D&D 5E Running Eberron in 5E

[Andor]

This.

Especially when subraces are involved... so you cant be a mountain dwarf if you are a Cannith? Backgrounds are the logical and mechanical option for House membership in addition to a normal background. So in Eberron House Membership Background should be a bonus background anyone can take. Just like joining the Harpers or Lord's Alliance.

Actually that's a good point. The Adventurers League Rules provide an additional mechanic for representing both Houses and some of the other groups in Eberron, the faction rules. That seems like the proper place to put House Membership/Affiliation. The Mark could then be covered by a feat and/or Background.

 

[ccooke]

So, I've never really looked at Eberron, but there's a mechanical point that might be easily overlooked.

With 5e backgrounds, you get two skill proficiencies, either two tools, two languages or one of each and a Feature.

It's been said, however, that Features can also be earned in play - and that also means they can be awarded for various reasons in the RAW. I'm planning to use a Knighthood feature as a reward for one of my games - save the city a few times, get knighted. It gives the players the solid mechanical benefit that would otherwise be dealt with behind the scenes.

For Dragonmarks, an array of Features that give some benefit might be a useful thing. Sure, not all the design-space for dragonmarks lies within the social-mechanical non-combat category that background features represent, but as a combination of that and either sub-races or feats, you have a nice array of options without overloading any one category.

 

[Wrathamon]

This.

Especially when subraces are involved... so you cant be a mountain dwarf if you are a Cannith? Backgrounds are the logical and mechanical option for House membership in addition to a normal background. So in Eberron House Membership Background should be a bonus background anyone can take. Just like joining the Harpers or Lord's Alliance.

I read this as you're not a House Cannith Human but a Dragonmarked Human, just cause you have a dragonmark doesn't make you a member of a house and just because you're a member of a house doesnt mean you have a dragonmark. That is why I dont like backgrounds for this, because they shouldn't give you access to a dragonmark, the House background should give you benefits of being in the House. For Cannith it might be free repairs for the warforged, magic item discounts, access to the forges, etc.

Thematically backgrounds are not the right place for this.

Backgrounds are meant for who you were before you became a hero/adventurer. Dragonmarks for me seem like the opposite of that. They are marking you as part of the prophecy and therefore helping define the hero you are going to be.

I also could argue mechanically they aren't because most of the features are roleplaying out of combat centric.

I don't know if sub-race is the way to go but, I can see it working similar to how the drow subrace works with advancing mechanics as they level. Does it replace anything? or is it additive? I see it as additive. If you don't get a dragonmark then what do non-dragonmarked players get? Maybe they get action points or extra inspiration. The player can choose to trade in this resource to get a dragonmark feature. It could also be a feat and all eberron characters get a bonus feat at 1st level.

 

[Astrosicebear]

So, I've never really looked at Eberron, but there's a mechanical point that might be easily overlooked.

With 5e backgrounds, you get two skill proficiencies, either two tools, two languages or one of each and a Feature.

It's been said, however, that Features can also be earned in play - and that also means they can be awarded for various reasons in the RAW. I'm planning to use a Knighthood feature as a reward for one of my games - save the city a few times, get knighted. It gives the players the solid mechanical benefit that would otherwise be dealt with behind the scenes.

For Dragonmarks, an array of Features that give some benefit might be a useful thing. Sure, not all the design-space for dragonmarks lies within the social-mechanical non-combat category that background features represent, but as a combination of that and either sub-races or feats, you have a nice array of options without overloading any one category.

True enough... however, in Eberron, Dragonmarked individuals tend to be the exception not the rule. While normally this would work, a feature that's used by the 1% seems better placed outside of background.

 

[MarkB]

True enough... however, in Eberron, Dragonmarked individuals tend to be the exception not the rule. While normally this would work, a feature that's used by the 1% seems better placed outside of background.

Dragonmarked individuals are the exception rather than the rule in the general population. In the population of characters that are actually played as PCs dragonmarks are a great deal more common, and since Backgrounds are a tool for creating PCs, there is at least potential good reason to use them.

That said, I'd go with integrating dragonmarks into existing backgrounds primarily, rather than creating new ones. In the other recent thread, my suggestion was to allow a Least dragonmark to replace one of a character's skill or tool proficiencies, and then to represent more powerful dragonmarks through feats.

 

[Wrathamon]

In the other recent thread, my suggestion was to allow a Least dragonmark to replace one of a character's skill or tool proficiencies, and then to represent more powerful dragonmarks through feats.

I dont see how a tool proficiency or a skill is = a power of a dragonmark. I guess I would want to re-look at your examples again. But, trading something you get at first level for a dragonmark is fine place to start, opposed to making it a background. I am pretty entrenched in the anti-background camp, I have a hard time seeing how it fits there. I am trying to be open minded thou.

The other issue I have with minor powers that dragonmarks in 3e were. They were a bit underwhelming and they actually didn't feel that special or worth even getting (as a feat) to be honest.

I would prefer that even a least mark is interesting and worthy of a how the 5e feats currently are.


