Eberron: My issue with the 4e setting

[Crothian]

What we have here is a failure of communication

Well yeah, but they wrote the books so that 'any race can have any dragonmark' only so long as the DM and players want that to be the case.

While it is true nothing happens in the game without the players and DM allowing it this is not what they did. The put a rule in the game that any race can have any dragon mark. In 3e this was not the case so they actively changed the rules. That's what I have a problem with.

They wrote it so that it has never actually happened within the default of the setting itself.

They do exist in the game. The rules say they can. Just because there is no example of them in the books does not mean they are not there. There are lots of things that are in the setting that are not going to be in the books. The books have a finite space and can only give examples of so much. My position is pretty simple.

 

[Squizzle]

They do exist in the game. The rules say they can. ust because there is no example of them in the books does not mean they are not there. There are lots of things that are in the setting that are not going to be in the books. The books have a finite space and can only give examples of so much. My position is pretty simple.

You seem to be speaking from a perspective of the books describing an objectively existing world, and decrying changes to that, which is a more than slightly absurd position to take regarding gaming materials.

 

[Imban]

People responding to an argument with "whatever" has always been a pet peeve of mine. I find it extremely rude...

Well, I was just dismissing that line of argument altogether, because even if I was using incredibly ridiculous hyperbole compared to the original post, that nonsense is still bad. But why not, I'll respond to this, because it shows that you seem to not have gotten the thrust of my argument.

Furthermore, there have always been differences between PCs and NPCs. How often do adventurers start at 0th level? Not very often, and on the rare occasion that it does, it *usually* sucks. Have you forgotten about classes that were designed to be NPC classes? There were feats that were monster only. There were spells that were written as specially researched by an NPC (sure a player could do it too, but only with DM permission; he didn't have freedom to do it all on his own). What 4E did was make NPC creation more streamlined and allows more freedom, without burdening the process with details that would never really matter, especially given that the NPC might be designed for only 1 encounter.

If NPCs with powers that players don't get bugs you that much, there's a solution for this. Don't use those NPCs types. Build your NPCs using the class templates. If you are really a stickler, you can even stat out your NPCs exactly like PCs. Considering that NPCs have no reason for saving action points and daily powers for a 2nd encounter, this would be vastly unfair to players, but it can be done. You're also really limiting yourself on the types of encounters you can have (both in the tricks an NPC can have, as well as the variety of NPC types (i.e. minions, normals, elites, solos), but perhaps those things bothered you too. Sure it's more trouble for me and it requires me giving up too many tools and tricks that I'm unwilling to sacrifice, but if the default approach just doesn't suit your approach, so you shouldn't mind the extra work.

OK, so what I have absolutely 0 trouble with and the person I was posting to support assumedly has no trouble with is giving an NPC sword-swinger a power to stab someone so hard they go flying or an NPC spellcaster the power to shoot lightning from his hands. The exact powers may not be replicated in the skillset available to PCs, but I'm fairly certain that if I wanted to build a PC who could stab someone so hard they go flying, or a PC who could shoot lightning from his hands, that I could do this.

The exact mechanics of what they do, in other words, is different between PCs and NPCs, but thematically they're both skilled fighters who are using their martial fighting abilities.

What I would disagree with in most cases is giving an NPC healer the power to conjure the image of an immense pearly dragon from her dragonmark and radiate healing light upon the battlefield, because there isn't even the slightest hint of that being something a PC of any healing class with the Mark of Healing can do. It's at its worst when dealing with the aforementioned god-NPCs, but even when the NPCs in question can't just tool around all the PCs, it can be frustrating when it feels like the PCs are the only ones burdened by rules and all the DM's guys and all the guys in the fiction get to have awesome stuff made up just for themselves.

But even if they were still restricted, a 2nd player can come along to try to game the marks if you allow someone else an exception for a valid reason. Either way, you having one player play by the letter of the rules while another is playing by a DM decision. In the end, there's very little difference.

Conceded, though I feel it's always easier to give people a special dispensation than a special screw-you. Less hard feelings.

Besides, even if you let the powergamer have it, is it the end of the world? You don't have to look at this as abuse, but rather an opportunity to try to hook your powergamer into a story and maybe draw him into some more roleplay.

THe Eberron books clearly indicate that Aberrant dragonmarks (either those that are "Aberrant" due to not being from the from the accepted houses, or those among the "wrong" races) are things that do have potential story repercussions. There may be attempts to draw them into a house, but there may be the chance someone would respond violently or even hunt them down. Is that not enough?

That's the kind of story hook I'd expect out of one of the many people I'd willingly let have the out-of-type mark. The people who would put it on the bottom of their foot can play the appropriate race.

That's if you make the hoserule that they are banned. If you make the houserule that they require DM approval, then where is the problem?

I suppose there isn't one, so I'll concede this point too.

 

[ryryguy]

The put a rule in the game that any race can have any dragon mark. In 3e this was not the case so they actively changed the rules. That's what I have a problem with.

