D&D 5E 5e Dragonmarks thematically problematic?

[ExiledAuthor]

Apologies if this has been posed already, but I was reading the 1st Unearthed Arcana article (Eberron for 5e), and the Dragonmarks have me scratching my head.

I know that the UA articles are basically beta rules, but it seems odd that the Dragonmarks are written as Feats. Yes, they were Feats in 3.5, but Feats work a bit differently now. I like the more powerful, streamlined take in 5e, but Dragonmarks are a bit of a conundrum since a human character is the only race that can manifest one at 1st level, leaving the other Dragonmarked races to wait until 4th level.

Mechanically, you could (as a DM) just not allow the Variant Human Traits and relieve the issue, but this seems to not gel with the lore of Dragonmarks. Adventurers not manifesting Dragonmarks until 4th level skews the Eberron fluff, I think. I suppose this is better than having human Dragonmarked PCs from Level 1, while their elf, dwarf, halfling, etc. counterparts wait until 4th (at the earliest), but surely there is a better option?

Not allowing 5e Feats at level 1 across the board was a risky design choice, but the way they are written now, it worked (in my opinion), until now. Shoe-horning Dragonmarks as Feats seems short-sighted.

Thoughts?

 

[RealAlHazred]

Adventurers not manifesting Dragonmarks until 4th level skews the Eberron fluff, I think.

According to the fluff, most people who manifest Dragonmarks do not do so until a traumatic event causes them to manifest. This seems the textbook definition of gaining experience points. Is it a little stilted to have them be something you can only get at 4th level or higher? Sure. But it is not really going counter to the fluff. One option I saw people playing with is allowing nonhumans to forego the "+2 to one stat" they get in exchange for a Dragonmark feat. I would want to see a little more development on it, though.

Keep in mind that this only affects PCs -- NPCs aren't built the same way, and could have a Dragonmark at any number of hit dice.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Keep in mind that this only affects PCs -- NPCs aren't built the same way, and could have a Dragonmark at any number of hit dice.

This is not necessarily true. NPCs are built to resemble PCs, in a manner that involves less book-keeping. You should feel out your players to see if they're willing to go along with NPCs who flat-out "break the rules" in such a manner.

 

[Jester David]

This is not necessarily true. NPCs are built to resemble PCs, in a manner that involves less book-keeping. You should feel out your players to see if they're willing to go along with NPCs who flat-out "break the rules" in such a manner.

NPCs can go either way. You can build them like a PC and then figure out the challenge rating or make them like a monster. None of the sample NPCs in the Monster Manual have feats.

 

[Jester David]

Personally, I'd just shift the naming of the dragonmarks from the feat. When you take the feat you get a lesser dragonmark, at 5th level it becomes a greater dragonmark, and at 9th level it's a Siberys mark.
Least dragonmarks can be gained at any level and only do cosmetic, flavourful things (i.e. are more a flavour/ cosmetic thing).

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not sold on the "must have dragonmark at first level" problem.

NPCs are not built like PCs* anymore; they don't have to conform to the mold. There can be dozens of commoners and guards (NPC stat blocks) that manifested a mark while your PC was mastering combat, skills, or magic. Then later, you manifest your mark. Congrats; you're a late bloomer, but you have all the benefits of a mark AND being a an X level PC class.

The best thing DMs can do at this point is let go of the "good for the goose, good for the gander" model of PC/NPCs. NPCs lack a lot of things PCs have, and can get powers (like parry) that most PCs lack. So giving a house Jorasco halfling NPC the mark of healing as a bonus feat doesn't break the game, and if your PCs whinge that she has a mark before first level and THEY don't, tell them that halfling spent years honing the manifestation of that mark; if they want to play a commoner with the Mark of Healing at first level, be your guest.

 

[Staffan]

One of the things I think is missing in general from 5e is a generic 1st-level "boon". The core book should have a number of things you could use this for, along the lines of Pathfinder's traits, but different settings could provide alternate uses for them, for example:

Eberron - dragonmarks, warforged inherent armor.
Dark Sun - wild talent.
Red Steel - Legacies.
Planescape - faction membership.

And things like that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

NPCs can go either way. You can build them like a PC and then figure out the challenge rating or make them like a monster. None of the sample NPCs in the Monster Manual have feats.

The best thing DMs can do at this point is let go of the "good for the goose, good for the gander" model of PC/NPCs. NPCs lack a lot of things PCs have, and can get powers (like parry) that most PCs lack. So giving a house Jorasco halfling NPC the mark of healing as a bonus feat doesn't break the game, and if your PCs whinge that she has a mark before first level and THEY don't, tell them that halfling spent years honing the manifestation of that mark; if they want to play a commoner with the Mark of Healing at first level, be your guest.

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.

 

[AngryOgre]

Wouldn't backgrounds be a better mechanic?

 

[Remathilis]

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.

While I agree to a point, there is lots of things PCs get than NPCs don't (action points in d20, traits in Pathfinder, feats in 4e/5e, backgrounds) as well as things NPCs can have that PCs can't. Moreover, I don't agree PCs and NPCs need to play by the exact same rules; since that leads us back to 3e's "Monsters and NPCs are built using the same rules as PCs" which was a PITA to use.

I have no problem with a guy who spends his early life learning to be a paladin, warlock, or fighter getting his mark later than some NPC who didn't.

Wouldn't backgrounds be a better mechanic?

Only if you want it to be more powerful than any background ability out there! A background granting spellcasting defeats the purpose.