Eberron: My issue with the 4e setting

[ST]

Thanks for clarifying -- since you're not talking about the affect it'd have on the game, and this is just your personal opinion about how the authors handled this issue, independent of whether it affects play, then it's not a play issue, it's a "What's in Crothian's head" issue. The thing he's complaining about explicitly has nothing to do with play, so I guess it's a matter of the Ebberon novels or something (where there are no PCs so this is irrelevant).

None of us have a reason to care, so there's not really any reason to refute it, either. Again, if we were talking about the affect it'd have on the game, fine, but we're not; Crothian explicitly claimed he was just giving his opinion unrelated to gaming, so he's welcome to it.

As far as how it might come up in a game -- the Eberron Campaign Guide covers it to my satisfaction. It makes it clear that a PC that has a dragonmark their race isn't "allowed" to have has essentially been touched by the Prophecy of the Dragons -- in other words, they've chosen a big ole MacGuffin as well having put a target right on their forehead. That, and the fact that NPCs are explicitly forbidden from having them, means that if the exception does come up, it's a big deal and nobody "in character" expected it to happen. That's not at all the same thing as "Take whatever, continuity be damned"; it's explictly a strange and dangerous thing for you to have a dragonmark you "couldn't possibly have" manifest.

 

[Crothian]

it's a "What's in Crothian's head" issue.

Trust me, there are lots of issues with Crothian's head.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

Jay, you don't come right out and say it, but you're implying that a PC could have a dragonmark and not take a dragonmark feat, right? If so, that's how I run my games. I've never actually had a player choose to have a dragonmark without taking the appropriate feat, but I allow it!

And, even before 4e, I allowed non-dragonmark races to take dragonmarks (or dragonmark races to take the "wrong" dragonmark), both "normal" and aberrant. And like others have suggested, this made the "offending" PC aberrant!

Just like in the Realms, you can have a spellscar and never actually take any spellscar feats or the spellscar multi-class.

Next time I run an Eberron campaign, I hope somebody decides to take me up on my openness!!!

 

[Turtlejay]

I didn't want to out myself as a non-purist, but the last 3.5 game I played in I had a Kobold Sorcerer with a Dragonmark.

It was covering his tail, so I was a twin pariah, monster race and dragonmarked. We had to come up with several ways to keep my alive around civilized folks. Good times.

Jay

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't see it as a good thing. And I'm not upset about how anyone is playing the game so please stop making things up about me. Again my position is rather simple. Allowing any race to have any dragonmarks is my biggest issue with the setting. This is purely an opinion on how the books are written and has nothing to do with how people play their games.

So actually you are saying that the setting is pretty good?

I wonder if the Dragons in Eberron failed similar when suddenly the Dragonmarks appeared on humanoids. I suppose quite a few didn't like the change and worried. Others probably embraced it. And others just considered it as a maybe surprising, but in hindsight logical effect.

 

[Crothian]

So actually you are saying that the setting is pretty good?

We all show our love in different ways.

 

[kitsune9]

So I take it that with Eberron for 4e, it didn't go through a major shift in story and timeline like FR did?

 

[Obryn]

So I take it that with Eberron for 4e, it didn't go through a major shift in story and timeline like FR did?

Nope. It's essentially the same setting, plus a few things. The new elements (like eladrin and dragonborn) are kind of retconned into it, but in sensible and cool ways. Dragonborn are, naturally, from Arkhosia. The feyspires (basically big shifting eladrin cities) are cool, too.

EDIT: It's compatible enough that the authors even suggest grabbing the 3.5 supplements for additional flavor details, if you want them. I think the 4e ECG has plenty of info for most campaigns, though, and a vastly better map than 3.5's ECG had.

-O

 

[kitsune9]

Nope. It's essentially the same setting, plus a few things. The new elements (like eladrin and dragonborn) are kind of retconned into it, but in sensible and cool ways. Dragonborn are, naturally, from Arkhosia. The feyspires (basically big shifting eladrin cities) are cool, too.

EDIT: It's compatible enough that the authors even suggest grabbing the 3.5 supplements for additional flavor details, if you want them. I think the 4e ECG has plenty of info for most campaigns, though, and a vastly better map than 3.5's ECG had.

-O

Thanks Obryn!

 

[MrMyth]

Are you purposefully mis-characterizing Crothian's stance? Whether I agree with him or not, I certainly see his point (Officially the Eberron Campaign world now allows for any race to have any dragonmark...and he doesn't like the feel of this change to the setting) and it is not what you keep trying to make it out to be (That he has a problem with how other groups are playing). So I'm hoping that perhaps it is just a mis-understanding instead of a purposeful twisting of words on your part.

I'm not trying to mis-characterize his point, I just simply can't see any other context in which it can be applied. The Eberron Campaign world now allows for any race to have any Dragonmark... if a PC at another DM's table wants that to happen. It avoids having any such change within the setting itself. Unless Crothian himself plans to do so, that won't be an issue. I can't see how one could be concerned about the change, given that the change isn't reflected in the setting itself, but only in games run by other DMs for other groups. So unless one is upset about how those groups are playing, I just don't see anything that would actually be an issue...