View Profile: Kobold Avenger - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 05:50 PM
    I feel that Halflings have less of an identity than Gnomes in D&D. The only thing they have going for them was that they were there at the start and named Hobbits, before the Tolkien estate stepped in and brought up trademark concerns that forced them to become Halflings. The only setting where they're actually interesting is Dark Sun, and that's quite a departure from the standard Halflings. ...
    107 replies | 3845 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 09:47 PM
    4e and the Bael Turath background is what I see as a low point for Tieflings, it's best just to ignore all that or completely downplay it. I'd advocate go with diverse 2e-era appearances for Tieflings first, variant mechanics as a distant second concern.
    104 replies | 3356 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 05:53 PM
    I'd certainly use the PHB entry and the expansions in other products as the basis for the more diverse Tieflings in 5e, I've given a little thought to how one might handle variant abilities. Of course the appearance and origins of the characters are up to the player's personal choice. It's very useful to hear from Zeb Cook and McComb about Tielfings, but I think Monte Cook's opinions also...
    104 replies | 3356 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 12:54 AM
    But there's also the idea that Bears can Park Rangers thinking about more modern stories...
    352 replies | 12482 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:09 PM
    For other archetypes of Rangers, I thought of Geralt from Witcher as some sort of Ranger subclass with a few arcane spells and buffs, and I feel the Demon Hunter from Diablo 3 could be worked into another type of Ranger subclass. If they were to bring back that really odd Seeker class from 4e, it could also be dumped into the Ranger. Mearl's Happy Fun Hour toyed with an Urban Ranger...
    352 replies | 12482 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Wednesday, 26th June, 2019, 10:22 PM
    Thinking in the broadest of terms a Ranger is a specialized warrior who is in tune with the environment (possibly specialized in one) who knows a few tricks and secrets. That way it covers the outdoors hunter types, urban vigilantes, monster hunters and a couple of other archetypes, that can be represented as a bunch of subclasses.
    352 replies | 12482 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Friday, 21st June, 2019, 06:24 PM
    1d6x10 Minutes, something I thought about even though it could be wildly inconsistent.
    106 replies | 5101 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 06:15 PM
    That idea has existed since at least Alternity.
    106 replies | 5101 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Kobold Avenger's Avatar
    Thursday, 20th June, 2019, 05:45 PM
    They could call the book Unearthed Arcana as a reference dating back to 1e, and confusing everyone that it's also the series of articles that appears on the website... I also predict that 6e comes out in 2025.
    106 replies | 5101 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Kobold Avenger

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 16, 1979 (39)
About Kobold Avenger
Location:
Canada

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,545
Posts Per Day
0.40
Last Post
Does Your Fantasy Race Really Matter In Game? (The Gnome Problem) Monday, 15th July, 2019 05:50 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
31
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:38 AM
Join Date
Saturday, 19th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

Sunday, 14th July, 2019


Saturday, 13th July, 2019


Thursday, 11th July, 2019


Tuesday, 9th July, 2019


Thursday, 27th June, 2019


Wednesday, 26th June, 2019


Sunday, 23rd June, 2019


Sunday, 17th June, 2018

  • 10:00 PM - Salthorae mentioned Kobold Avenger in post Psion class (Mearls, Happy Fun Hour)
    Kobold Avenger - Mearls has mentioned making a Warlock with an Elder Brain patron gyor - I'm not sure I'd like to see a Paladin oath that deals with psionics. I mean the other oaths are thematic: Vengeance, Devotion, Crown, Conquest, Redemption... I suppose the Oath of the Ancients is semi-similar in concept to what a Psi-oath would be like. I'd think the oath would have to be something like "Awakening" because you're awakening your own potential. As a DM I'd force any Paladins of this to probably be part of a religious order associated with Psionic deities.

