Aberrant dragonmark

[stoutstien]

Seen a lot of talk on the other marks and very little on the aberrant option.
Being a +1 con, 1 cantrip and a 1st lv spell once a L/S rest of the sorcerer list with Con as the casting stat.
The rolling of the hit for for THP or random damage is interesting but not crucial.

The obvious use is getting shield on a short rest recharge would be nice for anyone.

Anyone seen some interesting fun for this?

[Amechra]

Seen a lot of talk on the other marks and very little on the aberrant option.
Being a +1 con, 1 cantrip and a 1st lv spell once a L/S rest of the sorcerer list with Con as the casting stat.
The rolling of the hit for for THP or random damage is interesting but not crucial.

The obvious use is getting shield on a short rest recharge would be nice for anyone.

Anyone seen some interesting fun for this?

Grab Green-Flame Blade, then deal fire damage based off of your obnoxiously healthy body?

In general, it's going to be better than Magical Adept for martial characters who want to pick up something combat related - you're basing it off of a stat they have a general reason to increase, rather than one of their "side" ability scores.

---

As someone who hasn't had a chance to pick up the real deal yet... how has the option changed since Wayfarer's? Do you still have the "burn a hit-die for +1 level" thing, or did that get replaced?

[stoutstien]

Grab Green-Flame Blade, then deal fire damage based off of your obnoxiously healthy body?

In general, it's going to be better than Magical Adept for martial characters who want to pick up something combat related - you're basing it off of a stat they have a general reason to increase, rather than one of their "side" ability scores.

---

As someone who hasn't had a chance to pick up the real deal yet... how has the option changed since Wayfarer's? Do you still have the "burn a hit-die for +1 level" thing, or did that get replaced?

No longer get an upcast option but you can choose to spend a hit die when you cast the spell. Even get you THP equal to roll and odd number is a damage equal to roll to one random target other than you friend or foe. If no target u take the damage. No save or targeting so has an itch ability to edit invisible creature within range even if you don't know where they are.

[Amechra]

No longer get an upcast option but you can choose to spend a hit die when you cast the spell. Even get you THP equal to roll and odd number is a damage equal to roll to one random target other than you friend or foe. If no target u take the damage. No save or targeting so has an itch ability to edit invisible creature within range even if you don't know where they are.

Coolness. I could see that random roll as very helpful on, say, a Fighter - you can either damage someone or get some THP while casting Shield. I'm assuming you don't add your Con to the damage/THP?

[stoutstien]

Coolness. I could see that random roll as very helpful on, say, a Fighter - you can either damage someone or get some THP while casting Shield. I'm assuming you don't add your Con to the damage/THP?

No but there is an option part of the feat where starting at lv 10 you have a 10% of gaining a random boon at a cost of one hit die permanently. You only get one boon total with a new chance every time you level until you get one.

[HappyDaze]

In general, it's going to be better than Magical Adept for martial characters who want to pick up something combat related - you're basing it off of a stat they have a general reason to increase, rather than one of their "side" ability scores.


OTOH, in general, it's going to be a sticky complication for many characters in an Eberron game because it is an Aberrant Dragonmark.

[stoutstien]

OTOH, in general, it's going to be a sticky complication for many characters in an Eberron game because it is an Aberrant Dragonmark.
Sounds like a good foundation for a player to put a character with character in a game.
I Have a player starting a rogue house for aberrant marks. It's going to be interesting for sure.

[Amechra]

OTOH, in general, it's going to be a sticky complication for many characters in an Eberron game because it is an Aberrant Dragonmark.

What, getting more spotlight time is a drawback? I never!

That is a good point, though - is the whole "mixed dragonmarks are mechanically Aberrant marks, but don't have the crazy stigma or evil red glow" thing still in 5e?

[stoutstien]

What, getting more spotlight time is a drawback? I never!

That is a good point, though - is the whole "mixed dragonmarks are mechanically Aberrant marks, but don't have the crazy stigma or evil red glow" thing still in 5e?

There is a randomized flaw table that includes all kind of things but nothing makes them evil other than general superstition

[Amechra]

There is a randomized flaw table that includes all kind of things but nothing makes them evil other than general superstition

I mean, Aberrant Dragonmarks visually glow red/purple instead of blue.

[MaxWilson]

OTOH, in general, it's going to be a sticky complication for many characters in an Eberron game because it is an Aberrant Dragonmark.

