+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Sunday, 23rd August, 2009, 08:12 AM #1
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
Proposal: Exclude Eberron Dragonmark feats
Ok, just wanted to get this out there for discussion before they are automatically adopted under the new proposal system.
I don't think it would be a horrible disaster if these feats did come in. However, I personally wouldn't mind seeing them excluded from L4W, for a couple of reasons.
First, they just feel too Eberron-specific to me in terms of flavor. I don't like the marks without the Houses, and the Prophecy, and the designated races. If someone comes up with some good story and setting bits to slot them into L4W, that would certainly help to alleviate this. And I know a couple of people have been working on just that. But just as a matter of personal taste, I'd just as soon keep them Eberron because I love how they fit there, and I fear an L4W version just would not feel right.
Second, they tend to be a bit more powerful than lots of other feats. Not earthshatteringly, game breakingly powerful by any means. And I understand that D&D is not a socialist feat paradise where all feats must be exactly equal. But as a group the dragonmarks are definitely on the upper end of things. They may not quite be "must-haves", but some of them seem like they render some standard feats obsolete. Who would take Linguist or Ritual Casting over Mark of Scribing? Who would take Skill Focus (Perception) over Mark of Sentinel? In Eberron, being dragonmarked carries a lot of "story baggage", so it's not such a no-brainer. Again, maybe some great L4W version could do the same, but it seems like a hard task.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 24th August, 2009, 02:55 PM #2
Defender (Lvl 8)
YES. There is certainly no shortage of rules elements available in L4W. I think it's perfectly reasonable to exclude things like dragonmarks, or FR backgrounds, which are setting specific.
That said, if someone wanted to propose them, or a version of them, as houseruled content with suitable L4W-specific story baggage, I'd certainly be willing to look at it.
Tuesday, 25th August, 2009, 04:16 AM #3
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
I'm usually Mr. Inclusion!, but I actually find myself thinking pretty similarly to Covaithe. Not quite ready to put that in green yet, though.
Tuesday, 25th August, 2009, 07:16 PM #4
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
I'm with Cov and Garyh. If someone wants to propose them with L4W story baggage, that's fine. Until then, I don't think we need them, and I think ryryguy is right about their relative power without the story baggage.
Current and past PbP: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4853360-post58.html
Tuesday, 25th August, 2009, 08:45 PM #5
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
It also doesn't appear that anyone has issues with this (since nobody but the judges has posted here)
Tuesday, 25th August, 2009, 11:20 PM #6
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
I like my dragonmarks to come with a large side of Eberron. They're not really meant for anything else in the same way that spell-fire isn't meant for anything outside of 2.0-3.5 Forgotten Realms. I think it would be too much work and you'd really have to push the envelope to make them work right in L4W and I'm not sure I really want that. If I could propose a big green YES, I would. But I can't, so I won't, lol. Ah what the heck... YES. (not that it means anything...)
Tuesday, 25th August, 2009, 11:39 PM #7
Scout (Lvl 6)
By Mustrum_Ridcully in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 2Last Post: Wednesday, 16th September, 2009, 02:16 PM
By chaotix42 in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 4Last Post: Thursday, 18th June, 2009, 09:09 AM
By Crothian in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 16Last Post: Wednesday, 11th April, 2007, 10:34 PM
By Dave Turner in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 26Last Post: Thursday, 14th July, 2005, 07:06 PM
By smetzger in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 8Last Post: Friday, 19th November, 2004, 05:12 PM