Eberron Dragonmarked

[Grayson01]

How do you think they will handle the Dragonmarked characters? Do you think they will just be another subrace Like Thuranni Elves: Have X traits and can pick Y Dragon mark Cantrips or spells, or Kundarak Dwarves have X traits and Y Dragonmark Spells/ cantrips

So example: Thuranni Elves normal elf traits plus can one of these spells at the designated levels and can use them once perday: at 1st can selectDisguise Self or Darkness, at 5th can select Pass Without trace or Invisiblity, at 9th level Blur or Greater Invisibilty
(the spell choices just random examples slighty geared towars the house inclinations not a thought out well put together concept)

or do you think it will be something completly different?

[Draken]

I would go with a background, probably. Maybe a feat to expand the power of the mark.

[Beleriphon]

I would go with a background, probably. Maybe a feat to expand the power of the mark.

This was the consensus that people seemed to come up with from the last thread that popped up. A background with a once per day cantrip seemed to be about where things went the last time I checked it.

[mabriss lethe]

Maybe a template or set of subraces that adds drow/tiefling style racial casting to members of a dragonmarked house.

[Grayson01]

I didn't even think about background that makes sense.

[Totema]

I like the idea of backgrounds. They could all have an extra ability that is unlocked when you take a particular feat (say, Greater Dragonmark or whatever) that ties into the dragonmark advancing to the next stage.

[Chaosvii7]

Backgrounds aren't supposed to give purely mechanical benefits; They're supposed to be open-ended features. I'd rather that they make it an option to replace standard racial traits with a bonus to a different stat and then give a special ability. Probably not a spell, or at least something custom in that respect. Probably a supernatural benefit, so that instead of saying "casts x once per day/casts cantrip x) it's a completely unique ability that can only be given to the person who takes that mark.

[Draken]

As a background, it would probably grant the ability to use dragonshard focus items. Which is not exactly a benefit with many combat applications.

The aforementioned "expansion feat" would then probably resemble Magic Initiate.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Here is Baker's non-canon opinion on the topic: http://keith-baker.com/hacking-5e-eberron/


I have thoughts on how to handle Dragonmarks, but my ideas are still very half-baked. For now, the simplest thing to do is simply to not play a character with a Dragonmark. You could still be in a HOUSE; any number of backgrounds support this. You Guild Artisan is a Cannith heir. Your Entertainer is Phiarlan. Your Soldier is from House Deneith. Your half-orc ranger with the Outlander background is Tharashk. Your Noble isn’t an aristocrat; he’s an arrogant House heir from a particularly powerful branch of the family. He hasn’t developed the mark yet, but you just wait and see – he WILL. You don’t need to have the Mark to have the flavor of the house.

If you really really want the Mark, there’s a few ways to do it. The simplest is the Magic Initiate feat; simply relabel it “Least Dragonmark” and choose a spell and cantrips that reflect your desired class. If you’re human, you can even do it at first level. Alternately, you could explain some of your class abilities as being derived from your mark, just as I reflavored the barbarian rage as Beasthide Shifting. Combine that with an appropriate background and it can certainly work. However, I do think there is a much better way to do this; I just think it wants to be its own thing, and I haven’t worked it out to my satisfaction.

tl;dr: Use backgrounds for the Houses. Magic Initiate is the simplest way to do dragonmarks, but many existing class features work well as being sourced from your dragonmark abilities.

[Inevitability]

Hm... I'd say a subrace makes the most sense. Or it'd be like half-dragons; the: 'you could play this but only if your DM lets you' way of handling it.

[Tectorman]

However they do it, I just hope they keep the 4E paradigm where the usual races usually have the dragonmarks they're established to have (dwarves and the Mark of Warding, etc) and nonstandard races can also manifest a mark (a shifter with the Mark of Finding, for example), depending on story.

[T.G. Oskar]

However they do it, I just hope they keep the 4E paradigm where the usual races usually have the dragonmarks they're established to have (dwarves and the Mark of Warding, etc) and nonstandard races can also manifest a mark (a shifter with the Mark of Finding, for example), depending on story.

Call me a grognard in that regard, but I prefer Dragonmarks remain as they were originally: locked to race, with abnormal appearances treated as "Aberrant" marks. The original intention was to grant some degree of power to the Core PHB races, to distinguish them from the more unique Eberron races (Changeling, Kalashtar, Shifter, Warforged) which had some pretty amazing stuff going for them (Changeling could transform at-will, Kalashtar were the weakest of the four but were naturally psionic and had an actually good suite of power points; Shifters had their shifting which was pretty awesome and Warforged had their immunities and composite plating but at the expense of healing and certain interactions with spells). 4e sorta broke that, but not much; the lore still enforces the existence of the True Dragonmarks existing within their original races, but gave leeway for "special snowflakes" that could manifest those. The problem lies in how it was handled; it was assumed it was possible, while the campaign's lore remained unadulterated, which creates conflict. The line between True Dragonmarks on uncommon races and Aberrant Dragonmarks blurred a bit too much.

Dragonmarks, if handled, will probably have to be a new thing. Backgrounds, as mentioned, try to grant as little mechanical benefits as possible (the proficiencies being the most definite, as the traits are mostly roleplaying boons), whereas feats are optional, while Dragonmarks are an important part of the system (so much that the economic system of the world pretty much relies on them). Even then, the way Dragonmarks evolve is something that would be too limited in terms of feats: some Dragonmarks remain at Least, some evolve to Lesser, some evolve to Greater, and a few jump from "none" to "Siberys". Of the current mechanics, the three most viable are Subraces (which can work mechanically, but it'll make no sense in fluff), Subclasses (ditto, and they're harder to implement than Subraces) and Feats (the most viable choice, but again; the progression problem involves that a PC will ALWAYS get Greater Dragonmark or Siberys, no lesser trait).

That said, I could see the Dragonmark itself akin to the Lycanthrope; something that you need to discuss with the DM, but that needs no specific slot or something along those lines. In a way, it can work as a feat (like Magic Initiate, as said by the campaign creator Keith Baker, maybe with Ritual Caster mingled within), but one that doesn't take a feat slot; instead, it progresses through roleplaying. The reason I mention the Lycanthropes is because a DM might allow a PC to play as one, though they have the trouble of having lack of control over their transformation (or "you lose your sheet, it's under my control now" if you embrace the curse). They sacrifice nothing other than that, while they gain considerable benefits (including ability score increases, which as you may know are pretty rare). Dragonmarks could work the same way, except that you'll never know if you'll remain with a Least Dragonmark for the entire campaign or if you'll reach Greater (or if you suddenly develop the Siberys mark). Once that's settled, chances are Backgrounds cover the rest: Dragonmark Heir as a common background, with other traits such as Deneith Blademark, Cannith Artificer, Jorasco Healer or Medani Private Eye as specific manifestations with their unique abilities (or even as variants of existing Backgrounds).

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

My bet is that dragonmarks will be part of the Legacy system that the DMG is going to might have. I imagine it will be similar to what 4e had for epic-level subclasses, but toned down to be more similar to scaling feats that are tied to character plot goals instead of XP and level.

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20121105