Clarification for those who haven't read the book: specifically, it's a 10% chance (at the DM's option) of gaining an Epic Boon at 10th level, and another 10% chance at 11th level if didn't get it at 10th.

Obviously that makes the feat both massively swingy and DM-dependent, which is interesting because 5E has generally steered clear of those things w/rt PC abilities, especially swinginess*. I've no idea if those Epic Boons would be allowed in AL play for example, because e.g. for a wizard, gaining the Boon of Spell Recall from an Aberrant Dragonmark feat would make it the best feat in the book by a wide margin (enables even crazier combos than normal, like Wish (Simulacrum) and your Simulacrum still has a 9th level spell slot!!), but you could also wind up with nothing.

* There's some DM-dependent stuff like wild magic.

[stoutstien]

Clarification for those who haven't read the book: specifically, it's a 10% chance (at the DM's option) of gaining an Epic Boon at 10th level, and another 10% chance at 11th level if didn't get it at 10th.

Obviously that makes the feat both massively swingy and DM-dependent, which is interesting because 5E has generally steered clear of those things w/rt PC abilities, especially swinginess*. I've no idea if those Epic Boons would be allowed in AL play for example, because e.g. for a wizard, gaining the Boon of Spell Recall from an Aberrant Dragonmark feat would make it the best feat in the book by a wide margin (enables even crazier combos than normal, like Wish (Simulacrum) and your Simulacrum still has a 9th level spell slot!!), but you could also wind up with nothing.

* There's some DM-dependent stuff like wild magic.

I think the feat is probably worth looking at even without the option of a boon at lv 10. Not a lot of + con feats and I will always take more cantrips.

[Afghanistan]

That is a good point, though - is the whole "mixed dragonmarks are mechanically Aberrant marks, but don't have the crazy stigma or evil red glow" thing still in 5e?

The stigma behind Aberrant Marks has always been a societal one and less an ethical one. You are not evil because the mark makes you evil, you are evil because you choose to hurt people with your mark. Furthermore, people with Aberrant Marks are considered victims as well because the marks kind of torture their own host in unique and personal ways.

For more detail on how Aberrant Marks are supposed to work socially and in terms of FULL power, check our Keith Baker's blog (http://keith-baker.com/sidebar-aberrant-dragonmarks/). Some of the things that the marks are supposed to be able to do more or less cannot be reasonably balanced in 5e. From creating full blown incurable plagues to leveling cities with powerful earthquakes.

[Amechra]

The stigma behind Aberrant Marks has always been a societal one and less an ethical one. You are not evil because the mark makes you evil, you are evil because you choose to hurt people with your mark. Furthermore, people with Aberrant Marks are considered victims as well because the marks kind of torture their own host in unique and personal ways.

For more detail on how Aberrant Marks are supposed to work socially and in terms of FULL power, check our Keith Baker's blog (http://keith-baker.com/sidebar-aberrant-dragonmarks/). Some of the things that the marks are supposed to be able to do more or less cannot be reasonably balanced in 5e. From creating full blown incurable plagues to leveling cities with powerful earthquakes.

I knew I should've put the "evil" in quotes... the point I was trying to get across is that, at least at one point, you could pick up a Mark that was mechanically an Aberrant Dragonmark, but that looked more like a blend between the Mark of two different Houses, was blue like a "normal" Mark, and which had less stigma attached to it.

[JackPhoenix]

Sounds like a good foundation for a player to put a character with character in a game.
I Have a player starting a rogue house for aberrant marks. It's going to be interesting for sure.

You're not the only one....

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/c0/3e/f6c03e26c2b243aff37ac61b2e1da59b.jpg

[Beleriphon]

I knew I should've put the "evil" in quotes... the point I was trying to get across is that, at least at one point, you could pick up a Mark that was mechanically an Aberrant Dragonmark, but that looked more like a blend between the Mark of two different Houses, was blue like a "normal" Mark, and which had less stigma attached to it.

Which by all accounts is an Aberrant mark, and the effects are not going to be some combination of Orien and Cannith. Its just as likely going to be something like can summon wasps but the user always hears the buzzing of every single wasp within 1000 miles.

[Millstone85]

The feat could be used in an FR campaign to represent a spellscar.

