D&D 5E 5e Dragonmarks thematically problematic?

[The Crimson Binome]

Acolyte: 2 HD, 1st level caster. Has one too many HD.
Assassin: 12 HD, but sneak attack of a 7th level rogue. Has two attacks.
Cult Fantatic: 6 HD, 4th level caster.
Druid: 5 HD, 4th level caster. No wild shape.
Spy: 6 HD, SA of a 3rd level rogue.

If you notice, the HD are always greater than the caster level (or effective class level). That's because Hit Dice (as a pseudo-equivalent for level) aren't a thing anymore. Instead, they just tell you how many Hit Points something has. An acolyte has 2d8 Hit Dice - about 9 Hit Points - and casts spells like a level 1 Cleric.

Do you know what kind of PC also has about 9 Hit Points, and casts spells like a level 1 Cleric?

NPC abilities are simplified mechanics for representing the same underlying reality for which PCs have complex mechanics. It's a presentation issue.

 

[doctorhook]

The DMG guidelines for creating magic items uses essentially the same spell levels for common, uncommon, and rare items, respectively. Common = least; Uncommon = lesser; Rare = Greater. Also reflects their prevalence in the world! An Aberrant mark might be Very Rare (exceptionally powerful, even at a low level!), a Siberys mark might be LEGENDARY.

I really like this approach, but I don't think aberrant marks should necessarily be considered more "rare" than the other marks (even if they really are less common). Aberrant marks are basically cursed--magic with a major drawback, i.e.: characters known to possess an aberrant mark will be treated as pariahs by most people from the Five Nations, as well as hunted mercilessly forever by the dragonmarked houses (not to mention groups like the Chamber and the Lords of Dust).

 

[Jester David]

You can use the NPC method to represent something with less effort than statting out a full PC, but that doesn't mean you can or should represent things that are clearly in defiance of how people exist in the world. It would be disingenuous to create an NPC wizard who had 7th-level spells and only 5 hit dice, because that shows a disconnect between levels and what they mean.

The laws of the world are that you need a certain amount of experience in the world before you can wield that powers of a Dragonmark (except for humans, if you're using that one overpowered variant). If you let NPCs get away with this, where PCs cannot, then your players have every right to call you out on this.

Rule #1 of being a good DM: Be fair. The PCs might not be special snowflakes who can break the rules of the world, but neither are the NPCs.

Fair is not the same as equal.
If it makes sense to the story to have a 5 hit dice spellcaster who can cast 7th levels spells (and I didn't design it to hack the challenge system) then that's fair and within my rights as a GM. It seems very reasonable that a commoner NPC who has no class levels might be able to manifest the powers of a dragonmark at different rates.

 

[Jester David]

Canonically, greater marks can never become Siberys marks. All dragonmarks are special, but Siberys marks are special among special.

I stand corrected.

Not a bad take on it, but a least dragonmark really ought to grant a cantrip-level ability at minimum.

There's no perfect way in 5e short of giving everyone a dragonmark. Maybe a penalty to ability scores to dragonmarked houses?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Fair is not the same as equal.

It's not fair if the DM knows the rules of the game and the players don't. That's aside from the issue of inherent meaning and how the world actually works. You can represent PCs and NPCs differently, such as to simplify bookkeeping for yourself, but it still needs to be in a way that the players can understand based on their knowledge of how things work.

If it makes sense to the story to have a 5 hit dice spellcaster who can cast 7th levels spells (and I didn't design it to hack the challenge system) then that's fair and within my rights as a GM. It seems very reasonable that a commoner NPC who has no class levels might be able to manifest the powers of a dragonmark at different rates.

I completely disagree, because it's an established fact of the world that you need at least X number of hit dice before you cast Y level of spells. As a player, I know that to be true, based on every piece of information available to me.

If you want to change that, as the DM, then you're saying that the world doesn't actually work how I believe it to work. Which is fine, and there are nothing wrong with house rules, as long as everyone agrees to them. But you can't tell me that it works one way for this NPC, and my PC can't do the same thing, unless there's an in-game reason for it. The rules don't support a reality where PCs and NPCs are actually different, because PC vs NPC isn't a status which the game world can possibly recognize.

 

[Staffan]

Fair is not the same as equal.
If it makes sense to the story to have a 5 hit dice spellcaster who can cast 7th levels spells (and I didn't design it to hack the challenge system) then that's fair and within my rights as a GM. It seems very reasonable that a commoner NPC who has no class levels might be able to manifest the powers of a dragonmark at different rates.