Thursday, 29th March, 2018

  • 09:16 AM - Coroc mentioned Kobold Avenger in post Is Dark Sun Coming To D&D?
    Kobold Avenger #20 You are only partially right on this. The Mul is totally easy 1:1 refluff of the Halforc, nothing needed for that one (except evtly. give Advantage on Exhaustion and such, but everything is alrweady there). Half Giant is far more complicated in 5E because you need to give him Strength of 20+ somehow and that is not covered by BA. Also you Need some solution for the size and the alignment shifts. A Goliath is a weak shadow of a half giant that is not at all a solution or even a valid approach. Thrikreen is also a tough nut because of poison attack (could be done by refluffing Dragonborn breath weapon) and natural attacks (4claw and 1 bite in 2nd ed.)

Sunday, 18th February, 2018

  • 06:03 PM - FrogReaver mentioned Kobold Avenger in post Removing the Concentration Damage Save: Houseruling the Affected Feats and Abilities
    Kobold Avenger, Honestly, PC half casters and enemy casters of any type benefit the most from the rule, but that's not really important. If you are deadest on changing the rule then I propose sprinkling in a few new abilities or items that grant PC's a way to force a concentration check. 1. Possibly a potion that when thrown functions like a tactical grenade and temporarily disorients monsters in a small space and forces a caster to make a DC concentration check. 2. Possibly add in a magic dagger that causes concentration checks on casters hit by it. 3. Add in a Paladin smite that has a rider effect that it can disrupt concentration (lower it's damage a bit) 4. Give Eldritch blast an invocation that allows it to break concentration 5. Give arcane casters a low level concentration spell that can debuff a caster to make it hard to maintain concentration on their spells. Make it's effect function just like concentration checks now. 6. I'm sure there's a few more abilities we can add to ...

Wednesday, 20th September, 2017

  • 04:34 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Kobold Avenger in post ASI's at Character Level instead of Class Level
    I think you are looking at this wrong it's already a big bonus to get to level 6 as a single classed fighter as with a standard array you can already max a stat unlike any other class. Having additional class features is a thing. Champions get an additional Fighting style at a certain class leve which no other class gets. Lore Bards get additional magic secrets at 6. You could literally just reword the fighter to have a feature at 6 called additional ASIs that call out that they are fighter dependent and call out the fighter levels at which they occur. The ASIs are already a class feature now you just separate it. As far as power levels go yes it makes PCs stronger and empowers powergaming, but it would allow for more interesting functional builds that may be more MAD than normal. Um, no? The RAW are there for a specific reason. I disagree strongly with Kobold Avenger when he states that "multi-classing is penalized too much under the current rules." When you multi-class, you can get significant benefits from the new class (or classes). The drawback is that you acquire your your class-specific class bonuses more slowly- including the ASIs. That's the balance. Some would argue that, given that most campaigns don't last until high level play (12+), that's not enough of a drawback, but still, that is a balance. This houserule undoes that balance. Which is fine, if the DM is deliberately starting a campaign that privileges (encourages) multiclassing. But I think the DM should think through the fighter/rogues aspects a little better- this isn't an interpretation, it's a houserule. It's not sufficient to say that those classes have them tied to their class abilities (that's nonsensical given the rest of the houserule); instead, it needs to be clarified as to which ASIs abilities are "bonus" ones that they receive.

Thursday, 17th July, 2014

  • 05:40 AM - Scrivener of Doom mentioned Kobold Avenger in post What Classes in PHB?
    Kobold Avenger: Have a look at this list and see how it compares to yours. Barbarian Choose Primal Path (L3): Path of the Berserker, Path of the Totem Warrior Bard Choose College (L3): College of Lore, College of Valour Cleric Choose Domain (L1): Knowledge, Life, Ligth, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, War Druid Choose Circle (L2): Circle of the Land, Circle of the Moon Fighter Choose Fighting Style (L1): Archery, Defence, Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, Protection, Two-Weapon Fighting Choose Martial Archetype (L3): Battle Master, Champion, Eldrith Knight Monk Choose Monastic Tradition (L3): Way of the Open Hand, Way of Shadow, War of the Four Elements Paladin Choose Fighting Style (L2): Defence, Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, Protection Choose Oath (L3): Oath of the Ancients, Oath of Devotion, Oath of Vengeance Ranger Choose Favoured Enemy (L1) Choose One Natural Environment (L1) Choose Fighting Style (L2): Archery, Defence, Dueling, Two-Weapon Fighting Choose Archetype (L3): Hunter, Beast Mast...

