Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eberron 5e - What do we want?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 6891369" data-attributes="member: 57112"><p>I'll throw in my two cents, since I think you're referring to my comments. I've never been quite comfortable with the idea of using feats to gain Dragonmarks. Don't get me wrong, mechanically they worked well enough (though every major Dragonmarked NPC suddenly had to have a dozen levels in Expert or some other NPC class to be represented mechanically); from a flavor perspective I always felt what Feats represented were something entirely different from what Dragonmarks actually were, and how they're presented as developing.</p><p></p><p>In 5e there's a host of reasons why even mechanically Feats are a bad choice for Dragonmarks. They're <em>optional</em>, for a start. You get way less of them, if you get any at all, and the opportunity cost for selecting them is quite large. As they've been presented in UA has created a Feat which grows with the character's level, which if I'm not mistaken (don't have my PHB handy) is an entirely new mechanic for a Feat. This in turn means there's no such thing as a high-level PC with a least Dragonmark. Because feats are so scarce and costly in 5e (and so much more powerful than in previous editions), you also can't break up the different levels of Dragonmarks with their own feat either.</p><p></p><p>I've toyed with a lot of different ideas for what to do with Dragonmarks in 5e instead. I started, as you did, with the idea of using sub-races. This is, mechanically, a tricky thing to do with races that do not already have sub-races. It also, again, tends to tie dragonmark power directly with character level. I get that this correlation is typical, but I don't like the idea of making it mandatory. The one thing that 5e's UA Dragonmark Feats do that no other system for PC dragonmarks (including the theory of 5e sub-races) has accomplished so far is made it possible for a PC to immediately manifest a Lesser or Greater True Dragonmark, which is canonically supposed to be possible, if extremely rare.</p><p></p><p>I ultimately landed on the DMG's Blessings as a way to add Dragonmarks to my game. That idea has been accused in the past of taking away player agency, and that is both kind of the point and also not entirely true. My intention was that the DM would take input from players who would like their PC to develop a Dragonmark and then choose a relevant situation (a stressful situation where the dragonmark's abilities would prove useful) for it to manifest, as a way to represent a version of the Test of Siberys "on-screen" (rather than "Oh, I took this feat when we leveled up at the end of last session, now I have Dragonmark.")</p><p></p><p>I particularly like the suggestion of having the Blessing take up an attunement slot. This helps balance it somewhat, since a Blessing doesn't really <em>cost</em> the player anything to get now. This permanent attunement slot can also be used to "attune" to Siberys dragonshard items, since only bearers of the mark can actually use those items in Eberron.</p><p></p><p>This is also the funnest way to spring an Aberrant Dragonmark on someone. In a heated argument that's about to get physical? Surprise! You just melted that guy's face off. Granted, this isn't going to be every player's cup of tea, but I still think it feels truest to the setting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 6891369, member: 57112"] I'll throw in my two cents, since I think you're referring to my comments. I've never been quite comfortable with the idea of using feats to gain Dragonmarks. Don't get me wrong, mechanically they worked well enough (though every major Dragonmarked NPC suddenly had to have a dozen levels in Expert or some other NPC class to be represented mechanically); from a flavor perspective I always felt what Feats represented were something entirely different from what Dragonmarks actually were, and how they're presented as developing. In 5e there's a host of reasons why even mechanically Feats are a bad choice for Dragonmarks. They're [I]optional[/I], for a start. You get way less of them, if you get any at all, and the opportunity cost for selecting them is quite large. As they've been presented in UA has created a Feat which grows with the character's level, which if I'm not mistaken (don't have my PHB handy) is an entirely new mechanic for a Feat. This in turn means there's no such thing as a high-level PC with a least Dragonmark. Because feats are so scarce and costly in 5e (and so much more powerful than in previous editions), you also can't break up the different levels of Dragonmarks with their own feat either. I've toyed with a lot of different ideas for what to do with Dragonmarks in 5e instead. I started, as you did, with the idea of using sub-races. This is, mechanically, a tricky thing to do with races that do not already have sub-races. It also, again, tends to tie dragonmark power directly with character level. I get that this correlation is typical, but I don't like the idea of making it mandatory. The one thing that 5e's UA Dragonmark Feats do that no other system for PC dragonmarks (including the theory of 5e sub-races) has accomplished so far is made it possible for a PC to immediately manifest a Lesser or Greater True Dragonmark, which is canonically supposed to be possible, if extremely rare. I ultimately landed on the DMG's Blessings as a way to add Dragonmarks to my game. That idea has been accused in the past of taking away player agency, and that is both kind of the point and also not entirely true. My intention was that the DM would take input from players who would like their PC to develop a Dragonmark and then choose a relevant situation (a stressful situation where the dragonmark's abilities would prove useful) for it to manifest, as a way to represent a version of the Test of Siberys "on-screen" (rather than "Oh, I took this feat when we leveled up at the end of last session, now I have Dragonmark.") I particularly like the suggestion of having the Blessing take up an attunement slot. This helps balance it somewhat, since a Blessing doesn't really [I]cost[/I] the player anything to get now. This permanent attunement slot can also be used to "attune" to Siberys dragonshard items, since only bearers of the mark can actually use those items in Eberron. This is also the funnest way to spring an Aberrant Dragonmark on someone. In a heated argument that's about to get physical? Surprise! You just melted that guy's face off. Granted, this isn't going to be every player's cup of tea, but I still think it feels truest to the setting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eberron 5e - What do we want?
Top