| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am running an Eberron campaign, using Pathfinder rules. So far, I really think that Pathfinder represents many aspects of Eberron better than the original 3.5e rule set. Say that I am tossing an idea around concerning Dragonmarks, House & Aberrant.
I have found Eberron in Pathfinder very helpful with some ideas. I like the idea they have for each DMarked House having a Bloodline. I'm not sure if the Eldritch Heritage feat is the way to go for actual Dragonmarks, though. I am leaning to a modified Varisian Tattoo feat. Then I can use the Tattooed Sorcerer as the basis of a DMarked Sorcerer.
I said that because I am thinking that Aberrant Marks could be tied to Witches. Still using the Tattoo feat, but making a "Tattooed" Witch Archetype for Abberant Spellcasters. The thinking is that Abberant Marks supposedly come from Dark powers. Powerful Abberant Marked people are those that explore their Marks through Witchcraft.
Nothing? No snide comments? No accolades of original thinking? Not even a totally off topic comment? :P
How are you handling warforged and changelings?
The big thing is to make sure each 'Mark' does what you want it to do in game. In my campaign, I've had to alter several bloodlines to get the results I needed.
How are you handling warforged and changelings?
I am using my own conversions merged with a Hero Lab file I found for Eberron using Pathfinder.
I like the "Dragonmarked" Bloodline a lot, but dislike the Eldritch Heritage feat thing. I'd continue with the Dragonmark feats, there are some cool ideas on how to balance they for PF in the foruns, and modify the Dragonmarked Bloodline from Eberron in Pathfinder to work with the feats.
I do too & I am modifying the Dragonmarked Feats to be more in line with the Varisian Tattoo feat and the Tattooed Sorcerer.
What do you guys think of having Abberant Marked Witches as counterpoints to Dragonmarked Sorcerers?
How are you handling warforged and changelings?I am using my own conversions merged with a Hero Lab file I found for Eberron using Pathfinder.
I like the "Dragonmarked" Bloodline a lot, but dislike the Eldritch Heritage feat thing. I'd continue with the Dragonmark feats, there are some cool ideas on how to balance they for PF in the foruns, and modify the Dragonmarked Bloodline from Eberron in Pathfinder to work with the feats.I do too & I am modifying the Dragonmarked Feats to be more in line with the Varisian Tattoo feat and the Tattooed Sorcerer.
What do you guys think of having Abberant Marked Witches as counterpoints to Dragonmarked Sorcerers?
You can upload homebrew stuff on herolab?
You can upload homebrew stuff on herolab?
Yeah. I enter a bunch of stuff using the Editor Tool.
I think I may need to change it to Sorcerer & Oracle classes. Some Dragonmarks spawn Sorcerers, other Oracles.
The heritage thing is kind of nifty but I don't like it as a replacement for the marks. The other thing to me is that the marks do not have a witch or sorcerer feel to me.
My only concern with making Dragonmarks as sorcerer bloodlines or Oracle mysteries, and Aberrant marks as Witch Archetypes is the implied power of NPCs in the setting. Now, everyone's version of Eberron differs by their own perceptions but I always liked the idea that most notable NPCs with Dragonmarks, such as most of the House leaders, had a lot of hit dice to be able to gain the dragonmark Feats but their class levels were almost always NPC levels.
If suddenly every NPC with a dragonmark is a sorcerer/oracle/witch that shakes part of the assumptions of the campaign setting.
Making them part of the Eldritch Heritage feat tree is not a bad idea but I think you can get more mileage and less of a headache out of adjusting the original trio of Dragonmark Feats than trying to create 10+ sorcerer/oracle bloodlines/mysteries and then shoehorn what abilities NPCs could get from the Eldritch Heritage feats.
As for the Varisian Tattoo feat I believe there were very similar feats printed in the Dragonmarked book (though many of the feats in there were fairly crappy), but I think this is closer to the answer you're looking for.
The Tattooed Sorcerer is an interesting archetype however and I could see how it would be intriguing to use in Eberron, especially with Dragonmarked characters. I think it would work well as a "Dragonmarked Heir" archetype or that the abilities could be used as a skeleton model for what you're looking for in a super-dragonmarked-character.
Always willing to share my two cents on Eberron, good luck with finding your version of it. =)
I don't plan on all of the Marks taking those classes. I meant it only for those few that pursued their marks to the fullest potential. Witches for the Aberant Marks would be logical. Not everybody who develops those Marks are after such power, nor will they be aware of that avenue of power. The majority of the Marks will still be just taking the Feats. The class approach would kinda be a replacement for the Dragonmark Heir PrC option for the spellcasters. I won't make a specific Bloodline/Mystery for the Marks. I would tie them to already existing ones. Something like if they cast a spell that is a bonus spell from that particular B/M, then they gain a +1 to caster level & DC. I would allow the Marks to surpass the normal limit of the spell. Such as Mark of Healing casting Cure Light from the Life Mystery allowing it to heal up to 1d8 + 11, rather than just + 10. Maybe the Mark of the Sentinel getting a bonus to some Magus Arcana. Along those lines.
On a side note, I will be using much of this, in one form or another, in my campaign. It won't come into play much. My campaign arc really doesn't touch on this too much. I got to thinking about this because the PCs just developed Dragonmarks playing the Eyes of the Lich Queen. It got me to thinking about different options that are available in Pathfinder for handling Dragonmarks. I really don't think there is a right or wrong way to do it. I was just presenting ideas. The Aberrant Marked House, from Dragonmarked, could be a Witch's Coven.
I think it also depends on if you're using the "Dragonmarked" book or not. It has a load of things for each mark and such (12 new prestige classes, seven s$~$ tons of new specialized feats designed to be tacked onto a feat tree, new spells only available to the scions of the magic aristocrats. What do you mean bloat?) If you are than there isn't much need to mess with the marks as they already are a happy mess.
Otherwise, the witch seems more in line with making deals with powers and the sorcerer is more in with powerful things in their blood, regardless of having a mark or not. Dragon marks are much more about belonging to the magical 1%.
Without using the "Dragonmarked" book, only a few of the abilities are even that useful for characters, the least and lesser are about equal with a rogue talent and the prestige class for them is more about status and influence.
Though I guess it also would depend on what you want your game to focus on and how you want to interpret the marks.
Hmmm. I've been considering adding in Dragonmarks to my Golarion based homebrew campaign. For me, I think I will make it feat based. But a Sorcerer, Oracle and Witch archetype to really make use of these feats sounds like a good idea. Not necessarily a new bloodline for a Sorcerer, but I think maybe a new Mystery for the Oracles that deal with the Dragonmarks wouldn't be out of the question. They are mysterious in nature.
Dragonmarked Sorcerer, which would function similarly to the Tattooed Sorcerer (but not exactly similar, because I want to include both. Dragon Prophecy Mystery for the Oracle, just an idea.
What would the Witch's archetype be like? They lose their familiar in favor of the Aberrant Mark and free Dragonmarked Feats? I was thinking of basing the Dragonmarked Feats off of what this guy did.
Sorry I'm like two years late to the party guys, but this is relevant to me now.