Tuesday, 8th October, 2013

  • 05:35 PM - I'm A Banana mentioned Kobold Avenger in post Wandering Monsters: You Got Science in My Fantasy!
    ...ods who are perfectly capable of creating life in whatever form they desire—often their own image. And here: It's easy to equate fantasy races with science-fiction alien species, but I don't think they're the same thing. And here: Fantasy isn't always that, and D&D might only rarely hit that level of mythic resonance. But at its core, our game aspires to a mythic grandeur like that of the Lord of the Rings. Naturally, this is going to create some hostility in those who disagree with his battle-lines. That may even be the intent (God knows the D&D designers have to be really aware that truefans love them a good tribal spear-rattling), or it could also just be one of the Wyatt-isms that sometimes come out of the guy (a la "talking to guards isn't fun!"). That tribal refrain, I think, is kind of obscuring his more salient points on the very real virtues of a mythic game. Mythic games are awesome. It's just that "fantasy" isn't automatically "mythic" in that way. I think Kobold Avenger gets at how sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, really well. He seems to cede that there a bit at the end, and allows a "none of the above" option in the polls, but the tone overall is "This. Is. Fantasy!" and then he kicks everyone who loves dinosaur-dragons down the well.

No results to display...
Page 1 of 21 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Saturday, 13th July, 2019

  • 05:49 PM - dave2008 quoted Kobold Avenger in post The Evolution of Tieflings in D&D: Interviews with Zeb Cook and Colin McComb
    I don't think most want a Tiefling with a butt on the forehead because of the massive horns that a lot of the 4e and later art has. Even if it's a more standard or common look, I think "Sexy Devil Halloween costume" look is probably closer to what many want. Why do you think that? Most evidence i have seen lately suggest otherwise. When I see new Tiefling fan art, it usually mimics 4e/5e. But, that is just anecdotal. I have no further evidence to suggest one way or the other, do you?

Thursday, 11th July, 2019

  • 09:27 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Kobold Avenger in post The Evolution of Tieflings in D&D: Interviews with Zeb Cook and Colin McComb
    But it's because they weren't presented with anything else back in 4e 4e was in print for 4 years, it didn't have any kind of monolithic, inertial influence on the shape of the game just by being the only thing for a long time - that was the game of the TSR era. unless something becomes too much of the wrong direction to bring back in the edition change from 4 to 5 every non-niche general thing from the 4e PHB came back in the 5e PHB.Circular logic, at best, and irrelevant to Aldarc's point. 5e offers a range of Tiefling images, current fans gravitate maybe towards the more diabolical ones? Well, 5e's growing rapidly, lots of new fans are just gravitating towards the things they like from what 5e presents, where it may have been presented before notwithstanding.
  • 08:47 PM - Aldarc quoted Kobold Avenger in post The Evolution of Tieflings in D&D: Interviews with Zeb Cook and Colin McComb
    But chances are they'll still be more popular than Artificers or Psions even after those classes officially come out. Being in the PHB really does matter for exposure.Sure, but it hardly erases how it seems that players in 5e mostly enjoy the version that essentially carried over from 4e. Did they offer variants later? Sure. But the fanart and current version seems strongly influenced and increasingly locked into the 4e-brand tiefling, much in the same manner that kobolds began moving towards being mini-dragons with 3e. These things happen as the game evolves.
  • 12:07 AM - Scrivener of Doom quoted Kobold Avenger in post The Evolution of Tieflings in D&D: Interviews with Zeb Cook and Colin McComb
    (snip) It's very useful to hear from Zeb Cook and McComb about Tieflings, but I think Monte Cook's opinions also matters a lot on the subject. Actually, I think it's Wolfgang Baur who may have played a major role in the creation of the tieflings.

