Eberron: My issue with the 4e setting

[Mercule]

No love for free rituals?

Hey, everybody, free rituals!

Why no love for the free rituals?

They ain't free rituals.

It's the potential to learn those rituals and use them in the same way a character with Ritual Caster would. For an NPC who doesn't have to study for years to get the basics of rituals down, that's a really great benefits, but we've already established NPCs aren't taking the feat. If a PC is after the rituals, they may as well take Ritual Caster, instead, and get all the rituals open.

If the Marks actually awarded the rituals and/or reduced/eliminated the component cost, that would be fantastic. Otherwise, the possibility of accessing a handful of rituals isn't that great.

 

[CelticMutt]

Cataclysm Mage actually.

 

[N0Man]

My biggest issue was that any race can have any Dragonmark.

Well, as it's been pointed out, it's extremely easy to houserule.

However, in the spirit of the "saying Yes" philosophy, I let the shifter in my group take a house mark. I told him what the ramifications were. I told him that it was such a rare thing that he might be the only such person in the world, and that it had the potential of opening some doors, closing doors, causing distrust and uneasiness among some, and could lead to him being hunted down by some.

Once I explained all this to him, he asked if I'd permit it. I said, "Yes, as long as you understand what it means".

I was tempted to deny him, and felt that he was on a pretty shaky grounds... but the players are supposed to be exceptional, right? Besides, I figure that at least it gives me a way to explore the prophetic themes with the party.

Most importantly, D&D is a shared experience, and sometimes DMs have to step back and realize that players are there to explore their ideas, themes, and concepts too, not just gently guided along the path laid to experience the grandiose designs of the DM.

DM ego and stubbornness have ruined more D&D games than anything else I've ever seen (and I'll even concede that sometimes it was when I was DM).

 

[N0Man]

I, personally, have a huge beef with NPCs having abilities the PCs don't. I don't mind (kinda like, actually) that 4e uses a streamlined mechanic for NPCs to represent the same things PCs can do. The number one thing that ticked me off about 1e and 2e, though, was abilities NPCs got because they were NPCs. So, you're correct that the NPC doesn't have the feat, because feats are a PC mechanic. Please let me know how the PC can learn to do what the NPC can do, though.

This is, again, where a multiclass path or something similar might be of value for the Dragonmarks. If there was some breadth to how the Mark manifested in PCs, it'd be no big deal that NPCs don't manifest the way PCs do -- no two people manifest exactly the same. But, all PC Jorascos manifest the same way, so all NPC Jorascos should too.

The thing that we all have to accept though that this is just a matter of preference. This bugs you, but to me it's a huge improvement. I rather not have to worry about essentially "rolling up a character" for each NPC. The current way allows you to just use what you need. It's simple enough that with experience, that it's even possible to just totally wing an NPC without even having it statted out, and it can work fine.

However, if those kinds of thing really bug a person then it's not impossible to still stat out every NPC just like a player. The rules say that it's not necessary, I never say it was forbidden.

The only things I might be really concerned about would be Daily Powers and Action Points. Given that NPCs aren't going to last but 1 encounter, there is nothing holding them back from burning everything they have in 1 encounter, unlike players. These types of NPCs would be more dangerous foes than the usual. It could be possible to make it work though.

 

[Henry]

As much grief as the Char-op boarders get for things like Pun-Pun, few people seem to understand that the char-ops are also the ones who most don't use their own creations....

Yeah, some of the CharOps guys and gals are like "white hat hackers." They show you how to break the system so you can avoid it.

I found Dragonmarks to actually be useful this time around...In 3e, the dragonmark, while good for a commoner, was pretty much a fluff ability for one of that class.

I have to agree here, too. The new Dragonmarks strike me as like inborn talents rather than inborn once a day SLAs, like in 3E Eberron. Ever seen someone who seemed like they were just BORN to cook masterpieces in the kitchen, or who were such good mechanics that they could listen to a car for ten seconds and know exactly what the trouble was? Sure, they might be lawyers in real life, or English Lit professors, but more likely they followed careers that allowed their inborn talents to be "switched on."

