Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9536846" data-attributes="member: 7635">When 4e first came out and changed the Dragonmarks from tied to a specific race to being something anyone can take (with incorrect species/mark combos being aberrant) I was aghast. I was very happy 5e changed it back. But looking back on it, I don't think its a bad an idea as I did. It made a lot of sense when those races were the 3e PHB races and needed something to spice them up when shapeshifters, living golems and werewolf-people on the menu. It doesn't make sense when the PHB only has five of those races and introduced five new ones. Further, there is nothing that requires any given mark to be tied to specific species except tradition. If a future Eberron book opts for a 4e style feat dragonmark that anyone can take (and honestly feats are a brilliant way to do it now that origin feats can represent minor marks and regular feats greater marks) I don't think I'll be as upset as was in 2009. If they leave tied to specific species, I won't be angry either. The notion of magical marks denoting certain peoples to monopolize certain industries isn't inherently needed to be tied to species and I think it would make the Houses more interesting (Anyone can be a Turanni spy, for example). As I said before, I'm too old and I've seen too many changes to concern myself with the details as long as it FEELS right...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 9536846, member: 7635"] When 4e first came out and changed the Dragonmarks from tied to a specific race to being something anyone can take (with incorrect species/mark combos being aberrant) I was aghast. I was very happy 5e changed it back. But looking back on it, I don't think its a bad an idea as I did. It made a lot of sense when those races were the 3e PHB races and needed something to spice them up when shapeshifters, living golems and werewolf-people on the menu. It doesn't make sense when the PHB only has five of those races and introduced five new ones. Further, there is nothing that requires any given mark to be tied to specific species except tradition. If a future Eberron book opts for a 4e style feat dragonmark that anyone can take (and honestly feats are a brilliant way to do it now that origin feats can represent minor marks and regular feats greater marks) I don't think I'll be as upset as was in 2009. If they leave tied to specific species, I won't be angry either. The notion of magical marks denoting certain peoples to monopolize certain industries isn't inherently needed to be tied to species and I think it would make the Houses more interesting (Anyone can be a Turanni spy, for example). As I said before, I'm too old and I've seen too many changes to concern myself with the details as long as it FEELS right... [/QUOTE]

Verification