Tuesday, 9th July, 2019

  • 09:55 PM - Aldarc quoted Kobold Avenger in post The Evolution of Tieflings in D&D: Interviews with Zeb Cook and Colin McComb
    4e and the Bael Turath background is what I see as a low point for Tieflings, it's best just to ignore all that or completely downplay it. I'd advocate go with diverse 2e-era appearances for Tieflings first, variant mechanics as a distant second concern.To each their own. I found it a great setting story hook that plugged both tieflings and dragonborn into Nentir Vale's past.

Wednesday, 26th June, 2019

  • 06:37 PM - gyor quoted Kobold Avenger in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    The Champion Fighter to me seems to very much be the example of the Tutorial Build of the Fighter, and is overall the Tutorial Build of the entire system. But even with a subclass as interesting in mechanics as the Battlemaster, the first 2 levels before getting there really just have the options of "I attack" and action surge. It just occurred to me that might turn to the skills system and Larian style interaction system as a solution to that. Like offering an option to through a chain or table at someone, grapples, tripping, ect...

Thursday, 20th June, 2019

  • 03:02 PM - Dausuul quoted Kobold Avenger in post Is it possible that the Revised Ranger is not dead?
    I'm curious on what would be variant features on other classes other than the Ranger. Don't get me wrong that class needs a bunch of tweaks to make it more appealing in my eyes, but have they ever mentioned anything else other than for example not having the Monk use Two-Weapon Fighting as their "virtual fighting style". One other class that I think needs an overhaul is the warlock. The use of invocations (Agonizing Blast, Thirsting Blade) to "complete" their at-will attacks was a very bad choice. On the one hand, it creates a trap for novice players who don't realize how heavily warlocks depend on their at-wills. On the other hand, it opens up a lot of space for multiclass cheese. If I were revising the warlock, I'd give them a choice of class features at 1st level: Eldritch Blast (use your action to make a ranged spell attack for 1d10+Cha) or Thirsting Blade (use your action to make a melee weapon attack using Cha; note this is not the Attack action and thus does not work with Extra Attack). Then...
  • 01:01 AM - lkj quoted Kobold Avenger in post Is it possible that the Revised Ranger is not dead?
    I'm curious on what would be variant features on other classes other than the Ranger. Don't get me wrong that class needs a bunch of tweaks to make it more appealing in my eyes, but have they ever mentioned anything else other than for example not having the Monk use Two-Weapon Fighting as their "virtual fighting style". You know, I think Jeremy may have referred very peripherally to other classes in one of those Dragon+ twitch shows awhile back. But I couldn't tell you which one. And it's probably not enough substance to bother seeking it out. Other people have mentioned the Sorcerer as a possibility. AD

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 06:18 PM - tglassy quoted Kobold Avenger in post Artificer Update: results of the survey and more
    Assuming the flamethrower will hit 6 targets, is like assuming that both (or even 1) of the ballistas will score critical hits. It's not likely to happen. The point is it CAN hit 6 targets, and as my post said, even if it's only hitting 3, it's doing more damage than the Ballista can. And because it's a save, and not an attack roll, even for those who save, they still take half damage, so some damage is done every turn. I don't understand why people are arguing with me because I'm pointing out that the Turret can hit 6 targets. Nobody says "Yeah, but the odds of hitting a lot of people with fireball are so small, it doesn't even matter." Fireball can hit a 20 ft sphere, so they can hit lots of targets. it doesn't matter how many they can hit, it matters they can hit a lot of them. The turrets do 1d8 damage to up to six people for each turret. They don't need an upgrade. They're an AOE attack. It doesn't matter that "You'll never get six people lined up". It matters that it can hit six s...

