Eberron: My issue with the 4e setting

[Crothian]

Can they? This is up to the players of the game. The restriction of dragonmarks is a story restriction, not a rule restriction.

According to the book any race can have any mark. It would be really easy to change in one's game, but that's not the point of the thread.

 

[Cadfan]

They do have Paragon Paths for each Dragonmark.

Oops. I use the compendium for this information, and I guess I didn't look closely enough.

 

[malraux]

According to the book any race can have any mark. It would be really easy to change in one's game, but that's not the point of the thread.

A better way to put this is that any PC can have any dragonmark, regardless of the character's race. But Eberron has always had a general idea that PCs are special anyway.

For the average non-PC, dragonmarks are restricted by race, except where the DM says otherwise.

 

[eyebeams]

I play a warforged and was looking forward to a more thorough treatment of them for 4e, especially since hacking the MM for them led to a kinda-weak character.

Ugh.

I think the warforged redesign was all in all a misfire. The 3e living construct concept was comprehensible, but the "sorta kind construct maybe not unique guy" thing? Feels weak, a poor excuse to make warforged vulnerable to a lot of crap for blatant game balance over game world justifications, and showcases 4e's design weaknesses when it comes to incoroporating unusual characters. It pushed me to change my character's concept and play style, which annoys me.

The warforged encounter power is also very odd, in that it makes you play a game of chicken about when to activate it (more HP now, or even more HP later?) for reasons that seem pointless. How is this tactically interesting?

 

[Mercule]

My biggest issue was that any race can have any Dragonmark.

That would be my biggest issue, if it took more than me saying "That's effing stupid. Ignore it."

As soon as there's a published NPC with an invalid Dragonmark -- or running into invalid Dragonmarks on the Internet chats/games becomes frequent -- then I'm right there with you. The flavor of Dwarves with the Mark of Healing is a lot more heinous, but easier to ignore.

 

[Mercule]

They do have Paragon Paths for each Dragonmark.

Yes, but that means you have to wait until 1/3 to 1/2 through a typical campaign before the Marked flavor really comes on strong. Especially when 3e Eberron was generally supposed to be lower level than other settings, this is unsatisfactory.

If a halfling gravitates toward Cleric or Bard because of his mark, I want the mark to be given more attension than his deity or voice -- especially early on.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, but that means you have to wait until 1/3 to 1/2 through a typical campaign before the Marked flavor really comes on strong. Especially when 3e Eberron was generally supposed to be lower level than other settings, this is unsatisfactory.

If a halfling gravitates toward Cleric or Bard because of his mark, I want the mark to be given more attension than his deity or voice -- especially early on.

I will probably not generally assume that a player can pick just any Dragonmark he wants, but I don't see a problem of this not being enforced by the rule. It stinks like Monk/Paladin alignment and multiclassing restriction in 3.x to keep something like that as part of the rules instead of the flavor.

It makes sense to me that a Dragonmark benefits someone that takes a career linked to the dragonmark better, instead of someone that went a totally different direction.

The choice of a deity has very little effect in 4E. In the PHB I, there is one feat per deity at heroic tier. That's it.
For belonging to a Dragonmarked house, there is one feat per house.

Later books add more feats that make deities count more (more or less - Domain Powers and additional Channel Divinity feats, mostly.) I suppose something like that might be coming around for the Dragonmark feats, too - At least if someone suggests it to the Digital Dragon?

 

[Mercule]

The choice of a deity has very little effect in 4E. In the PHB I, there is one feat per deity at heroic tier. That's it.
For belonging to a Dragonmarked house, there is one feat per house.

This is true -- as far as it goes.

The flavor, however, is that all the Cleric's powers come from his deity. That means that a 10th level cleric has (according to p143 of the DMG and the class abilities of the cleric in PHB) 12-13 powers attributable to his deity, while the Mark of Healing doesn't actually give him any, only augments existing powers (slightly). Even then, the Mark doesn't do jack during the short rests between encounters because few conditions last beyond the encounter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the "ritual mastery" angle of the dragonmarks makes up for this. As a House Jorasco commoner, I can still learn and use the Remove Affliction ritual. For a random NPC from the street, this is pretty cool and pretty useful, in a setting context.

This also makes the feat useful if I'm not already a healer. Yes, if I am a healer, I'll be using the dragonmark more often, but that makes sense. If I'm not a healer, I still gain a little healing edge, which is exactly the effect I'm looking for.

I think the racial flexibility is potentially more problematic, but as it's only an option and not an actual setting element (e.g.: there are no dragonmarked dragonborn, by defualt), it's a painless feature.

Rituals, baby! I know they're kind of the redheaded stepchild of 4e in a lot of campaigns, but it works well for the flavor of the dragonmark, I think.

 

[Mercule]

I think the "ritual mastery" angle of the dragonmarks makes up for this. As a House Jorasco commoner, I can still learn and use the Remove Affliction ritual. For a random NPC from the street, this is pretty cool and pretty useful, in a setting context.

Quite true. I'm tempted to say the Dragonmarks automatically grant the rituals or halve/eliminate the component cost.

Actually, if you said the Marks counted as (100 * 1/2 level) gp worth of components per day, non-bankable, that'd be pretty sweet. Not totally sure of the balance implications, but the flavor sounds good.

I still like the multiclass paths, though.