[Damon_Tor]

Kind of an interesting basis for a character: the only truly SAD character would be one that uses CON offensively, and this is one of the few ways to do that. Roll a Barbarian and have him throw around firebolts or as his default action, while con also forms the basis of his AC, and of course the highest hitpoints available to a PC. VHuman for the Aberrant Dragonmark at level 1 or you're going to have a hard time. Of course you won't be able to make any use of most of your barbarian class features, so you'll want to multiclass out pretty soon. Hardly a broken build, but like I said, if you've rolled for stats and got 17/9/7/5/4/4 (I have gotten this) it's probably your only option that won't see you either dead or useless (even a moon druid has to somehow survive level 1).


Clarification for those who haven't read the book: specifically, it's a 10% chance (at the DM's option) of gaining an Epic Boon at 10th level, and another 10% chance at 11th level if didn't get it at 10th.

By my reading, it's a 10% chance at level 10, and then another 10% chance every level thereafter until the boon is received:
"Upon reaching 10th level, such a character has a 10 percent chance of gaining an epic boon from among the options in chapter 7 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. If the character fails to gain a boon, they have a 10 per*cent chance the next time they gain a level."

The second sentence has no dependence on the first. "On your next level you have a 10% chance to gain an epic boon" triggers on each failed roll for an epic boon, not just the roll made at 10th level.

[stoutstien]

Could make for an interesting alchemist. Grab GFB and burning hands and we have the making of a front line buffer with AOE support.

[MaxWilson]

Kind of an interesting basis for a character: the only truly SAD character would be one that uses CON offensively

That's not the only way to build a truly SAD character. Summoning and buffing are also SAD.

Actually, I suppose if you stay well out of combat they're technically NAD: non-attribute-dependent. Even a 1 HP Shepherd Druid with 3s in all ability scores could still be a great asset to a party, or would be if he miraculously took the same actions a rational creature would take instead of roleplaying his Int 3 Wis 3 and rolling around in the mud all day. : -)


Of course you won't be able to make any use of most of your barbarian class features, so you'll want to multiclass out pretty soon.

A Barbarian with 13 Strength can still get some pretty decent out of his Barbarian features like Reckless Attack and Rage damage (Rage damage bonus is actually more meaningful if your Str is only 13), and if he is truly SAD with Str < 13 he can't multiclass out anyway. A Str 3 Con 18 Barbarian with an Aberrant Dragonmark, flinging Firebolts all day, would be hilarious but not very good.


By my reading, it's a 10% chance at level 10, and then another 10% chance every level thereafter until the boon is received:
"Upon reaching 10th level, such a character has a 10 percent chance of gaining an epic boon from among the options in chapter 7 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. If the character fails to gain a boon, they have a 10 per*cent chance the next time they gain a level."

The second sentence has no dependence on the first. "On your next level you have a 10% chance to gain an epic boon" triggers on each failed roll for an epic boon, not just the roll made at 10th level.

Huh. If you're right that would make quite a lot of difference. I'm not sure, lore-wise, which interpretation makes the most sense.

[stoutstien]

Earlier I realized that the spell learned from this feat isn't limit like it is for MI. Nothing stopping you from using an other spell slot to cast it instead of the mark.
it still wasn't count as a class spell for features but is interesting. I can get shield back on my forge cleric without multiclassing.

[Evaar]

Earlier I realized that the spell learned from this feat isn't limit like it is for MI. Nothing stopping you from using an other spell slot to cast it instead of the mark.
it still wasn't count as a class spell for features but is interesting. I can get shield back on my forge cleric without multiclassing.

Huh. Interesting point. Away from book right now but the source I can find says "You learn that spell and can cast it through your mark. Once you cast it, you must finish a short or long rest before you can cast it again through the mark." That would seem to imply that you learn the spell, just like you learn any spell, and also you have an additional option to cast it through the mark.

The only thing that bugs me about this is that Aberrant Marks are meant to be inherently destructive things, as opposed to the inherently constructive abilities in the standard dragonmarks. Shield just doesn't seem to fit the character of what an Aberrant Mark should do.

One of the other obvious uses for the feat is on a Swashbuckler Rogue. You take the feat, grab Booming Blade, dance in, hit a dude who's on his own, dance away without provoking opportunity attacks, then ideally the target has to make the choice to waste a turn or trigger the Booming Blade, and you've sacrificed no damage. But this all assumes you're allowed to take Booming Blade with it, so not an option in AL.

[stoutstien]

Huh. Interesting point. Away from book right now but the source I can find says "You learn that spell and can cast it through your mark. Once you cast it, you must finish a short or long rest before you can cast it again through the mark." That would seem to imply that you learn the spell, just like you learn any spell, and also you have an additional option to cast it through the mark.