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 08:34 PM - tglassy quoted Kobold Avenger in post Artificer Update: results of the survey and more
    I don't think there's a problem with the Artillerist's Force Ballista, as that makes a high level Artillerist do a fair amount damage every round with something like 4d8+Int Mod (Cantrip)+2d8+2d8. It's the Flamethrower part that needs improvement. I don't know, being able to inflict 1d8 damage to everything in a 15 ft cone, which is up to 6 creatures, is pretty devastating. Add two of them in the right spot and you're doing 4d8+Int Mod (cantrip) to one creature, and 2d8 or half to up to six creatures. So it's a choice between concentrated fire on one creature (doing an extra 4d8 with two balistas) or spread damage to lots of creatures (doing an extra 2d8 to six creatures, potentially making that an extra 12d8 of total damage). Plus, the flamethrower always done some damage, even if they save.

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 07:04 PM - gyor quoted Kobold Avenger in post Baldur's Gate III Announced; Powered by D&D 5E
    I wouldn't be surprised if one of the recruitable party members is a Githzerai, but I don't think that would mean that Githzerai would necessarily be an option for the main character. I wouldn't be so sure, it's entirely possible that Larian was why MTOFs had a Gith chapter with playable Gith and Gith subraces in the first place, just as BG: DIA used ti be called Eclipse before Larian had WotC add BG to the AP.

Thursday, 23rd May, 2019

  • 09:51 PM - Giltonio_Santos quoted Kobold Avenger in post State of the mystic
    If psionics is too different from the rest of D&D the vast majority of DMs will reject psionics from their games. That's the simplest statement for why it should be close to existing D&D mechanics. If it's too different many DMs won't bother to learn a new system, many will just say it's overpowered without even looking at it. And that's how it has always been. Psionics is a DM call; bringing this kind of thing to one's game has always been a DM call. In fact, from my experience, many DMs will reject psionics even if it uses almost the same mechanic as magic, simply because they don't think it fits their vision of what a D&D game should be. That happened during the 3.X era. The same is true about artificers and warlords, and I still believe WotC should be trying to make those characters happen for the people who want them in their games. But I get your point as well. Maybe psionics, as I'd like it to happen, will have a future in a third-party product. MCG is doing 5e stuff these days, a bo...
  • 09:24 PM - Parmandur quoted Kobold Avenger in post State of the mystic
    If psionics is too different from the rest of D&D the vast majority of DMs will reject psionics from their games. That's the simplest statement for why it should be close to existing D&D mechanics. If it's too different many DMs won't bother to learn a new system, many will just say it's overpowered without even looking at it. I think "should" is strong: but "will" is accurate, since WotC is uninterested in providing a Class that DMs will not allow.
  • 01:52 PM - Aldarc quoted Kobold Avenger in post State of the mystic
    I think there can be a psionic subclass for just about every class, though Ranger and Druid are perhaps the hardest to think of ones conceptually.A druid that taps into the world spirit/mind or psychic energies that connects every living creature. A ranger who adapts psionic attacks and defenses so they can better stalk the abberations that threaten the natural order of the world.
  • 12:04 PM - CapnZapp quoted Kobold Avenger in post State of the mystic
    I think there can be a psionic subclass for just about every class, though Ranger and Druid are perhaps the hardest to think of ones conceptually.Well, I want two things: 1) Psionic subclasses of more than one base class 2) Each such subclass being justified on its own merits In other words, while I can see a Psionic subclass added to some of the PHB classes, I certainly am not arguing for a Psionic subclass added to ALL of them. If WotC can't find a credible niche for "a druid, but with psi powers" then there should simply be no Druid subclass in the book. On the other hand, "a fighter, but with psi powers" sounds exactly like the Psychic Warrior, so...

