Dragonmarks!?

[Estlor]

IMHO, 3(.5)e D&D is a game of modularity - being able to apply the same items for one character to another - and Dragonmarks were designed to be modular as well to give the players (and DM) more control over how critical an aspect of their character the dragonmark is.

Relegating a particular dragonmark to an NPC only thing would cause two problems. 1) It presents restrictions, not choices. 2) It'll cause unnecessary asking of the question, "Well, if this is how these three houses work, how do the others?"

D&D tries to provide you choices. All of them have value in specific situations. The idea of balance in D&D is that nothing is "must have," but your "must haves" are determined by character development.

 

[AuraSeer]

If you intended (or envisioned) that whispering wind to be for NPCs only, then why not relegate the ability to an NPC class similar to the magewright?

It's not a class because it's not a professional skill or anything else learned. It's an innate ability.

If some of these were overpowered I could see arguing against them, but I don't understand all the opposition to underpowered feats. Nobody is forcing you or your players to waste your precious feat slots. You can easily ignore the dragonmarks and pretend they don't exist. The evil wizard on dungeon level three is not going to suddenly kick your ass just because a new Toughness feat exists in the world.

 

[Dave Turner]

It's not a class because it's not a professional skill or anything else learned. It's an innate ability.

But having PCs with such uninspiring abilities seems to fly in the face of Eberron's pulp tone. The DM section has section headings like "Player Characters are Heroes!" or "Cliffhanger Action!" or "Excitement! Danger!". The game describes itself as half-pulp in tone. Pulp action isn't about heroes who cast mending. It's about characters that cling to the mast of a sinking ship and fight a duel against their archnemesis for the fate of a nation. It's about dodging the collapsing ceiling in ancient Xen'darik ruins while you clutch the Golden Chalice in sweaty palms. Pulp focuses on broad strokes and high adventure, not on prestidigitation. The mundane details of day-to-day life are handled by the NPCs. The magewrights are a perfect example of this.

Dragonmarks that give characters access to weak spells like whispering wind or know direction flies directly in the face of the spirit of pulp.

 

[Sejs]

Dragonmarks that give characters access to weak spells like whispering wind or know direction flies directly in the face of the spirit of pulp.

No, it means that either your definition of pulp is just another way of saying "combat effectiveness" or that you're not looking at some of the versatility that some dragonmark abilities can give.

Pulp-Heroic Fantasy is more than just how well you can kill some opponent.

Whispering Wind: Warnings from miles away. Getting captured and telling your allies who took you and where you are now. Relaying scout information. (A slight breeze drifts in thru the cracked window, and suddenly Lareck's voice fills the air, his tone an urgent whisper that carries across the room. "The duke's men are coming. They just passed the gatehouse. Take the princess and get out of there. I'll try to buy you some time.")

Unseen Servant: Clearing your tracks. Manipulating objects remotely - opening doors, windows, unfastening rope, etc. Retrieving things you can't otherwise get to. US is another form of low-level telekinesis, basically. It's very handy. (A moments concentration and they all watched as the gaoler's keyring lifted from the table next to where his boots lay proped up as he reclined in drunken slumber. Silently, they glided down the hall and into Rel's outstretched hand, a smile on the halfling's face as he closed his fingers around them. A turn and a click later, and they were all free.)

Make Whole: Obviously, for mending things. Sundered weapons. A destroyed rope bridge. A shattered window. ("How did he get in?! Nobody saw anything, you can't teleport into this place and there's no signs of forced entry...")

 

[Aaron L]

Dragonmarks that give characters access to weak spells like whispering wind or know direction flies directly in the face of the spirit of pulp.

HUH? Excuse me? Having the magical ability to send a whispered message a long way a few times a day flies in the face of pulp fantasy? Having the option to choose this ability is a BAD thing? You'd rather these options be restricted to NPCs because they are too WEAK?

Last I checked, the idea was to make your characters as powerful OR as weak as you wanted them to be! Assuming that these choices make your character weak, which I will not agree with.

Sorry, but you REALLY seem to be digging for something to complain about here.

 

[apsuman]

Sorry, but you REALLY seem to be digging for something to complain about here.

Ditto.

Not all feats/spells/dragonmarks/magic-items/characters/classes are supposed to be uber powerful, or even equal for that matter.

I have never seen a PC take toughness (unless they had to for a prestige class), and let me add that quick draw seems to be a feat chosen far more by npcs than by pcs. Should those two feats be removed to the Book of Non-Player Characters? It think not.

 

[Reynard]

Sorry, but you REALLY seem to be digging for something to complain about here.

The first law of Internet Message Boards: complainers have the highest post counts.

 

[Sejs]

I thought the first law was that anonymity made people act like jackasses.

 

[Dave Turner]

Ditto.

Not all feats/spells/dragonmarks/magic-items/characters/classes are supposed to be uber powerful, or even equal for that matter.

I have never seen a PC take toughness (unless they had to for a prestige class), and let me add that quick draw seems to be a feat chosen far more by npcs than by pcs. Should those two feats be removed to the Book of Non-Player Characters? It think not.

Why shouldn't all feats be equal or as equal as they can be made? It would be poor game design if they were otherwise. If we are going to allow that all feats need not be equal, then how would we criticize a feat that gives a character three wishes per day? If players aren't generally taking Toughness or Quick Draw, then those feats are badly designed. They are apparently inferior to other choices available. There's no need to remove them, but they are wasted space if they are never used.

Sejs, you raised some great suggestions for the use of the dragonmarked spells I mentioned. I suspect that my personal vision of pulp is coloring my criticism in this case. I also suspect that some larger issues I have with D&D spell design in general is creeping into my criticism. I haven't revealed those issues and I'm not sure I wish to open that can of worms here.

I believe that the idea behind dragonmarks is great, but the mechanics are terrible. The abilities gained are not often worth three feats. I would have liked to have seen a single feat requirement, with powers that were gradually gained by the character as a function of gaining levels. I believe that Midnight has a similar mechanic with something called "Heroic Paths"? Throw in some mechanical disadvantages to go along with the benefits and we would have been done. Three feats is too much for the entire chain. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the starter feats in other PHB feat chains are far superior to the Least Dragonmark feats.

I'm not trying to suggest that the writers of Eberron are bad people. I just think they made some poor design decisions.

 

[Dark Psion]

Also, I would assume there would be a lot of "war orphans" produced from the last war and manifesting a Dragonmark would help prove your heritage.

And once you have a conection to one of the Dragonmarked houses, you have a sponser for your party, secret missions for the house and access to equipment and items unique to each house.

The true value of a Dragonmark lies more in the DM hands than in the PCs.