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

[Paul Farquhar]

Extract From The Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron:

A dragonmarked race gives you a very specific set of traits. However, you can also explain your class abilities as being a result of your exceptional connection to your dragonmark:

• If you’re playing a bard with the Mark of Shadow, you could say that your illusion spells are drawn from your mark. If you’re a halfling bard with the Mark of Healing, you could describe your mark as the source of your healing magic.
• As a life cleric with the Mark of Healing, you’re able to use your mark to channel positive energy and perform remarkable feats of healing. You could combine this with religious faith or you could say that the mark alone is the source of your divine magic.
• If you’re a warlock with an aberrant dragonmark, you could say that the mark itself is your fiendish patron and the source of your arcane powers. You don’t fully understand the nature of your mark, but you know that it’s growing stronger and you’re afraid you might lose control of it.

These descriptions don’t change your character’s abilities in any way. It’s simply a way to add flavor and story to your character. Though if you’re channeling divine power through your dragonmark, you might use a crystal (normally an arcane focus) as your holy symbol, representing a makeshift dragonmark focus item.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

It's a poor decision that was made 5 years ago, and now tables that don't allow feats are not just a thing, but a common thing, and designers have to make decisions accordingly.

Hypothetically, Eberron could have been flagged "feats required for this setting", but, like sticking an "R" rating on a film, it would be viewed as limiting potential sales.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's a poor decision that was made 5 years ago, and now tables that don't allow feats are not just a thing, but a common thing, and designers have to make decisions accordingly.

Hypothetically, Eberron could have been flagged "feats required for this setting", but, like sticking an "R" rating on a film, it would be viewed as limiting potential sales.

A poor decision that could have been corrected. I honestly think this sort of approach probably cuts 1-2 years off the potential lifespan of 5E as well as likely excluding Dark Sun. Instead someone up the chain doubled down on a bad decision.

As for limiting sales, let's be realistic here - it would not have. The number of groups who wouldn't have bought the book because one element of it involved Feats is approximately zero. Every setting book has involved Feats and locking Greater Dragonmarks behind them would not have made a measurable difference to sales. Not even 1%. A better compromise would be an optional "no Feats except Greater Dragonmarks" rule or to call them "alternate ASIs" or the like.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A poor decision that could have been corrected. I honestly think this sort of approach probably cuts 1-2 years off the potential lifespan of 5E as well as likely excluding Dark Sun. Instead someone up the chain doubled down on a bad decision.

I don't disagree with you, but someone from a "no feats" table might.

I had already noted that direction taken by the current team made a faithful version of Dark Sun rather difficult, outside of some kind of "Based on D&D 5e but not actually D&D" branding that would also apply to Gamma World etc.

 

[MarkB]

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.

It's not a small minority. As I recall, WotC's own research shows that a majority of players don't use feats for their characters. That's not to say that a majority of groups ban feats at their tables, but it certainly seems likely that far more than just a small minority do so - and that, even at tables where they're not banned, they may well not see use. So, no, WotC are not going to start making fundamental elements of their game settings dependent upon their use. That ship has sailed, years ago.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not a small minority. As I recall, WotC's own research shows that a majority of players don't use feats for their characters. That's not to say that a majority of groups ban feats at their tables, but it certainly seems likely that far more than just a small minority do so - and that, even at tables where they're not banned, they may well not see use. So, no, WotC are not going to start making fundamental elements of their game settings dependent upon their use. That ship has sailed, years ago.

That's a straightforward strawman argument and very disingenuous.

I said groups don't ban them. Whether PCs have them has very little to do with that. Everything we know about 5E says the vast majority of PCs being played are very low level, typically 1-4, with very, very few above L10. Almost no PCs below L8 will have a Feat unless they are VHuman. At L4 almost everyone not using rolled stats and many people who are will take an ASI. At L8 many will still take an ASI, so it isn't until 12 that Feats become even potentially common. And few people play PCs that high.

Greater Dragonmark being Feat-based would not present a problem.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I'm as a big a fan of Eberron as they come, and I don't think it's a "complete mistake". If the Greater Dragonmark feat is no longer valid, it isn't ideal, as it cuts down on the number of mechanical expressions you can make of different concepts. But having the mark give access to extra spells to spellcasting classes, and using spellcasting classes as a way to show focus on developing the mark's ability makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

as it cuts down on the number of mechanical expressions you can make of different concepts.

No it doesn't, it increases it. What about the Medium Dragonmarks? Or the Slightly-Bigger-Than-Medium-But-Smaller-Than-Greater Dragonmarks? I would suggest that the Lesser/Greater dragonmark idea is an artefact of 3rd edition feat trees, rather than a "realistic" depiction of something that should really be a continuum.

If you buy into the idea of refluffing classes to represent dragonmark powers, as suggested in the Wayfinders Guide (I quoted earlier) then you can have a much more flexible range of abilities.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

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.

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".

Multiclassing is just as optional as feats are. Honestly, I wouldn't have an issue with dragonmarked monks just being able to use their qi to activate dragonmarked abilities. For fighters I could see a "dragonmarked warrior" fighting style that lets them tap the advanced dragonmark abilities. I'll have to think on an opportunity cost solution for Rogues.

 

[Weiley31]

For my left Toe Dragon Mark, the Hokey Pokey is a must for activations!