Mark of Healing

[Zaran]

I actually think that they should take some rules less literally. Like when they said you can use a double sword as a rogue weapon (before they finally nerfed double weapons). Or that dwarves are allowed every superiour hammer or axe because they have Dwarven Weapon Training.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, i would just play it in the way it is the most fun... but for all, not for just 1 player (but this seems more fun for everybody to get a saving throw)

But if it stops beeing fun, i will restrict it^^

 

[Danceofmasks]

That's fine for a table-top, home game, RPG.
For organised play, however ... whenever there is more than one interpretataion for a rule, that's one too many (and thus requires FAQ, errata, whatever).

Just saying ... in a Magic: The Gathering tournament, having a set of rules that are the rules, no matter how complicated the text gets, is a necessity.

What's more, the OP is asking for RAW, not "dude, I don't care, just do what's fun."
If RAW doesn't work for them they're going to do something else anyway.

 

[keterys]

I wonder if CS allows Healer's Armor or Gloves of the Holy Healer to work with Astral Seal.

Both provide their healing to a target only.

 

[bganon]

Good/bad DM assertions aside, forever, not mentioned again, what are these heavy roleplaying drawbacks? I recently started DMing Eberron and I haven't come across these drawbacks. One of my players has the mark of healing, so it is relevant. Thanks!

In Eberron, if you have a (non-aberrant) dragonmark you have a few possible basic backgrounds, in order of increasing rarity:

1) You're part of the House whose mark you bear, and while you have a certain amount of freedom, you need to more or less do what they tell you to do.

2) You've been excoriated from the House whose mark you bear, and you must have no contact with the House or any in it, with threats of severe punishment if you do.

3) You're some kind of freak (the wrong race for your mark or whatever), and the relevant House is going to chase you until they can be sure they're controlling you, one way or another.

And dragonmark Houses are basically transnational megacorporations. They absolutely have the resources to make you do what they want. They are very rarely run by nice people. The Mark of Healing might seem like a pretty harmless thing, but House Jorasco doesn't work for free, and some high-up people can have interesting ideas about what constitutes "healing".

This provides the DM with an awful lot of hooks to attach strings to.

 

[Snotboy]

3) You're some kind of freak (the wrong race for your mark or whatever), and the relevant House is going to chase you until they can be sure they're controlling you, one way or another.

I'm not sure, would that be the case? The Player's Guide (using House Lyrandar as an example) says your mark "is a direct manifestation of the Prophecy and has nothing to do with the bloodline of the house" and they simply "would not claim you." I don't have the campaign guide, which might say more.

 

[DreamChaser]

The number 1 penalty of the Dragonmark feats is that they need DM permission to retrain (not as part of the feat but as part of the sidebar that introduces them). They are potent but they are supposed to be.

Historically on Khorvaire, there was a bloody and genocidal war only a couple hundred years ago that would have wiped out all of the aberrants and mixed marks except that it is not a strict matter of genetics. Any non-standard race with a given mark is a PC or DM plot point. Everyone with a mark of storm in the world will otherwise be half-elf and connected (whether they know it or not) to the family.

The family uses its mark to maintain a monopoly on certain areas of the continent's economy. House members are beholden to support that monopoly or risk censure. Beyond that, they are raised to believe that their highest purpose is the service of their mark and house (since they have no country).

Those outside the fold, whether orphans from the correct race or freaks from another race represent a threat to the monopoly that the house would never realistically ignore. For a DM to pass it over is to 1) change the nature of society and economics on Khorvaire (which is his / her fiat) and 2) overlooking a great opportunity for story-driven adventure.

That said:

No power or effect is ever adequately / approrpriately balanced by roleplaying considerations. As with multiclass feats, dragonmark feats are balanced by the limited nature (only one ever), the limited scope (a wizard cannot generally benefit from having the mark of healing), and (in the case of the dragonmark feats) the difficulty undoing the choice once you've made it.

DC

 

[DreamChaser]

Or we're just reading the wording to litererally. In the end, the power provides healing to an ally. Just because a particularly wording can be interpreted as requiring the ally to be the target specified in the power's target line, it doesn't have to be the intention. Is there really ever specifically cleared out: "Creatures affected by a power but not mentioned in the target line are not targets?" Or is this just something that falls too common sense to be decided?

I know people distrust using common sense in combination with game rules... But sometimes designers, developers and editors just don't think that literal when writing down a game rule.

Target is specifically defined and it is part of each power's description.

Let's say, for argument, there was a power that dealt damage and had the effect of "If the target is affected by a warlock's curse and this power drops the target to zero hit points, then the warlock gains the benefit of two creatures dropping rather than one."

This power has an effect that explicily benefits the warlock; however, it would be difficult to argue that the warlock is a target of the power.

The healing from Astral Seal is this sort of effect: Any ally no matter where they were when the power was used (heck, they could have been in another dimension or not yet summoned) can take advantage of the benefit. But, clearly, the power that generated the benefit was never used on them.

Another analog is Wall of Fire: It has no target but any creature can be affected by it. A feat that granted a bonus when you use a fire power on a creature would not trigger for everyone that happened to wander near the wall because the power isn't targeted on those who wander near it.

DC

ps...it amazes me sometimes that CustServ is still brought into discussions here...not an attack...just a comment on the overall attitude of these boards toward...poor research commonly conducted by the hard-working folks over there at Wizards

 

[Kzach]

ps...it amazes me sometimes that CustServ is still brought into discussions here...not an attack...just a comment on the overall attitude of these boards toward...poor research commonly conducted by the hard-working folks over there at Wizards

When CS consistently give the same answer to a question, it is considered as close to a fact as you can get. It's only when CS give conflicting answers that they're brought into doubt.

On this issue, it would seem that they have been giving consistent answers, hence why it's linked to in the FAQ on the CharOp boards.

 

[DreamChaser]

When CS consistently give the same answer to a question, it is considered as close to a fact as you can get. It's only when CS give conflicting answers that they're brought into doubt.

On this issue, it would seem that they have been giving consistent answers, hence why it's linked to in the FAQ on the CharOp boards.

No...not in my experience anyway. CS gives all over the board answers that often cannot be supported by even a casual reading of the rules.

Errata is as close to a fact as you can get...CS responses are (as these boards demonstrate daily) open to debate.

DC