In 3.5e, they solved that by providing the Dragonmark Heir prestige class that (if taken at the earliest possible opportunity) would give you the Lesser and Greater dragonmark a level before you'd be able to take it with feats, and without spending extra feats on them. It also gave you extra uses of the mark. The class was essentially a prestige class for NPC classes, because the abilities were nowhere near on par with what you'd get from an actual PC class.

 

[Jester David]

It's not fair if the DM knows the rules of the game and the players don't. That's aside from the issue of inherent meaning and how the world actually works. You can represent PCs and NPCs differently, such as to simplify bookkeeping for yourself, but it still needs to be in a way that the players can understand based on their knowledge of how things work.

Player's don't need to understand the mechanics of an NPC. They interact with that via the description provided by the DM. An NPC might be attacking with a longsword and dealing 12 or 14 damage on attacks. That could be 2d8+4 or 1d8+9 or 1d4+11. But the players will have no idea and it doesn't really matter.

I completely disagree, because it's an established fact of the world that you need at least X number of hit dice before you cast Y level of spells. As a player, I know that to be true, based on every piece of information available to me.

If you want to change that, as the DM, then you're saying that the world doesn't actually work how I believe it to work. Which is fine, and there are nothing wrong with house rules, as long as everyone agrees to them. But you can't tell me that it works one way for this NPC, and my PC can't do the same thing, unless there's an in-game reason for it. The rules don't support a reality where PCs and NPCs are actually different, because PC vs NPC isn't a status which the game world can possibly recognize.

It's okay for dragons to cast spells without having wizard levels. Other races can just get spellcasting. The difference between making a whitsnick humanoid monster with 5 hit dice that can cast 4th level spells and a human NPC with that same statblock is largely cosmetic. The PCs aren't going to know the creature doesn't have the same number of hit dice as the party wizard. They're not going to see the statblock in use. They're not going to audit your NPCs.

Monsters don't play by the same rules. Just like how the bandit captain (MM pg 344) can always parry while the fighter has to spend superiority dice, or the gladiator (MM 346) deals an extra die or damage with its weapon, or the thug and tribal warrior (MM pg 350) have pack tactics.
If I want to make a human wizard blood channeller that sacrificed their physical health for greater arcane power and can do things a normal PC cannot then that's fine. So long as it's a fair opponent and I'm not being a dick to my players.

 

[Remathilis]

If you notice, the HD are always greater than the caster level (or effective class level). That's because Hit Dice (as a pseudo-equivalent for level) aren't a thing anymore. Instead, they just tell you how many Hit Points something has. An acolyte has 2d8 Hit Dice - about 9 Hit Points - and casts spells like a level 1 Cleric.

Do you know what kind of PC also has about 9 Hit Points, and casts spells like a level 1 Cleric?

NPC abilities are simplified mechanics for representing the same underlying reality for which PCs have complex mechanics. It's a presentation issue.

So you've successfully argued NPCs should have Hp roughly in line with its CR.

How does that change that NPCs can have a dragonmark at DM's whim while PCs need to wait to 4th level?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So you've successfully argued NPCs should have Hp roughly in line with its CR.

How does that change that NPCs can have a dragonmark at DM's whim while PCs need to wait to 4th level?

I argue nothing about CR, because CR is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm arguing that a given priestess of novice ability can be represented as either a level 1 Cleric, or an acolyte with 2 hit dice. The world still contains the same types of people, whether you use PC rules or NPC rules to represent them.

Given that it's impossible to represent a level 1 Halfling PC with the appropriate Dragonmark, it must also be impossible for that same Halfling to have that Dragonmark if you write it up using NPC rules. Otherwise, it means that NPCs are in-game distinguishable from PCs, with all that entails.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Player's don't need to understand the mechanics of an NPC. They interact with that via the description provided by the DM. An NPC might be attacking with a longsword and dealing 12 or 14 damage on attacks. That could be 2d8+4 or 1d8+9 or 1d4+11. But the players will have no idea and it doesn't really matter.
[...]
The PCs aren't going to know the creature doesn't have the same number of hit dice as the party wizard. They're not going to see the statblock in use. They're not going to audit your NPCs.

Yeah, that's... not cool. The players aren't going to audit your NPCs, because they trust you as a DM to not just be making up numbers. All numbers have meaning, and they kind of lose their integrity when you don't at least try for them to make sense.

Maybe some players won't mind if you play fast and loose with the rules, though. YMMV.