Dragonmarks?

[Clone]

Hey all!
I was brainstorming with a friend of mine who DMs a level 10 group and he told me that he's going to be offering the chance for Dragonmarks from the Eberron Unearthed Arcana. I had a look at them and think they're a cool idea. My question is have many people used them? Are they worth a feat? Are there any rules for making your own?

Looking forward to hearing about these!

[Regitnui]

I am currently running an Eberron campaign. None of my players are using dragonmarks, being a genasi, changeling, half-elf and half-orc, but we'll see. Personally, I think they're a great source of quest hooks and a real way to get your character invested in the world.

[JackPhoenix]

My current game has everyone with homebrewed aberrant dragonmark as bonus feat from the start. I based it on UA 'marks with some modifications (Cha is casting ability, spells are primarily from warlock, but also from other lists if they feel appropriate (so far I've got Chill Touch, Firebolt, Vicious Mockery, Thaumaturgy as cantrips and Charm Person, Armor of Agathys, Dissonant Whispers and custom "Detect Dragonmarks" based on Detect Magic) and no skill proficiency thanks to greater freedom in spell selection). Only one session, so can't tell yet how it will work, but everyone having mark is what keeps the party together and is premise of the whole campaign.

Previous game started in PF before being ported to 5e, one character also had aberrant mark (Floating Disc from 3.5 AD feat list, Prestidigitation which wasn't really from the dragonmark, but it worked as a replacement for PF trait giving it that wasn't translated to 5e and Crown of Madness at higher level). Worked well enough, no balance issues, the dragonmark was selected as vuman bonus feat for 5e.

It certainly proved more significant in RP and fluff than in mechanical application, which, I think, is the point of dragonmarks. If the GM runs Eberron game, I advice NOT to create true dragonmarks, though some could use some modifications (Gust is better fit for Shocking Grasp for Mark of Storm, but EE wasn't out when the UA was released). True marks shouldn't have attack abilities, doesn't fit with the fluff. Cantrips are problems, there isn't that great selection in 5e to fit with marks, I suspect that when (if) dragonmarks show up in official material, they'll have two level 1 spells usable once/rest instead of cantrip and level 1 spell.

Aberrant marks should offer wider selection, they are supposed to be unique and unpredictable, and their spells should be more aggressive or creepy. More place for homebrew there, but they too, bring certain implications with them. Common themes amongst aberrant abilities in 3.5 included fire, ice, madness, mind control, poisons/disease and control over insects, but without any limitations forcing you to keep to a single theme. Refluffing is a key: Floating Disc doesn't look like a great spell for aberrant mark... but when it was refluffed as the 'mark taking physical form, meaning that it really shouldn't be used around someone who would react with hostility to the bearer of such mark, it was suddenly much better.

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

I've got a Dragonmark in a homebrewed game now. Only two sessions in and my character's trying not to flaunt it, so I can't tell you how mechanically handy it'll be yet.

As for taking up a feat: since it ended up being central to my character's backstory, my DM was cool and let me plug it into the Inheritor background (though with a side of Guild Artisan, his suggestion until I pointed out the feature wouldn't do much good for an exile). I'd wanted to play a former citizen of the setting's evil empire, see, and we determined being the wrong race to have the local dragonmark analogue would be a dandy reason for leaving. I guess that makes the debate whether it's worth using a background on, though... And "I'm not a human but this feat is part of my backstory" is really only a quandary for parties starting at the lowest levels.