I think a more accurate characterization of the change is "a PC of any race can take any dragonmarked feat." Because, you know, only PC's actually get feats. There's no suggestion anywhere that NPC's would have off-race dragonmarks or dragonmark abilities, and it's a bit tendentious of you to claim that (paraphrasing) "it's only a matter of time before we see it" or "now that's possible too" without any real evidence.

You're still quite welcome, of course, to dislike this change on its own merits.

The worst case scenario, I think, is where every PC in the party chooses an off-race (aberrant) mark. Or take the Living Eberron game here which is just getting restarted in a 4e incarnation. There, you have more PC's than just one party's worth, so unsurprisingly, there are already a fair number of off-race aberrant marks, including (at least) a shifter, a kalashtar, and a warforged with marks, plus a half-orc with the mark of Making. I'll admit this high concentration of "exceptional" marks rather strains the definition of "exceptional" and was a little off-putting to me when I first considered it.

But you know, so what, I can roll with it! My (in-race, in-house) dragonmarked character walks into the tavern, sees all these aberrant marks in the same room, and thinks, "Holy cow, there must be some big thing going on with the Prophecy in here, I want to get in on that!" It ends up being just as fun, if not more so, for me.

 

[Crothian]

I think a more accurate characterization of the change is "a PC of any race can take any dragonmarked feat." Because, you know, only PC's actually get feats.

I get your point but I don't think it works because that would mean that only PCs could have a Dragonmark at all since they are feats. And clearly there are NPCs in the Dragonmarked houses with dragonmarks.

If/when I run an Eberron game I'll talk to the players and see what they like. Even though I don't like it that doesn't mean I'd force the players to live with that change. The idea of an all dragon mark or aberrant dragon marked party I think would be really cool. In our 3e campaigns we had about half the PCs with dragonmarks and it worked well.

 

[N0Man]

The worst case scenario, I think, is where every PC in the party chooses an off-race (aberrant) mark. Or take the Living Eberron game here which is just getting restarted in a 4e incarnation. There, you have more PC's than just one party's worth, so unsurprisingly, there are already a fair number of off-race aberrant marks, including (at least) a shifter, a kalashtar, and a warforged with marks, plus a half-orc with the mark of Making. I'll admit this high concentration of "exceptional" marks rather strains the definition of "exceptional" and was a little off-putting to me when I first considered it.

Though, we don't know for sure if a Living Eberron would impose any additional restrictions on dragonmarks or not. I could see them going either way.

 

[ryryguy]

I was talking about the Living Eberron game here on the ENWorld boards, where there is indeed no restriction.

It is an interesting question, if the RPGA was going to start up something like LFR I think it would be wise for them to consider stronger restrictions. The storyline "soft balance" a DM might provide by having an off-race dragonmark bearer hunted or feared would not be practical in that situation. Hordes of genasi with the Mark of Storm might indeed materialize. Kinda like all the fullblade wielding elven avengers with (pre-nerf) Righteous Rage of Tempus I saw someone complaining about in LFR...

 

[Turtlejay]

I get your point but I don't think it works because that would mean that only PCs could have a Dragonmark at all since they are feats. And clearly there are NPCs in the Dragonmarked houses with dragonmarks.

If/when I run an Eberron game I'll talk to the players and see what they like. Even though I don't like it that doesn't mean I'd force the players to live with that change. The idea of an all dragon mark or aberrant dragon marked party I think would be really cool. In our 3e campaigns we had about half the PCs with dragonmarks and it worked well.

This is twice you suggested that you really can't seperate the Dragonmark from the Dragonmark feat.

Really? You can't see that without the feat, the Dragonmark doesn't exist? There is not a feat to know how to bake bread, but in my campaign people have eaten bread. So I know that something in the world can exist without a feat.

There are feats to be proficient in a spiked chain, and we have fought enemies who used the spiked chain but did not have that feat. How does that work?

I really suspect that this is willfull ignorance to make your position stronger, I refuse to belieive that this is that hard to understand. An NPC has a dragonmark because the story requires it. That is all an NPC needs. If the story requires that the NPC have one leg made out of ham, poof, ham leg. You can't take a feat to have a ham leg.

I am running out of crappy examples. Can someone please explain to Crothian how an NPC gets a dragonmark without the feat? He seems to be lost.

Jay

 

[Crothian]

This is twice you suggested that you really can't seperate the Dragonmark from the Dragonmark feat.

I get feats are for PCs. NPCs get the powers they are given be it a dragon mark or whatever. I thinking something is getting lost in translation. I clearly said (I hope) NPCs of Dragonmarked house who don't get feats would have dragonmarks.

But that is moving away from tangent we have that took over the thread. I don't like that any race can have any dragonmark. It doesn't matter if it is a PC or NPC or if we have an example NPC with the ability. I liked it better when dragonmarks were restricted by race and some races couldn't get any of them except for the Aberrant dragon mark.

 

[Spatula]

I liked it better when dragonmarks were restricted by race and some races couldn't get any of them except for the Aberrant dragon mark.

Actually, the aberrant marks were restricted to the same dragonmark races in 3e (the 3e "core" races - human, half-elf, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, half-orc).