I remember someone talking about Grandma Moses not starting her painting spree until she was in her 70's, I think? She died doing for only a short time what she was inherently best at, and her work is widely treasured. Had she had someone recognizing and nurturing her talent from the beginning, who knows what amazing works would have resulted? That's your Dwarf Wizard with the Mark of Healing analogy for you.

 

[Asmor]

Well, as it's been pointed out, it's extremely easy to houserule.

However, in the spirit of the "saying Yes" philosophy, I let the shifter in my group take a house mark. I told him what the ramifications were. I told him that it was such a rare thing that he might be the only such person in the world, and that it had the potential of opening some doors, closing doors, causing distrust and uneasiness among some, and could lead to him being hunted down by some.

Once I explained all this to him, he asked if I'd permit it. I said, "Yes, as long as you understand what it means".

I was tempted to deny him, and felt that he was on a pretty shaky grounds... but the players are supposed to be exceptional, right? Besides, I figure that at least it gives me a way to explore the prophetic themes with the party.

Most importantly, D&D is a shared experience, and sometimes DMs have to step back and realize that players are there to explore their ideas, themes, and concepts too, not just gently guided along the path laid to experience the grandiose designs of the DM.

DM ego and stubbornness have ruined more D&D games than anything else I've ever seen (and I'll even concede that sometimes it was when I was DM).

The kalashtar in my game has the mark of healing. I had a similar discussion with him about the ramifications of off-race dragonmarks, and it was actually this discussion which convinced him to take it. He likes the idea of his character having something like that which could potentially spell big trouble, and so do I!

I've been wanting to work in the draconic prophecy, and needless to say that is going to feature prominently in it.

 

[Glyfair]

They ain't free rituals.

It's the potential to learn those rituals and use them in the same way a character with Ritual Caster would.

Exactly. My House Jorasco dragonmarked wizard would have no real benefit from the dragonmark unless I took alchemy instead of ritual caster.

 

[stonegod]

Exactly. My House Jorasco dragonmarked wizard would have no real benefit from the dragonmark unless I took alchemy instead of ritual caster.

A few come with rituals pre-mastered (Mark of Making).

 

[Dire Bare]

I assume you are refering to the Eyes of the Lick Queen Adventure and the Child of Kyber PrC.

Eyes of the Lick Queen? Ewwwww!

 

[Imban]

The thing that we all have to accept though that this is just a matter of preference. This bugs you, but to me it's a huge improvement. I rather not have to worry about essentially "rolling up a character" for each NPC. The current way allows you to just use what you need. It's simple enough that with experience, that it's even possible to just totally wing an NPC without even having it statted out, and it can work fine.

However, if those kinds of thing really bug a person then it's not impossible to still stat out every NPC just like a player. The rules say that it's not necessary, I never say it was forbidden.

The only things I might be really concerned about would be Daily Powers and Action Points. Given that NPCs aren't going to last but 1 encounter, there is nothing holding them back from burning everything they have in 1 encounter, unlike players. These types of NPCs would be more dangerous foes than the usual. It could be possible to make it work though.

I don't think his problem is "NPCs don't use the exact same character creation rules as PCs" so much as "NPC wizards can magically fly with no duration cap, teleport anywhere on the plane as a standard action, and summon Pit Fiends who have full stats and don't eat into their actions" - you know, the standard "NPCs are all cooler than the poor benighted PCs who have to play by the rules" stuff.

So while a Jorasco healer doesn't have to be written up as a PC of any level at all, the Mark of Healing is written up as a slight boost to healing - not a godpower that gives you unlimited superhealing. So he'd prefer the NPCs to be described as using more like Dragonmark-boosted Healing Words than projecting an image of a great pearl dragon from their Dragonmark into the air that fully heals all allies, because the latter is not what Dragonmarks do.