The only thing that bugs me about this is that Aberrant Marks are meant to be inherently destructive things, as opposed to the inherently constructive abilities in the standard dragonmarks. Shield just doesn't seem to fit the character of what an Aberrant Mark should do.

One of the other obvious uses for the feat is on a Swashbuckler Rogue. You take the feat, grab Booming Blade, dance in, hit a dude who's on his own, dance away without provoking opportunity attacks, then ideally the target has to make the choice to waste a turn or trigger the Booming Blade, and you've sacrificed no damage. But this all assumes you're allowed to take Booming Blade with it, so not an option in AL.

I think they tried to shy away from forced negative RP picks in races and other options.

[moonfly7]

Huh. Interesting point. Away from book right now but the source I can find says "You learn that spell and can cast it through your mark. Once you cast it, you must finish a short or long rest before you can cast it again through the mark." That would seem to imply that you learn the spell, just like you learn any spell, and also you have an additional option to cast it through the mark.

The only thing that bugs me about this is that Aberrant Marks are meant to be inherently destructive things, as opposed to the inherently constructive abilities in the standard dragonmarks. Shield just doesn't seem to fit the character of what an Aberrant Mark should do.

One of the other obvious uses for the feat is on a Swashbuckler Rogue. You take the feat, grab Booming Blade, dance in, hit a dude who's on his own, dance away without provoking opportunity attacks, then ideally the target has to make the choice to waste a turn or trigger the Booming Blade, and you've sacrificed no damage. But this all assumes you're allowed to take Booming Blade with it, so not an option in AL.

You could combine this with fire genasi's cantrip and burning hands cast with con to get 2 con cantrips and 2 con spells, giving you a nice mini caster.

[Evaar]

I think they tried to shy away from forced negative RP picks in races and other options.

Okay, but nothing says the user has to be evil. Just that they have this destructive power that's part of them.

The mechanics of 5e make this hard to deliver on because if you just give someone a level 1 damage spell, it's never going to be very good - even at level 1. But you don't want to drop something much higher on a character, either. So I get why it is the way that it is, and I get players picking something more optimal like Shield, I just wish we had a better solution to demonstrate the flavor of an Aberrant Mark.

People are supposed to be afraid of you because this thing is, at best, a weapon and they have no way to know if or when it will go off. Giving yourself +5 AC doesn't give anyone reason to worry. Though I suppose you could flavor it to give yourself a monstrous appearance briefly for the duration, maybe a chitinous exoskeleton or protruding bony spikes that suggest a wrongness or threat of violence even if the character doesn't use them for that in that moment (or even know how).

[JackPhoenix]

The only thing that bugs me about this is that Aberrant Marks are meant to be inherently destructive things, as opposed to the inherently constructive abilities in the standard dragonmarks. Shield just doesn't seem to fit the character of what an Aberrant Mark should do.

Funny thing is.... Shield was an option for the original (least) Aberrant Dragonmark feat back in 3.5.

[MaxWilson]

Huh. Interesting point. Away from book right now but the source I can find says "You learn that spell and can cast it through your mark. Once you cast it, you must finish a short or long rest before you can cast it again through the mark." That would seem to imply that you learn the spell, just like you learn any spell, and also you have an additional option to cast it through the mark.

In what way is that different from Magic Initiate? Both of them have no feature permitting you to cast the spell with spell slots.


The mechanics of 5e make this hard to deliver on because if you just give someone a level 1 damage spell, it's never going to be very good - even at level 1. But you don't want to drop something much higher on a character, either. So I get why it is the way that it is, and I get players picking something more optimal like Shield, I just wish we had a better solution to demonstrate the flavor of an Aberrant Mark.

Disclaimer: everything I know about Aberrant Dragonmarks I learned yesterday, reading through Keith Baker's web posts.

That said, I think the feat representsa Least Dragonmark, and the 10th+ level upgrade that's linked to the feat (at the DM's option) represent the greater dragonmarks, in the form of Epic Boons. Presumably the DM could take a different option and give you something else instead of an Epic Boon, like a trait of generating deadly plagues and making crops unable to grow within 100 miles of you.

