[Eberron] Why do none of the setting-specific races have a dragonmark?

[Henry]

A player and I were talking about something similar to this today. He explained that he wants to play someone with "combat skills and who can talk to people". And I explained (he already new this of course but he let me prattle on anyway) that for party balance reasons it doesn't work like that. Generally if you want lots of skill points you can't have best bab/high hitpoints.

Side note about a few options for him:

-Cleric or Paladin (Diplomacy is a core skill)
-Fighter with one or two levels of rogue or expert (which he uses to get the skills he wants, with the maximum cap)
-Fighter with the Cosmopolitan Feat from Forgotten Realms (gain a +1 to one skill, and it's now a class skill)
-As DM you could look into him playing a fighter, and giving him the core skills and 4 skill points/level that he wants, but reducing his bonus feats from 1/2 levels to 1/4 levels to balance it
-The Marshal Core class from Miniatures handbook or Complete Warrior (I think it's in there)


For someone who wants to play a Warforged with a Dragonmark (who REALLY wants to play it) I would look at it and discuss it to see if there's some way to accomodate it. Maybe it's indicative that he's got a human soul inside, and some of his immunities don't function as a result of he's more human than people realize? Failing that, if it's important to keep this as per book, I'd ask him to see it from the point of view of the DM, who wants to keep his game world consistent with the vision presented. But there's no real mechanical reason it couldn't be altered with checks and balances to get close to what he's looking for - and the "warrior who can be glib" concept is definitely doable.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

If one of my players wanted to play a warforged with a dragonmark, would I let him?

Sure.

But only because I am Evil.

 

[Klaus]

Side note about a few options for him:

-Cleric or Paladin (Diplomacy is a core skill)
-Fighter with one or two levels of rogue or expert (which he uses to get the skills he wants, with the maximum cap)
-Fighter with the Cosmopolitan Feat from Forgotten Realms (gain a +1 to one skill, and it's now a class skill)
-As DM you could look into him playing a fighter, and giving him the core skills and 4 skill points/level that he wants, but reducing his bonus feats from 1/2 levels to 1/4 levels to balance it
-The Marshal Core class from Miniatures handbook or Complete Warrior (I think it's in there)


For someone who wants to play a Warforged with a Dragonmark (who REALLY wants to play it) I would look at it and discuss it to see if there's some way to accomodate it. Maybe it's indicative that he's got a human soul inside, and some of his immunities don't function as a result of he's more human than people realize? Failing that, if it's important to keep this as per book, I'd ask him to see it from the point of view of the DM, who wants to keep his game world consistent with the vision presented. But there's no real mechanical reason it couldn't be altered with checks and balances to get close to what he's looking for - and the "warrior who can be glib" concept is definitely doable.

Or simply choose the Thug variant fighter from Unearthed Arcana. Light armor only, no bonus feat at 1st level and more skills and skill points (4 + Int).

Oh, and the Elves had two Dragonmarks (Shadow and Death), but the elves and dragons put a kibosh on the House of Death.

As for the original question, there are two answers:

1) Out-of-game: What Fafhrd and others mentioned above. It was a bone thrown to the core races to make them the main races of the setting, instead of the newer races.

2) In-game: Who knows? The Prophecy works in mysterious ways.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think it is only for flavor (and marketing) reasons, rather than game balance. Except for kalashtar, all of the Eberron races are new. Maybe they'll get dragonmarks over time (a DM of mine gave some NPC changelings dragonmarks... of course, no PCs were changelings).

From a game balance PoV, I don't see dragonmarks as being particularly powerful. They cost a feat, and I haven't noticed any that are particularly broken or overpowered for its cost, except maybe the Greater Mark of Making. If a DM allowed shifters (for instance), to spend a feat on the Mark on Handling, I don't see this making shifters more powerful relative to humans, dwarves, or what not.

IMO, there's such a thing as too many Dragonmarked Houses, as well. There are thirteen or so, just like everything significant in Eberron I don't think Eberron needs more of them.

 

[Rel]

Particularly taking into consideration the wide variety of feats and abilities added for the Eberron specific races in "Races of Eberron", I'm glad that the Dragonmarked Houses are still reserved for the core races. And I agree that there don't need to be more Dragonmarked Houses.

 

[Trickstergod]

I'm with you (and Fafhrd) on this one, but why double up the dragonmarks? There are races that have a lock on two marks. Surely one mark could have been given to the Eberron races before doubling up the PHB races? It sticks out like a sore thumb and seems like a blunder to me.

The multiple Dragonmarks ties into the general Eberron thread of 13 or 12+1. The number pops up quite frequently in the setting if you look around for it.

 

[mythusmage]

The new races had first choice.

"It's bad enough we tend to rust, I will not have the warforged limited in their options."

 

[Dave Turner]

the new races are powerful enough without adding in the option of a dragonmark.

But why construct races that are more powerful than PHB races and then balance the PHB races with a dragonmark? The designers could have just designed races of equal power to the PHB races and then given everyone dragonmarks.

I think it is only for flavor (and marketing) reasons, rather than game balance.

This seems to be the reason, I guess. It just strikes me as a poor one. It creates a meta-game clash for me. I understand that there are other humanoid races (most goblinoids) who have prominent roles in the setting and don't have dragonmarks, but they aren't earmarked as regular choices for a PC's race. It just seems arbitrary and unnecessary.

 

[Bront]

Well the setting specific races are chock full of newness. Perhaps it was simply an effort to give a new spin to the old races.

Exactly. I've had enough problems having a party not be full of warforged, or at least all new races (As it standed, half the party is in my home campaign, though 3 wanted to be warforged, 1 shifter, 1 kalashtar, and 1 was undecided).

That's also why you have the new racial weapons for Valenar Elves and Talenta Halfling (Which one of them is uber-sick. The Sharrash, is a 1d10 reach weapon with a 19-20/x4 crit, ouch)

Edit: Looks like it's actualy a x2, much saner.

 

[derbacher]

Well, my current group is loving the Eberron races. 1 warforged fighter, 1 Kalashtar Psion/wizard, 1 Shifter ranger, and 1 changeling rogue. No one has a dragonmark, and tehy don't much care.