D&D 5E Racial restrictions on Dragonmarks in 5E?

[DEFCON 1]

Either the rules say "only these races can have these dragonmarks!", to which the DM can choose to ignore that rule... or the rules say "any race can have a dragonmark, but it's a unique event!", to which the DM can ignore that rule.

Which means it all comes down to which side the writers are on... inclusiveness or exclusiveness.

As the year and editions have progressed... they usually have come down on the side of making everything open to everyone by default and letting DMs then restrict things for the flavor of their individual game worlds, then to close many things off by default in order to create a generic flavored world that DMs have to then re-open for their own world.

 

[Hellcow]

Just in case you weren't aware the guy you are replying to is the original designer of the Eberron setting.

It's still a valid point, and one people have complained about before.

Dragonmark mechanics never quite worked in 4th. I do think that themes are a good solution in 4E and likely DDN, depending on the role of themes there. I've talked about the "universal race" dragonmark issue and some of my dragonmark house rules in more detail in this thread on my website.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I hope Dragonmarks utilize a theme in 5E and possibly a background too. 3.x racial restrictions too.

Since Dragonmarks are gained by feats, and since themes are just a pre-chosen set of feats, this would work just fine. Call the theme "Dragonmark Heir" and give the player a dragonmark feat available to their race at 1st level, and feats to improve it at higher levels.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I hope the default is back to Racial restrictions.

If a DM and Player want to break that, they can, but hopefully it will be with a solid story for that character. I don't want a party with Aberrant House Marks just adventuring without being hunted down and captured/killed by either the Houses, or the Dragons. Death from the Houses might be kind, compared to the long study/torture Dragons might invoke to find out why this strange group goes against the norm...

That said, I did use the idea of Reincarnation for allowing a Half-Orc to hold the Mark of the Scribe.

 

[dkyle]

Either the rules say "only these races can have these dragonmarks!", to which the DM can choose to ignore that rule... or the rules say "any race can have a dragonmark, but it's a unique event!", to which the DM can ignore that rule.

"The Dragonmark of Healing feat requires the Halfling race" is a rule.

"All known bearers of the Dragonmark of Healing are Halflings" is setting fluff. It's not a mechanical rule, but it can shape the story.

There's a clear difference.

As the year and editions have progressed... they usually have come down on the side of making everything open to everyone by default and letting DMs then restrict things for the flavor of their individual game worlds, then to close many things off by default in order to create a generic flavored world that DMs have to then re-open for their own world.

And I'm very thankful for the progress there's been on this. Let's hope 5E doesn't backslide.

 

[arscott]

As the year and editions have progressed... they usually have come down on the side of making everything open to everyone by default and letting DMs then restrict things for the flavor of their individual game worlds, then to close many things off by default in order to create a generic flavored world that DMs have to then re-open for their own world.

So why not restrict Dragonmarks gto help preserve the flavor of Eberron, rather than leave them unrestricted and making it more generic. Then add a sidebar that says "ask your GM if you want to ignore these racial restrictions."

 

[DEFCON 1]

So why not restrict Dragonmarks gto help preserve the flavor of Eberron, rather than leave them unrestricted and making it more generic. Then add a sidebar that says "ask your GM if you want to ignore these racial restrictions."

I would imagine because when they wrote the 4E Eberron, the statement about how if someone other than the proper race got one it was a one-in-a-lifetime campaign shattering event was not thought of as "generic".

Basically, they wrote a blatant "character/campaign" plotline right within the rules for players. Which might help some players more than restricting them entirely and then just hope that some DMs might decide to change it up for their own game.

 

[Mercule]

So why not restrict Dragonmarks gto help preserve the flavor of Eberron, rather than leave them unrestricted and making it more generic. Then add a sidebar that says "ask your GM if you want to ignore these racial restrictions."

In my limited run with 4e, I got the vibe that they wanted to frame the "implied setting" as a kitchen sink setting where any and all rules from any and all sources could be pulled with wild abandon. That's not necessarily a bad thing and I see no problem with someone running a home brew game including a kender templar with the mark of warding.

Where I did start to have an issue was that the kitchen sinkiness was more explicit than implicit. IMO, anyone who is creating their own setting is unlikely to need to be told stuff doesn't have to be exactly this way. The setting books should be written to frame the setting they serve.

For myself, I'm much more likely to reveal a new bearer of the Mark of Death than to play three card monte with the other dragonmarks, and I don't see me ever including the Mark of Death. Of course, since I see dragonmarks as one of the defining features of a setting I rather like, I can't imagine I'd ever yoink them for my home brew. If I did, it'd be specifically to create a hybrid of my favorite elements, so I'd probably keep the racial restrictions anyway.

So, shorter answer to the poll: Go 3.5 style, with explicit restrictions. If someone breaks the rules, they aren't "doing it wrong". I just think the standard setting tropes should be explicit.