Anyway, I agree that Shield doesn't seem like a very thematic pick for an Aberrant Dragonmark. I think Keith Baker says that if you just want access to a bit of magic, you should pick Magic Initiate. If you want to buy into the story and RP behind Aberrant Dragonmarks, pick Aberrant Dragonmark, and play up the downsides of the mark. It's unfortunate that the Eberron book doesn't do a great job of explaining this, but in most other ways the Eberron book is the best (least-boring setting book) that WotC has published for 5E. It's the first time I've looked at a WotC setting and not thought "how cliche! my players will have a better experience if I just make something up on the fly." Eberron as presented in 5E is a genuinely interesting setting that I can imagine players getting attached to, and Aberrant Dragonmarks are a part of that even though mechanically they are pretty meh.

[moonfly7]

In what way is that different from Magic Initiate? Both of them have no feature permitting you to cast the spell with spell slots.
They're saying that the wording "you learn" means that you learn the spell, meaning it's added to your spell list. Whereas magic initiate specifically lets you cast the spell specifically once a short or long rest(I forget which) this wording opens up the interpretation that you can cast it with normal slots since you learn it, which generally means adding it to your spell list. And since other dragon marks add spells, I personally think it fits the theme and would rule it that way.

[MaxWilson]

They're saying that the wording "you learn" means that you learn the spell, meaning it's added to your spell list. Whereas magic initiate specifically lets you cast the spell specifically once a short or long rest(I forget which) this wording opens up the interpretation that you can cast it with normal slots since you learn it, which generally means adding it to your spell list. And since other dragon marks add spells, I personally think it fits the theme and would rule it that way.

But Magic Initiate also uses the word "learn." From errata:

Magic Initiate (p. 168). The second paragraph has been changed to “In addition, choose one 1st-level spell to learn from that same list. Using this feat, you can cast the spell once at its lowest level, and you must finish a long rest before you can cast it in this way again.”

Emphasis mine. However, the ability to cast spells you have learned using spell slots is always tied to a specific spell list, e.g. Spellcasting for Sorcerers says:

The Sorcerer shows how many spell slots you have to cast your sorcerer spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these sorcerer spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.

[AFB but I'm relying on online sources + errata. Hopefully this quote is accurate.]

If you've got the Sorcerer: Spellcasting feature, then you can use spell slots to cast the Aberrant Mark sorcerer spell. If not, you can't, unless your DM decides that's silly and rules otherwise.

[stoutstien]

But Magic Initiate also uses the word "learn." From errata:

Magic Initiate (p. 168). The second paragraph has been changed to “In addition, choose one 1st-level spell to learn from that same list. Using this feat, you can cast the spell once at its lowest level, and you must finish a long rest before you can cast it in this way again.”

Emphasis mine. However, the ability to cast spells you have learned using spell slots is always tied to a specific spell list, e.g. Spellcasting for Sorcerers says:

The Sorcerer shows how many spell slots you have to cast your sorcerer spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these sorcerer spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.

[AFB but I'm relying on online sources + errata. Hopefully this quote is accurate.]

If you've got the Sorcerer: Spellcasting feature, then you can use spell slots to cast the Aberrant Mark sorcerer spell. If not, you can't, unless your DM decides that's silly and rules otherwise.

The difference is doesn't have the limit of only being cast at the 1st level like MI. Was it intentionally written differently? No idea.
Just an other observation of different writing in this book.

[Evaar]

But Magic Initiate also uses the word "learn." From errata:

Magic Initiate (p. 168). The second paragraph has been changed to “In addition, choose one 1st-level spell to learn from that same list. Using this feat, you can cast the spell once at its lowest level, and you must finish a long rest before you can cast it in this way again.”

Emphasis mine. However, the ability to cast spells you have learned using spell slots is always tied to a specific spell list, e.g. Spellcasting for Sorcerers says:

The Sorcerer shows how many spell slots you have to cast your sorcerer spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these sorcerer spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.

[AFB but I'm relying on online sources + errata. Hopefully this quote is accurate.]

If you've got the Sorcerer: Spellcasting feature, then you can use spell slots to cast the Aberrant Mark sorcerer spell. If not, you can't, unless your DM decides that's silly and rules otherwise.

Looking at both the feats, I think you're right that it's intended to work the same way as Magic Initiate. The only difference in language is "and can cast it through your mark." Magic Initiate says "and can cast it at its lowest level." And then both have the notes about resting "before you can cast it again using this feat" or "before you can cast it again through the mark." In the latter case, "through the mark" is clearly the same meaning as "using this feat." Neither one says anything about being able to use it with other spell slots if you have them.

So yup, agreed, it seems to work just like Magic Initiate does.

Disclaimer that this is all relying on online sources, if the language is different elsewhere then the above could all be mistaken.