Wednesday, 22nd May, 2019

  • 09:33 PM - Celebrim quoted Kobold Avenger in post Firearms
    Back on the subject of firearms for character vs character combat... I have D20 rules for all firearms between their invention and the mid-19th century somewhere, based mostly on the firearms rules document by Ken Hood (of "Grim and Gritty" fame) which I consider the best 3.X era rules document on firearms by far. Between the 14th and 18th century, the muzzle energy from firearms didn't substantially increase, nor did the effective range of high end muzzle loaders in the hands of an expert increase substantially except at the very beginning and very end of that period. What you mainly saw over this period was increases in practical rates of fire, increases in reliability particularly in adverse conditions, and decreases in cost. Ken's basic model of a firearm as is relative to the discussion involves the following: a) Simple Weapon - Ease of use and much greater ease of mastery compared to existing weapons was one of the main attractions. b) Relatively Accurate - Once the basic idea...
  • 07:23 PM - Derren quoted Kobold Avenger in post Firearms
    Back on the subject of firearms for character vs character combat, reload times of 1 bonus action or 1 action I feel is not going to rework the existing D&D system if firearms stay within the maximum 1d12 or 2d6 damage limit. On the subject of armor, it's easier if you either treat it like nothing is different, or slightly more complex is just plain don't have heavy armor proficiency in the campaign. Taking an idea from D20 Modern, firearms could in fact do Ballistic Damage which is a sub-type of Piercing Damage, but that's only if your going to work in a bunch of rule interactions for such a damage type. I certainly approve of the idea of their being "lesser" firearms, most RPG systems that have guns in them have tiers of weapons in the same category. With the idea that PCs start out with "peashooters" before moving on to cutting edge equipment later on. I've toyed with the idea of what a Carbine could be, whether it's something to not bother with as it just could be a musket. But it...

Tuesday, 21st May, 2019

  • 08:45 PM - Celebrim quoted Kobold Avenger in post Firearms
    But even if it was in the early 1800's, that's assuming it's only Humans vs Humans with no magic around, which is also certainly not the case. I see Humans, Halflings, Gnomes and Hobgoblins having similar tactics, but I feel that Dwarves and Orcs probably would prefer Blunderbusses with Axe-Blade Bayonets, and would most certainly seek to engage in close range going into charges. Orcs would certainly take the casualties against standard troops of muskets as they charge, possibly supported by War-Beasts. Dwarves would have their Blunderbuss-Axe troops follow in behind their War Machines and Golems. Tactics are governed by weapons and terrain. It sounds to me very much like you want tactics to be governed by stylistic and not realistic concerns, which suggests to me that you are going to want to avoid realistic weapon stats and instead balance weapons according to your desire for tactical diversity and racial trope fighting styles. For example, historically the blunderbuss was basically ...
  • 08:15 PM - Derren quoted Kobold Avenger in post Firearms
    While I use Napolean as an example mainly because he's the most recognizable name of a general from the "Age of Enlightenment" which often gets blended in the Renaissance (D20 Modern certainly groups the Enlightenment into Progress Level 3 with the Renaissance), the era of his wars are sort of the end of the Enlightenment and the beginning of the Industrial. Even though technically the Industrial Age started in Britain roughly before the French Revolution. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden might closer the era aimed for. But even if it was in the early 1800's, that's assuming it's only Humans vs Humans with no magic around, which is also certainly not the case. I see Humans, Halflings, Gnomes and Hobgoblins having similar tactics, but I feel that Dwarves and Orcs probably would prefer Blunderbusses with Axe-Blade Bayonets, and would most certainly seek to engage in close range going into charges. Orcs would certainly take the casualties against standard troops of muskets as they charge, possibly...

Monday, 20th May, 2019

  • 11:45 PM - Derren quoted Kobold Avenger in post Firearms
    This is where genre conventions come in over other concerns, what's described here is mass combat and while I'd certainly would like to think about mass combat rules (which I'm not satisfied with any of the iterations from Unearthed Arcana), there's also the D&D (or any RPG) conceit that many character vs character encounters aren't going to be starting from 100's of feet away. If PCs are involved, then things are going to be within melee range relatively soon, and that's not counting the involvement of magic and all sorts of special things PCs can do. Doesn't matter how large combats are, for the type of combat you want you are several centuries too late when you use Napoleon as example.


Page 1 of 21 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Kobold Avenger's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites