Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana is Here - and it's all about EBERRON!

Pretty awesome that this series has started

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron

Will Greyhawk or Dragonlance be next??

Probably Dragonlance. Does Greyhawk have any particular crunchy player bits that aren't covered by the PHB already?

 

[iserith]

I created a fun, pulpy party using these rules and they looks good enough to me. I'll be writing a short-form heist scenario for them and will post it in a week or so.

 

[Gradine]

It has always been this way. You can argue that it would be better if they didn't tie dragon marks to character level, but they're tied to character level since the concept was first presented in 3e. In that sense, "your mark grows stronger with level" is as much an Eberron concept as "no clerics" is a Dark Sun concept.

"It has always been so" is kind of implied in the complaint that feats have never been a good fit. Tying Dragonmark growth to level is one of several issues I've had with Dragonmarks as feats. My biggest issue is that feats have almost always represented some sort of character choice; to train, to gain new knowledge or skill. You never choose to manifest a Dragonmark. Dragonmarks choose you, based on fickle whims of prophecy. Now I don't know about you, but when I think "fickle whim of prophecy", I think "DM Fiat" much more than "feats".

 

[iserith]

"It has always been so" is kind of implied in the complaint that feats have never been a good fit. Tying Dragonmark growth to level is one of several issues I've had with Dragonmarks as feats. My biggest issue is that feats have almost always represented some sort of character choice; to train, to gain new knowledge or skill. You never choose to manifest a Dragonmark. Dragonmarks choose you, based on fickle whims of prophecy. Now I don't know about you, but when I think "fickle whim of prophecy", I think "DM Fiat" much more than "feats".

Getting a dragonmark can be "based on fickle whims of prophecy." As a feat, it simply makes it "player fiat" rather than "DM fiat." The character didn't choose the dragonmark (or maybe doesn't even want one!), the player did, and in the fiction that can be described however one likes.

 

[MarkB]

Here's another major problem I have with Dragonmarks as feats (and similarly Dragonmarks as sub races, which I used to be a big supporter of) is in tying the growth of Dragonmarks to character level. A big part of Eberron as a campaign setting is that authority does not always equal butt-kicking. The heads of the houses shouldn't always have to reach a certain level in order to have the greater (or Siberys) Dragonmarks.

3.5e's solution to this was NPC class levels - if you wanted a character to have a powerful dragonmark, he'd have the levels to back it up, but only a handful (if any) of them would be in PC classes.

5th edition mitigates this somewhat by not tying NPCs directly to PC construction rules, but I'd still rather not tie them so directly to overall character power. The longer I think about it, the more I really like the idea of tying Dragonmarks with Blessings.

The thing is, part of Eberron's concept is that PCs are different, and for PCs, authority does equal asskicking. For PCs it is important to link the dragonmarks' power to the characters' overall power level, and for that, a level-based progression works well.

It really doesn't matter how you treat dragonmarks for NPCs - they can follow totally different rules, or no hard-and-fast rules at all. In the Eberron setting, that's pretty much working as intended.

 

[Gradine]

Getting a dragonmark can be "based on fickle whims of prophecy." As a feat, it simply makes it "player fiat" rather than "DM fiat." The character didn't choose the dragonmark (or maybe doesn't even want one!), the player did, and in the fiction that can be described however one likes.

It's a fair point, and one I can't really argue with. I just happen to prefer the mystery of them.

 

[dream66_]

I'm in the 4th camp: Why am I still paying for a DDI subscription for an edition I don't even bother playing anymore?

5th... Why am I paying for a DDI subsciption for my favorite edition when all my friends tell me it sucks and they'd rather not play that play it.

I'm paying cuz I love it and wish I could play.

 

[Morrus]

I'm in the 4th camp: Why am I still paying for a DDI subscription for an edition I don't even bother playing anymore?

Are you? I have to wonder too, then -- why are you paying a subscription to a game you don't play anymore?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's another major problem I have with Dragonmarks as feats (and similarly Dragonmarks as sub races, which I used to be a big supporter of) is in tying the growth of Dragonmarks to character level. A big part of Eberron as a campaign setting is that authority does not always equal butt-kicking. The heads of the houses shouldn't always have to reach a certain level in order to have the greater (or Siberys) Dragonmarks.

This is part of why I've toyed around with the idea that they are magic items. It cleaves closer to the fiction, allowing the player to experience the narrative the same way the character does. Not without its problems, but I can certainly see the value in it.

 

[bogmad]

Are you? I have to wonder too, then -- why are you paying a subscription to a game you don't play anymore?

Laziness mainly.
There's always the possibility I may want join a one off or want to play it again.

Plus, once I stop paying for it then it's all that much sooner they just drop all support for 4th, and it'll be all my fault, right? I don't need that guilt hanging over my head!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I love the shifters. I will be using them ASAP.

I like the Dragon Mark Feat as well. I am a little worried that it is so much better than the Magic Initiate Feat but I don't think that was good enough anyway.

Magic Initiate feat seems pretty cool if you allow the caster to use spell slots to cast the spell they learned. Mike Mearls said he didn't know what the official ruling would be on that, but he'd allow it.

If you really compare the text of Magic Initiate to the text of the drow and tiefling's innate spells, you'll see that the racial abilities say you can cast the spells, but never say that you learn them. Magic Initiate does say that you learn them. Since the general rule (at least as far as multiclassing) is that you can cast any spells you know with any slots you know, it isn't a bad interpretation to allow that to also work with Magic Initiate. You now know the spell, so you can cast it in slots. Of course, there is a phrase in there about not being able to cast the spell again until you take a long rest that could be given as a counter-argument (though you can interpret that as applying to only the free casting you get with the feat).

The Dragonmark feat also says that you learn the spells.

- Dragonmarks as feats dont seem to work. Better introduced as backgrounds?

I wouldn't. Backgrounds traits don't provide special abilities--only connections (primarily social) to the world. The closest exception to that is the Outlander's ability to automatically succeed on foraging.

One thing I wonder: If a feat gives you the ability to cast a spell innately, can you also cast it with spell slots? Based on the innate spellcasting section in the DM's Basic Rules, I think the answer is no; but if it were yes, the dragonmark feats would be huge for spellcasters. Warlocks and sorcerers in particular would benefit immensely from being able to expand their limited spell lists.

See above.

I honestly agree with you, and I think that's the biggest problem. For as much as we heard in the playtest about how flexible 5e would be and how rules modules would allow you to make it your game and feel like any edition, it's really the most locked down of certain types of play just aren't allowed in 5e.

One thing you could do as far as magic item creation is just drop the creation costs in an Eberron (or Eberron style) campaign. Make all the prices be 1/5th or 1/10th the listed prices (including time requirements), don't make formulas any more expensive, and assume formulas are readily available. I wouldn't personally mess with the rules, but if you really wanted to you could say that artificers can choose a magic item formula in place of a new spell to learn when they level up.