Out of Left field idea .... or a 1st edition feel to Dragonmarks.

All players have a chance to get a Dragonmark. At character creation, they roll % to see if they are marked and then roll again to see the size of the mark. You only get the lvl 1 powers, but as you level you learn to control your mark and get access to more powerful abilities. Also, a player can take a feat to increase the size of their mark or even manifest a mark later on in their adventuring life. If you aren't of a dragonmarked race you can get an aberrant mark.

What if I dont get one? tough this is AD&D ...

This is where I would add in the inspiration idea, you get 2 bonus inspiration points per adventuring day.

 

[Hellcow]

Base AC 13 (modifiable through feat based upgrades).

Armor class is the trickiest aspect for warforged. If what you're suggesting here is not an AC bonus, but simply a flat AC value if you're not wearing armor, there's the question of how this interacts with Unarmored Defense abilities. If it's essentially a +3 AC for Monks and Barbarians, that's obviously an issue; on the other hand, if it's treated as wearing armor then it is potentially a limitation to those classes in the long run. Either way, it's something that's useful to light-armor classes while being useless to anyone who wants to wear heavy armor.

One option that would be in line with 3.5 is to offer a choice: Base AC 13 and considered to be wearing light armor, or base AC 17 and considered to be wearing heavy armor. There would have to either be an option to take no bonus or to say that you don't require proficiency with the AC 13 body or you rule out warforged wizards; on the other hand if there's a blanket no-proficiency-required-for-bodies rule, warforged wizards are suddenly awesome arcane tanks as proficiency is the only restriction on spellcasting in armor.

It could be that this is what you were suggesting by saying that AC could be increased feats and then giving them a bonus feat at first level, but that would still make the race better for low-armor classes; your warforged rogue gets good armor and a feat, while your warforged fighter has to use his innate feat to get an AC other fighters can buy.

Essentially, I don't feel that I'm comfortable enough with the system at this point - especially the balancing of armor class, something that's very different from previous editions - to decide exactly what is fair. I need to play more and study it further before I can come up with warforged stats I'm entirely happy with.

 

[sunshadow21]

While I'm not overly familiar with the specifics of backgrounds, I don't think they are a good fit for dragonmarks for one simple reason. Most of the characters I have played or seen played with dragonmarks didn't take them at character creation, which is where backgrounds are chosen. They were added later as the character developed. Baking them into backgrounds doesn't allow that kind of development.

 

[Valetudo]

Armor class is the trickiest aspect for warforged. If what you're suggesting here is not an AC bonus, but simply a flat AC value if you're not wearing armor, there's the question of how this interacts with Unarmored Defense abilities. If it's essentially a +3 AC for Monks and Barbarians, that's obviously an issue; on the other hand, if it's treated as wearing armor then it is potentially a limitation to those classes in the long run. Either way, it's something that's useful to light-armor classes while being useless to anyone who wants to wear heavy armor.

One option that would be in line with 3.5 is to offer a choice: Base AC 13 and considered to be wearing light armor, or base AC 17 and considered to be wearing heavy armor. There would have to either be an option to take no bonus or to say that you don't require proficiency with the AC 13 body or you rule out warforged wizards; on the other hand if there's a blanket no-proficiency-required-for-bodies rule, warforged wizards are suddenly awesome arcane tanks as proficiency is the only restriction on spellcasting in armor.

It could be that this is what you were suggesting by saying that AC could be increased feats and then giving them a bonus feat at first level, but that would still make the race better for low-armor classes; your warforged rogue gets good armor and a feat, while your warforged fighter has to use his innate feat to get an AC other fighters can buy.

Essentially, I don't feel that I'm comfortable enough with the system at this point - especially the balancing of armor class, something that's very different from previous editions - to decide exactly what is fair. I need to play more and study it further before I can come up with warforged stats I'm entirely happy with.

Not all racial abilities need to be useful for all classes in 5th, take the mountain dwarf for example. He gets a +2 to str because his armor prof. is useless for almost all martial classes. It sounds like the warforged might end up being a strong race so making his racial abilities more usefull for some classes is ok. Another way is to have warforged subclasses.

 

[Hellcow]

Not all racial abilities need to be useful for all classes in 5th, take the mountain dwarf for example. He gets a +2 to str because his armor prof. is useless for almost all martial classes.

Which is basically my point; a bonus to default AC is useful for classes with light or no armor proficiency but largely meaningless to a class with superior proficiencies; this would need to be addressed in some way. Because the race has an ability that is largely useless for a class commonly associated with it, it has another ability that supports that class. And within the world, warforged fighters are certainly more common than warforged wizards.

But this is essentially my larger point: I'm still learning things about the balance of the system. AC in particular is very different from previous editions, and it's something I want to study further before committing to any sort of AC modification... and warforged are certainly a candidate for some form of AC modification.

Another way is to have warforged subclasses.

This is certainly a logical path. 3.5 had two basic models of PC warforged - mithral plating and adamantine plating (and technically, "no plating"). In 5E, these may make sense as subraces - with the mithral as the light rogue/scout model, and the adamantine as the heavy tank.