Eberron: My issue with the 4e setting

[N0Man]

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.

Do any of these examples actually exist somewhere that I'm not aware of, or are you just practicing hyperbole (or blowing things out of proportion)?

 

[WayneLigon]

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

Ew. That was a huge plot point in my previous Eberron run, that not every race could have a Dragonmark. House rule #1, I suppose.

 

[Crothian]

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

I don't care how easy it would be to fix. It is something I felt was a big part of the 3e setting and the change really surprises me and is my biggest issue with the setting.

 

[Obryn]

Ew. That was a huge plot point in my previous Eberron run, that not every race could have a Dragonmark. House rule #1, I suppose.

They do provide a chart which shows which races have which Dragonmarks, and there aren't any examples of "incorrect" dragonmarks on any NPCs that I can see.

So if the DM wants to stay true to the 3e race associations, it works just fine!

-O

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the point of avoiding the Dragonmark to Race relation is to open up a new Eberron concept, kinda like "the freak everyone is after".

If you're a Tiefling with the Mark of Healing, House Jorasco wants to know how this could have happened. Some of them might see you as an abberation that needs to be destroyed. Some might want you to explore it.
Any dragon hearing of this will see this as a significant part of the Draconic Prophecy and try to get ahold of you (and this means a multiitude of goals).
Any other Dragonmarked house will worry about a new type of Aberrant Mark, potentially something that could lead to a new Dragonmark War, or at least something unsettling the foundation of their power.

Considering how much emphasis Eberron (especially the 4E campaign guide) tries to put on a new war, and the importance of the prophecy and how to use it, it would almost be a crime to say "by RAW, that's not a valid story you can have."

Of course you could "houserule" it the other way around and say that everyone can pick a Dragonmark. But this way it is far more likely someone sees this as an actual opportunity for the plot, and not just as some kind of standing truth that no one can change.

There are other elements in the 4E settings that allow such earth-shaking changes. There is an Epic Destiny that, once fulfilled, iyou learn the secret of the Mournlands and know how to restore it!

The Eberron Campaign Setting in 4E really tells you: It's your setting. We describe the basics, and then feel free to do with it whatever you like. Stuff will happen, and it can be as awesome, mind-boggling and world-changing as you desire.

 

[Asmor]

I don't care how easy it would be to fix. It is something I felt was a big part of the 3e setting and the change really surprises me and is my biggest issue with the setting.

I feel I must point out that in this respect, the setting has not changed at all.

I repeat: storywise, dragonmarks are identical in 3rd and 4th edition.

There is not a single, solitary off-race dragonmark in the canon.

The only thing that's changed here is a rule.

 

[Crothian]

I feel I must point out that in this respect, the setting has not changed at all.

I repeat: storywise, dragonmarks are identical in 3rd and 4th edition.

There is not a single, solitary off-race dragonmark in the canon.

The only thing that's changed here is a rule.

To me it is not just a rules change. It is a change in the way the world is; the setting has changed. It doesn't matter that there are no NPCs stated this way yet. It could happen in the future.

 

[N0Man]

I don't care how easy it would be to fix. It is something I felt was a big part of the 3e setting and the change really surprises me and is my biggest issue with the setting.

Your biggest issue is that they don't expressly forbid it, even though they came out and said explicitly that some of these marks on some of these races would be so extremely rare that the adventurer could be the only person in the world with it?

It seems to me that what they gave the DM (and players) was choice, and a clear idea what the implications of this choice are, to discourage someone from taking it flippantly. Laying out the contexts for Dragonmarks in the books also give the DM a reasonable basis for requesting that players stick to the appropriate marks.

When my player asked for permission to take an unusual Dragonmark, I didn't see this as a problem in the rules, but rather an opportunity to really explore the dragonmark and prophecy themes with the party.

But let's look at it another way. Let's say, hypothetically, that they were more restricted. If a player came up to you and said, "I'd really like to use this dragonmark. I know that I'm not the right race according to the rules, but it fits in really well with my character concept, and I think it would be fun to play a character with this unusual trait.", what would you tell him? Would you say, "no, because the book says it's against the rules and that's not how I view Eberron."?

 

[Imban]

Do any of these examples actually exist somewhere that I'm not aware of, or are you just practicing hyperbole (or blowing things out of proportion)?

I dunno, maybe the original post that started this conversation?

Also remember that the world and PC's run on different spheres, meaning that an NPC of the house Jorasco with the mark of healing *does not have the feat*. He has the Mark of Healing. He has the DM or story driven ability to heal as much or as little as needed. Perhaps his Syberys mark can remove disease or heal someone on their deathbed.

---

But let's look at it another way. Let's say, hypothetically, that they were more restricted. If a player came up to you and said, "I'd really like to use this dragonmark. I know that I'm not the right race according to the rules, but it fits in really well with my character concept, and I think it would be fun to play a character with this unusual trait.", what would you tell him? Would you say, "no, because the book says it's against the rules and that's not how I view Eberron."?

It depends on if it was the one or two of my players who just wants to play an unusual character, one of the roughly 2/3 of my players who would want it because it fit well with their character, or one of the roughly 1/3 of my players who would want it solely because it's part of their latest setup for cranking out overpowered characters.

Either that or if it was on that 1/3 they'd get to have the mark on their face, so they couldn't just cover it up and never mention it.

 

[N0Man]

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"

Do any of these examples actually exist somewhere that I'm not aware of, or are you just practicing hyperbole (or blowing things out of proportion)?

I dunno, maybe the original post that started this conversation?

The original post referenced wizards that can do all of those things? Is that so?

It depends on if it was the one or two of my players who just wants to play an unusual character, one of the roughly 2/3 of my players who would want it because it fit well with their character, or one of the roughly 1/3 of my players who would want it solely because it's part of their latest setup for cranking out overpowered characters.

Either that or if it was on that 1/3 they'd get to have the mark on their face, so they couldn't just cover it up and never mention it.

So, you would houserule it to allow for players, if the players wanted to choose a dragonmark for character and story reasons, if the restriction still existed.

If you were willing to houserule it that way, then why aren't you willing to houserule it the other way when a player comes up to you and just wants min-max a character without any consideration of the story implications that are clearly laid out in the book?

What you are effectively saying is that you're willing to houserule to encourage roleplaying but you aren't willing to houserule to discourage abusing a mechanic to min-max.

The only thing that removing the restriction does is to assume that people are being reasonable and using the marks the marks for story reasons, instead of assuming they are going to be chosen to min-max a character. This allows for characters who really want to play a different character concept, for story and roleplaying reasons, to be stopped by a DM who says, "sorry, the rules don't allow for this."

Really, the only thing removing the limitation does is to turn the table so that a DM only needs to step in to limit the abuse of the mechanic, rather than having to step in to allow a player to roleplay something interesting. I think that's a step forward.