D&D 5E [Poll] Are Dragonmark races allowed in your game?

[the Jester]

No, somewhat because I don't add races or subraces to my campaign willy-nilly, but also- perhaps even more so- because I haven't read them.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah I guess my POV on them doesn’t really feel beholden to the houses, because we have been using them as “you are of a magical themed lineage” for years. My wife has a Mark of Scribing Gnome Artificer in my FR game, and a Mark of Shadow Gnome in my AU Earth Crossroads campaign. I’ve got a Mark of Making Human Artificer that I’ve used a couple places. In my wife’s COS game she was marked by the same magitech accident that cost her an arm, gaining slightly blue-tinted skin rather than a tattoo. In Space Fantasy she is instead marked by an ancient power vaguely analogous to The Force, but more arcane and with physical signs that manifest with puberty.

I just don’t see any…tension, in using them without using the houses.

That reminds me - the Spellfire of Forgotten Realms revealed itself as a tattoo on the individual, did it not?

And there was also the magical tattoos available to Thayian Red Wizards (beyond the normal cultural tattooing).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It hasn't come up, but I'd allow it. In non-Eberron game I'd ask the player to come up with some sort of alternate flavor for where those powers come from.

I once created a character for a Forgotten Realms campaign (that the DM never showed up for) that was a Gnome Abjurer that was Spellscarred from living through the Spellplague, using the Aberrant Dragonmark feat to replicate the same general theme as being Spellscarred.

So, yeah, as a DM, I'd totally allow stuff like this, so long as it makes sense in the world and the players can justify it using lore.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, you can absolutely do that, just like you could allow super-strong flying people with eye lasers and call them something other than Kryptonians. I just have no desire to do that. I think dragonmarks are a cool setting element of Eberron, which ought to have a mechanical expression in games set there. But I don’t feel any need to reskin them in order to port the mechanics to other settings. I prefer to build mechanics around the lore rather than vice versa.

I mean, I do too, but I'm not gonna homebrew every single thing the PCs want to do, so I offer Dragonmarks and similarly lore-associated mechanics when they closely model the thing they want to do with the character. Dragonmarks are a great at modeling a bunch of different things, with little if any mechanical change.

That reminds me - the Spellfire of Forgotten Realms revealed itself as a tattoo on the individual, did it not?

And there was also the magical tattoos available to Thayian Red Wizards (beyond the normal cultural tattooing).

Oh yeah, I'd say that every published setting for DnD has several things that immediately lend to the use of "subraces that replace the normal option with a magical mark or lineage that gives you special powers and helps you be better at certain skills".

I once created a character for a Forgotten Realms campaign (that the DM never showed up for) that was a Gnome Abjurer that was Spellscarred from living through the Spellplague, using the Aberrant Dragonmark feat to replicate the same general theme as being Spellscarred.

So, yeah, as a DM, I'd totally allow stuff like this, so long as it makes sense in the world and the players can justify it using lore.

Hell yeah. I really wish they had included Greater Mark feats as well, but what we do have is great for all sorts of stuff like that.

 

[Blue]

I'm reading "No, because they do not fit thematically" as "I use them if they are a thematic fit". No idea why it's written in the negative, though the nature of the answer verbiage seems to have a negative bias.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, I do too, but I'm not gonna homebrew every single thing the PCs want to do, so I offer Dragonmarks and similarly lore-associated mechanics when they closely model the thing they want to do with the character. Dragonmarks are a great at modeling a bunch of different things, with little if any mechanical change.

Oh, sure. If a player wants to play a unique concept and a dragonmarked race seems like a good mechanical fit for it, I’ll allow that. I just don’t think that’s the same thing as “allowing dragonmarked races.” It’s a single character, and strictly speaking they aren’t really dragonmarked. I have a player in my current campaign using the Kalashtar stats reskinned as a human with a connection to a ghost rather than an astral spirit. Still wouldn’t say I’m “allowing Kalashtar.”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, sure. If a player wants to play a unique concept and a dragonmarked race seems like a good mechanical fit for it, I’ll allow that. I just don’t think that’s the same thing as “allowing dragonmarked races.” It’s a single character, and strictly speaking they aren’t really dragonmarked. I have a player in my current campaign using the Kalashtar stats reskinned as a human with a connection to a ghost rather than an astral spirit. Still wouldn’t say I’m “allowing Kalashtar.”

Ah, in that case we are just using words differently, rather than actually disagreeing. My Human Artificer doesn't have a dragonmark like...in the fiction, she has arcane markings on her body that indicate her potential to become a Witch. I would absolutely say that we are allowing dragonmarked races.

Just a wording difference, after all.

 

[Laurefindel]

Definitely. Dragonmarks can easily be refluffed into any sort of bloodline/prophecy/etc typical of almost all fantasy worlds.

very true

If anything, they can be used as templates to create custom variant races fitting the themes of another setting, homebrew or not. Bard from the hobbit (more so the book character) comes to mind. Speak with animals and some kind of affinity with vision and bows, for example.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

And that's a fine way to do it. My preference is to keep some things limited to each setting. The Supernatural Gifts of Theros, for example, change when taken out of the context of a world where the gods are active participants/meddlers. I think it goes back to the confluence of flavor and crunch (and, like I said, a bad experience at a con...).

Yeah I guess my POV on them doesn’t really feel beholden to the houses, because we have been using them as “you are of a magical themed lineage” for years. My wife has a Mark of Scribing Gnome Artificer in my FR game, and a Mark of Shadow Gnome in my AU Earth Crossroads campaign. I’ve got a Mark of Making Human Artificer that I’ve used a couple places. In my wife’s COS game she was marked by the same magitech accident that cost her an arm, gaining slightly blue-tinted skin rather than a tattoo. In Space Fantasy she is instead marked by an ancient power vaguely analogous to The Force, but more arcane and with physical signs that manifest with puberty.

I just don’t see any…tension, in using them without using the houses.

 

[Weiley31]

That's okay, Kryptonians are weak against magic.

This is pretty much how they explain why Superman could get his butt kicked by Raiden in DC vs Mortal Kombat.