D&D 5E Rising from the Last War preview featuring Keith Baker

[Cap'n Kobold]

Exactly. I’m fine with a Jorasco Wizard having the ability to learn their healing spells as wizard spells, even.

But a Jorasco Thief or Monk should also be able to have those spells.

So: add to spell list, and also get to cast 1/day would be the ideal I think?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So: add to spell list, and also get to cast 1/day would be the ideal I think?

Yep. I’d actually say, for a feat, I’d want to be able to cast a Dragonmark spell X/day, learn the spell/add it to class spell list, and learn it as a ritual if it has that tag.

You’d know more Mark spells than that X/day value, of course.

To clarify, if the feat grants 6 spells, it only grants, say, 3 castings of Mark spells. So, the power level is in line with the xanathars race magic feats.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

NPC vs PC building rules is an irrelevant tangent.

Dragonmarks do not require training in Spellcasting.

Having the Spellcasting feature does not mean "trained in spellcasting" - just ask a sorcerer!

It really means "has spell slots".

The difference is that in 3.5 and 4e the dragonmark progression was largely orthogonal to your class progression; you strengthened your dragonmark by taking feats that you got based purely on level, not on class selection.

This. With feats relegated to optional rule in 5e that kind of orthogonal development is not really possible in this edition. It's bad game design to gate a core rule behind an optional rule.

But a Jorasco Thief or Monk should also be able to have those spells.

Firstly, remember that you are only talking about PCs. If the DM decides the NPC Jorasco Healer is also a leet martial artist they can do that.

Secondly, the 5e mark grants some spells automatically, for exactly these types of characters. If a player really wants to orthogonally develop their connection to the mark a Rogue they can use the Arcane Trickster subclass, or a monk or thief could multiclass, which is the closest 5e can get to "orthogonal development".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Having the Spellcasting feature does not mean "trained in spellcasting" - just ask a sorcerer!

It really means "has spell slots".



This. With feats relegated to optional rule in 5e that kind of orthogonal development is not really possible in this edition. It's bad game design to gate a core rule behind an optional rule.



Firstly, remember that you are only talking about PCs. If the DM decides the NPC Jorasco Healer is also a leet martial artist they can do that.

Secondly, the 5e mark grants some spells automatically, for exactly these types of characters. If a player really wants to orthogonally develop their connection to the mark a Rogue they can use the Arcane Trickster subclass, or a monk or thief could multiclass, which is the closest 5e can get to "orthogonal development".

This is entirely unacceptable as a model for Eberron’s Dragonmarks.

Having a Greater Mark should not require specific class or subclass choices. Period.

And keep your nit picking. The Marks do not, in the lore, require any Spellcasting ability whatsoever to use. Changing that is wholly unnecessary, and changes the nature of what stories can be told with Dragonmarks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is entirely unacceptable as a model for Eberron’s Dragonmarks.

Then you will need to play with 3rd edition rules, with it's abundant core rules feats. Eberron was designed for 3rd edition rules. Obviously things will work differently with 5e rules (which has no core rules feats).

Having a Greater Mark should not require specific class or subclass choices. Period.

There is no crunch distinction between Greater and Lesser marks now. You can fluff it how you like.

And keep your nit picking. The Marks do not, in the lore, require any Spellcasting ability whatsoever to use.

Does not having a Mark grant the ability to cast spells (any edition)? Then you have a spellcasting (no capital or italics) ability.

Spellcasting (italics) is a purely game mechanic term denoting that you have spell slots.

Changing that is wholly unnecessary, and changes the nature of what stories can be told with Dragonmarks.

It was absolutely necessary, because feats are an optional rule in 5e, and a great many groups don't allow them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Does not having a Mark grant the ability to cast spells (any edition)? Then you have a spellcasting (no capital or italics) ability.

Spellcasting (italics) is a purely game mechanic term denoting that you have spell slots.

This is nonsensical nitpicking.

In fiction, it has always been possible to play a character with a Greater Mark whose only magical abilities are those granted by the mark. That is an essential part of how the marks function in the world.

You seem very dedicated to excusing this garbage decision, but no one I’ve talked to who is actually a fan of Eberron thinks this is anything but a complete mistake.


Edit: No, never mind. Your insistent nitpicking and refusal to even try to engage with the points of someone that disagrees with you have earned you a spot on my ignore list.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It was absolutely necessary, because feats are an optional rule in 5e, and a great many groups don't allow them.

This sets a very poor precedent that will likely haunt 5E to the end of its days and somewhat hasten that end, I would say. In previous editions, it was always possible for a specific setting to require the usage of certain otherwise-optional rules.

This decision essentially suggests that no official setting can ever now require an optional rule, however much sense it would make, however fundamental to the lore of that setting it is. At the very least it says that of Feats, which is pretty bad.

I'm sure some people will defend it, just as some people defend every Wotc decision until they hit that one they can't stand, but it was a bad decision, and smacks of corporate meddling, where branding and mindless consistency trump setting lore and and common sense. It's not 4E FR bad but it's the same kind of thinking, just applied to mechanics. In this case someone higher up the food chain at WotC obviously overruled the actual writers and decreed that Feats couldn't be used, and to the nine hells with the setting and lore consequences, just as someone at WotC once decreed that Tieflings, Dragonborn et al need major, world-altering, generic race lore consistent presences in the FR, and to hell with what needed blowing up to achieve that (they could easily have been inserted without blowing up the FR, just not in a way easily consistent with their generic lore).

What next, Dark Sun without Defilers, because that's not how it works in the PHB? Or without Psionics, even? (as an aside this PHB+1 shenanigans means any Psionic classes must appear in the Dark Sun book itself, which I suspect may well lead to WotC skipping both DS and Psionics in 5E, which would be shameful).

 

[MarkB]

This sets a very poor precedent that will likely haunt 5E to the end of its days and somewhat hasten that end, I would say. In previous editions, it was always possible for a specific setting to require the usage of certain otherwise-optional rules.

Yeah, but Eberron's not the place for that. It's always been the kitchen sink setting that builds itself around the ruleset, not one that dictates the rules or creates restrictions. Having it impose rules upon players would go against its nature.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, but Eberron's not the place for that. It's always been the kitchen sink setting that builds itself around the ruleset, not one that dictates the rules or creates restrictions. Having it impose rules upon players would go against its nature.

I don't agree at all. Eberron was that for 3E, but at that point the lore locked in, because no setting, before or since, has so fully linked mechanics and setting. To change the lore in a fundamental way solely to support a small minority of 5E groups, most of whom likely would either have happily used Feats if using Eberron, or who aren't going to play Eberron either way is a bad precedent and I'm honestly skeptical we'll see Dark Sun in 5E as a result, and Planescape will likely be the disastrous post Monte Cook ruination version (which even Cook says wasn't where he intended to stop), probably just a chapter or two in a Manual of the Planes.

I guess that makes the speculation that Spelljammer, GH or DL will be next, setting-wise, more plausible.

Very skeptical that Keith Baker was totally cool with this, though I am sure he is professional enough not to publicly complain.

 

[Weiley31]

Here's an easy fix: Just give the fighter/monk/rogue/ non-spellcasting/etc a Dragon Mark/Greater Dragon Mark.

BOOM he/she has spell-like abilities that recharge on a long rest.

That's if they were born with it though.

Yes I'm fully aware that would make Variant Human get TWO FEATS if you did that. So either replace the feat V.Human gets with JUST the Dragonmark feat in or just deal with it.(two feats at once.)