Another way to do Dragonmarks could be sort of like the Runescarred dedication from the Lost Omens world guide.
I didn't know there'd be so much Eberron interest. I love that setting so much.
We used to play a lot of Dark Sun back in 2E. That setting was brutal.
Ravenloft could be fun, too.
Another way to do Dragonmarks could be sort of like the Runescarred dedication from the Lost Omens world guide.
That's the way I've gone with an archetype for each of the Houses/Dragonmarks (still not 100% sure what to do with Phiarlan and Thuranni). I do still have an ancestry feat and require it, but that's more for the player's benefit. Ancestry feats are a lot less powerful then class feats. So if you want a genuine numerical benefit to your treat wounds successes then you should take the Mark of Healing Level 1 ancestry feat. That provides a tangible benefit that and it comes with a supernatural flavour. If you want further benefits like the stabilise cantrip and spell slots? Then you should also take the Jorasco Healer archetype.
But you can have the "I have a dragonmark" flavour without locking yourself out of multiclassing. Perhaps you don't want the Jorasco Dedication. Sure you might want spell slots and be able to cast Remove Disease. But perhaps you also want to take Heroism. You'd be better off with the Sorcerer dedication in that case. You lose none of the flavour and get to make the character that you want.
I could easily see Phiarlan and Thuranni offering the same spells, but different non-spell feats for their respective archetypes. The distinction between the two is that Phiarlan is composed performers and artists that sometimes happen to be spies. Thuranni, meanwhile, is composed of spies and often assassins running a successful front of performers and artists. Both Houses offer both types of services, but the In 5e, Thuranni agents automatically know how to use a poisoner's kit from their background -- indicating Thuranni's much greater focus on assassination.
Archetypes for dragonmarked characters seems a logical way to go. I really like that. What about Syberis marks?
How would one do the warforged ancestry? They have abilities like... not needing to breathe and stuff like that. It seems strange to have them "pick" those abilities later on at level 9 or something.
Would they be immune to the drained condition? (since they ignored negative levels in 3.5) Or maybe let them ignore one point of Drained.
I dunno. This would require a lot of notetaking. But worth it, imo.
I think immunity to drained is too powerful. Are dryads or treants immune to drained?
Archetypes for dragonmarked characters seems a logical way to go. I really like that. What about Syberis marks?
My issue here is actually that as written, Siberys marks are one of the most overpowered things to ever come out of D&D. We can make Siberys marks the level 16 to 20 feats for Dragonmarked archetypes, but that only covers the "normal" evolution of Siberys marks, not those who are literally chosen by the Draconic Prophecy and gain a Siberys mark out of nowhere.
It's one of those fluff things that don't translate well to PF2e as written. That's why I'm keeping Dragonmark feats as ancestry feats for now, and acknowledging how strong they are by granting bonuses to unmarked characters.
I can see them being an Rare archetype with a high level requirement though. Having Greater Dragonmarks from the previous archetype grants access, but otherwise it's DM permission only.
I think immunity to drained is too powerful. Are dryads or treants immune to drained?
It would be Tree-Men-dous if they were.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've run extended PF1 campaigns in the Forgotten Realms with virtually no conversion beyond re-skinning deities, and wouldn't expect much more work than that for 2e.
I find the two campaign settings to be pretty interchangeable kitchen sink fantasy Earths, so there's not as much to be added or removed rules-wise when applying Pathfinder to the Realms as there would be when doing Dark Sun or Dragonlance. More a matter of picking which lore you like best and then saying, "oh yeah, that thing comes from this place instead of that place."
(And now that I've mortally offended two large fandoms, I'll see myself out...)
I've run extended PF1 campaigns in the Forgotten Realms with virtually no conversion beyond re-skinning deities, and wouldn't expect much more work than that for 2e.
I find the two campaign settings to be pretty interchangeable kitchen sink fantasy Earths, so there's not as much to be added or removed rules-wise when applying Pathfinder to the Realms as there would be when doing Dark Sun or Dragonlance. More a matter of picking which lore you like best and then saying, "oh yeah, that thing comes from this place instead of that place."
(And now that I've mortally offended two large fandoms, I'll see myself out...)
I mean, you're not wrong...although Forgotten Realms also boasts quite a few WotC "brand" monsters that don't have a Pathfinder equivalent. In 1e it's easy to just convert a beholder or yuan-ti abomination from 3.5, but in 2e it would be harder.
I find the two campaign settings to be pretty interchangeable kitchen sink fantasy Earths, so there's not as much to be added or removed rules-wise when applying Pathfinder to the Realms
Pretty much. Some of what Golarion 1.0 had seemed to be a reaction to Forgotten Realms (Prophecy doesn't really work that well, drow are unknown to exist at all on the surface). But beyond those very strong differentiators, rules wise, they're very similar. Which makes sense as they were both the "primary" setting of their respective editions and their editions were basically the same game.
Really? The 3e dragonmarks, at least, always looked fairly underwhelming to me - the Least version giving either a cantrip 2/day or a 1st level spell 1/day, and with those being chosen from an extremely limited list of spells with limited adventuring usefulness, as well as not scaling their caster level with the user's level.
I mean, sure, a 1st-level spell once/day and +2 to a skill sounds powerful for a feat, but I think there are fairly few characters for whom it's actually a good option (and remember that 3e characters only get feats every 3 levels). The one I can think of where it actually makes your core abilities better is a monk with the Least Mark of Sentinel who can cast mage armor on herself once/day.
The Least and even Lesser versions aren't problematic. The Greater Dragonmarks are when balance gets wonky. By spending 2 feats as prerequisites, you can now cast spells of 5th to 7th level 1/day at level 9. Most 5th level spells I can deal, because the wizard or cleric could also reasonably access them, but Mark of Making gives you Fabricate as a spell like ability. That means you can cast it without paying the otherwise fairly hefty cost.
I dream of some adaptation of Iron Kingdoms, my favorite scenario. There are some released here in Brazil that catch my attention, but I confess, I'm too lazy to invest in an adaptation. plays on canvas in the case of Iron Kingdoms!), and now with so many ancestral deeds to create / adapt ... God, rid me of that laziness!
I can see not wanting a non-caster character to get a free 8th or 9th level spell (regarding Syberis marks). But I wonder if it wouldn't be as big of a deal at 16th or 17th level. Definitely as a focus spell, so it couldn't be spammed.
I can see not wanting a non-caster character to get a free 8th or 9th level spell (regarding Syberis marks). But I wonder if it wouldn't be as big of a deal at 16th or 17th level. Definitely as a focus spell, so it couldn't be spammed.
Innate spells actually work better, and make more sense. They're limited to 1/day after all.
it aint much but ive been working on this
http://wiki.eberronpf2e.com/index.php/Animal_Companions
There is more to the wiki than just animal companions