Eberron mark

[Duncan Wynn Jr.]

You can go with that approach, but Baker still seems to be granted complete control over the development of the IP. As such, I'd consider the Forback novels - which contradict his statement - to be non-canon specifically because they violate Baker's statements abou what a mark should do. I never read the books, but from the summaries I see, they are in contradiction to the statements of Baker and thus are not part of the setting as officially released.

I googled it and came upon an article by Baker that said the design team didn`t consider Eberron novels canon but that they could be considered canon. The official Wizard`s novels. Since there isn`t any other info except Baker`s admitted non canon MOD article , I`ll go with the Lost Mark.

 

[CrimsonCarcharodon]

With Eberron, I take everything outside the 3.5 campaign setting book as non-canon, even stuff I really love like the Legacy of Dhakaan trilogy, the Draconic Prophecy trilogy, and the Lost Mark trilogy. I'd go with Keith Baker on this and make the mark more productive - really play up manipulating death. Speaking with the dead and preserving corpses ala the gentle repose spell would be good abilities, I'd think. And as the mark grows, as the marked person learns to use its power, I'd open up things like creating or commanding undead.

I like Keith Baker's take on dragonmarks, that pure marks should have a productive use.

 

[Duncan Wynn Jr.]

I'm not so much interested in the events of the Lost Mark as in the abilities that the MOD grants . Baker in his MOD article makes suggestions which I will keep in mind, but the only solid guidance on this seems to be the trilogy. If there were anything else I wouldn't bother with the Lost Mark. Thanks again for the suggestions!