mean, I'd allow it in a non-eberron game. But it just seems like an attempt to be a sub-standard optimization.
#9 FearOfTheDark Jul 29, 2010 20:16:59	I'm completely boggled by the idea of not taking an associated dragonmark, but taking the paragon path. To me, that's like saying "I don't want to move people around when I have lots of thunder and lightning powers, but I DO want to take the paragon path that was designed assuming that I would have that dragonmark." I mean, the Jorasco Jadehand PP level 11 benefit becomes a LOT less useful, since you don't have the feat that allows EVERY healing power you have to grant a saving throw. If you don't have the Mark of Handling, the Griffonmaster PP makes your beast companion essentially have a -1 penalty to AC, a -2 penalty to speed, and you can't make use of the special properties of your griffon mount. I mean, I'd allow it in a non-eberron game. But it just seems like an attempt to be a sub-standard optimization. My original thought had been while looking at my current character, a non-Eberron Artificer. He has the Master Mixer and Master Crafter feat. Looking at the Mark of Making feat, it seemed kind of pointless for me to take it (I do understand that I can always re-train). Just my train of thought, although it doesn't make too much sense.
#10 FlashbackJon Aug 02, 2010 14:20:13	If you're in non-Eberron, I would possibly allow you, as a houserule, in that specific instance, to get the Paragon Path without the painfully redundant entry feat. Obviously, you've already invested more than required...
#11 FearOfTheDark Aug 06, 2010 13:06:00	If you're in non-Eberron, I would possibly allow you, as a houserule, in that specific instance, to get the Paragon Path without the painfully redundant entry feat. Obviously, you've already invested more than required... Thanks for the support, but I'm probably going to be a Clockwork Artificer....although I was debating Alchemist (despite other posts talking about how pointless Alchemy is).