D&D 5E 5e Dragonmarks thematically problematic?

[CapnZapp]

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.

Sorry, no.

The corollary to npcs don't break rules is npcs must follow rules.

And it is positively fantastic that 5e allows you to make a 5 hit dice NPC with more than third level spells!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The corollary to npcs don't break rules is npcs must follow rules.

And it is positively fantastic that 5e allows you to make a 5 hit dice NPC with more than third level spells!

Of course, as the DM you can make up anything you want. Just don't be surprised when your players call you out on those shenanigans. You gain nothing by violating the clear intent of how the world is supposed to work, except distrust from your players.

 

[RealAlHazred]

Of course, as the DM you can make up anything you want. Just don't be surprised when your players call you out on those shenanigans. You gain nothing by violating the clear intent of how the world is supposed to work, except distrust from your players.

No offense, but if you come into my Eberron game expecting that all NPCs are exactly what they appear to be and no more, and to be built along the same lines as PCs, you are doomed to disappointment from the beginning. This seems to me more a trust issue between you and your DM. My players know that, in a world with nine secret societies and several races of beings whose primary power is to assume the form and mannerisms of other people, that they may be deceived.

Shenanigans? Really?!? In an Eberron game, deception and subverted expectations should be required!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No offense, but if you come into my Eberron game expecting that all NPCs are exactly what they appear to be and no more, and to be built along the same lines as PCs, you are doomed to disappointment from the beginning.

My character should be deceived, sure, but as a player I need to have faith that you're running things fairly and following the established rules-as-physics for the setting - that you're not just making up whatever numbers you feel like, without regard to how the game is supposed to work. Even though my character may not know the truth, whatever the truth actually is, it has to make sense for the world.

If I can't trust you as a DM, then the game is unplayable.

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course, as the DM you can make up anything you want. Just don't be surprised when your players call you out on those shenanigans. You gain nothing by violating the clear intent of how the world is supposed to work, except distrust from your players.

No no no... That's 3E thinking. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no "clear intent" anywhere but in your mind, Saelorn.

The good thing about 5E is that I don't have to create my high level NPCs like a high level player character.

 

[CapnZapp]

If I can't trust you as a DM, then the game is unplayable.

That is very true.

However, as a player, my trust should be placed in the DM creating a fair challenge, a joyful experience, a place for all characters to shine, and more.

Whether the DM follows all the minutiae in creating NPCs or not is very far from the top of that trust list.

In fact, I trust my DM to not waste more time than absolutely necessary on statting up NPCs that I'm probably going to kill during the first round of combat. And thanks to not running d20, that's not only possible, but strongly encouraged

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No no no... That's 3E thinking. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no "clear intent" anywhere but in your mind, Saelorn.

The good thing about 5E is that I don't have to create my high level NPCs like a high level player character.

Kinda, sorta. What 5E lets you do is to skip a lot of small decisions, and hand-wave a lot of the details. You get an archmage with 18d8 Hit Points instead of 18d6 (+some higher amount from mandatory Constitution increase), but you still don't get 9th-level spells without the HP to back them up.

An NPC looks exactly like a PC of the same class and level, from a distance, if you squint. You can still tell that they're both representing the same thing, though, and "phenomenal cosmic powers but only a meager handful of Hit Points" isn't something that is supposed to exist within the world. All of the examples of NPCs in the Monster Manual will back that up.

 

[doctorhook]

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.

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

Least dragonmarks can be gained at any level and only do cosmetic, flavourful things (i.e. are more a flavour/ cosmetic thing).

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

 

[Mercule]

Personally, I would make the dragonmarked scion a class. I would model it after the Cleric, giving a regular increase to Dragonmark powers over the levels, with customization based on that house's focus. Then, you could start out and multi-class later if you wanted to play a "disenfranchised" scion or pick up scion later as you "come into your powers".

I've been thinking about Heir of Syberis and trying not to reintroduce prestige classes into 5E (they wore thin early in 3E, for me). My current thought to make it a "subclass" of either Warlock or Sorcerer, due to the way I implemented the marks, themselves.

I drew on the multiclassing rules for the spell-like abilities of the marks, such that a marked character is always considered to have their "spell" prepared. A non-caster gets a single use between long rests. If a character ignores the mark, it grows a little (advances like the official version). If they want to focus on really being Dragonmarked, they can multiclass or (if they start early) do something like arcane trickster/eldritch knight.

A Warlock would better fit the "I do one kind of magic well" mold, but I'm afraid you'd need to create both a new patron (The Prophecy) and pact (Pact of the Mark) to get it right. A Sorcerer would be feel a lot less devoted (or, maybe, just brimming with the power of Syberis) but would only need a new bloodline, probably broken down like the draconic blood is.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Another thing that stands out at me for dragonmarks-as-magic-items...

The original dragonmarks were kind of "here's a 1st-level/3rd-level/6th-level spell you can use a few times per day." Roughly.

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.

Half the time you could just point to the spell the 3e feat gave you and port it over to a 5e 1/day magic item wholesale depending on the mark's spell-like ability and a rough 5e equivalent.

Grant the non-dragonmark'd folks in the party a free magic item, and YES.