Revisionist game publishing

[blargney the second]

How can you expect physics to work when math in D&D is fundamentally different?

Pi = 4! Firecubes for the win!

"You must spread some XP around..."

Awesomeness, Asmor.
-blarg

 

[Inyssius]

You know, I'm willing to bet that if the MM was printed today, the NPC kobold stat-block would grant darkvision. Opinions have apparently changed on the matter; FRPG drow have it, MM2 duergar have it, and there are several low-level magic items which give a limited version of it. If it bugs you that much, and you insist on using that stat-block for a PC, you might as well just change it.

 

[JPL]

Sure, every kobold could be darkblind, spent too much time in the sun, an obscure subspecies, and so forth.

Except you don't need to cover every kobold . . . just every kobold PC. And I can't imagine there are such huge swarms of those in any campaign that the players and DM can't come up with some sort of satisfying explanation regarding the PC's impaired vision.

Other alternatives would be to either ban PCs of the offending race, or try to gimp them in some other respect to balance out that darkvision. Kobolds are the classic cannon fodder --- why not limit them to half the normal starting HPs? That's the sort of approach taken in "Savage Species" (although not with kobolds specifically), and it just didn't work too well . . . you ended up with pixie PCs who could fly and turn invisible at will and had 2 HPs.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

You must spread some XP around...........

"You must spread some XP around..."

Awesomeness, Asmor.
-blarg

covered and covered

 

[pawsplay]

Except you don't need to cover every kobold . . . just every kobold PC. And I can't imagine there are such huge swarms of those in any campaign that the players and DM can't come up with some sort of satisfying explanation regarding the PC's impaired vision.

Really? I cannot come up with a satisfying explanation for a renegade kobold adventurer being darkblind. I can wrap my head around the "genetic mutant" concept, but that's a pretty limited range of archetypes. It's way outside, "I would like to play a kobold." A kobold with some kind of visual disability is a much more specific image that does not go well with a number of archetypes. For instance, if you want to play the last survivor of a slaughtered band of kobolds, a champion of his people, that just doesn't work. It seems doubtful that a kobold clan defender would have such a disability.

Other alternatives would be to either ban PCs of the offending race, or try to gimp them in some other respect to balance out that darkvision. Kobolds are the classic cannon fodder --- why not limit them to half the normal starting HPs?

"Kobolds are overpowered." Still trying to wrap my head around that one. I don't think that's the case, really. I have a suspicion that some of the design team just felt it was a pain to have some of the party have darkvision and some not, so decided that in YOUR game, it just wouldn't be permitted.

That's the sort of approach taken in "Savage Species" (although not with kobolds specifically), and it just didn't work too well . . . you ended up with pixie PCs who could fly and turn invisible at will and had 2 HPs.

What, a 1st level "Uncommoner?" Even a pixie sorcerer would have 4 hp, assuming an average Con, which is probably unlikely. Actually, pixies are probably not the best example, since with flight and invisibility, they can often get away with low hit points. I've never seen a PC monster go wrong if you abide by two basic guidelines:

- If you want to play a frontline combatant, no more than 1/4 of your ECL should be LA. Period. Even, and perhaps especially, if you are a vampire.
- If you want to play something for roleplaying purposes, you should still not go beyond 1/2 your ECL as LA or your numbers will be too small. Classic example being the pixie 1st level rogue, who while quite dangerous and capable, can be instantly destroyed by a caster level 3 magic missile.

In any case, we are not debating between Savage Species type monsters and normal races. We are discussing various creatures roughly equivalent to a human, like a kobold, minotaur, or warforged. The problem 4e presents in this case is not balance, but homogenity. In 4e, everyone gets the same number of dailies, uses roughly the same numbers to hit and do roughly the same damage, within some variation for role. Thus, darkvision is not readily available as a special ability, item, spell, etc. Thus, kobolds have something most characters just don't have. My reaction is basically, "And? That's kind of the point of having diverse PCs." Sure, the kobold will trump in some situations while being disadvantaged in others (due to opportunity costs). Sometimes the game is sort of rock-paper-scissors. 4e actively resists that dynamic, even though it crops up anyway.

In balance terms, darkvision is not substantially different than "teleport, one per scene." Both allow one character to easily deal with certain problems other characters don't handle nearly as well.

 

[JPL]

Actually, I agree on the point that giving a kobold PC darkvision would be just fine. Doesn't seem like a dealbreaker to me at all. I might impose a feat tax --- regular PC kobold has low-light, but there's a racial feat that upgrades it to darkvision. Or it might be something that could be overcome with time --- treat it as a boon (a la DMG2).

But if the DM insists on RAW, your tribal champion might've been hit by some radiant energy when the tribe was killed, or his darkvision might fade or become unreliable once he's on the surface most of the time.

This game requires some imagination, and any player who can come up with a compelling backstory for a kobold adventurer can surely find an adequate explanation for why he's darkblind.

If we were talking about a 4th Edition pixie PC and the DM said, OK, you can play one, but he can't fly or turn invisible or make people dance, for the sake of game balance . . . as a player, I would find that unsatisfactory, since I'm left with a gnome with ornamental wings. A pixie in name only. But a kobold without darkvision still seems pretty koboldy to me.

 

[Scribble]

I'm part of the- make the game work first, and if I (as the player of the game) want to change things I'll change them. When WoTC keeps things "standardized" it lets me know what the numbers mean more easily, and a better idea of what will happen when I change them.

I've never REALLY seen a compelling argument to why something like this is a problem. So a PC kobold doesn't have darkvision... What's the real issue? The "genetics" answer is lame- my wife has a better sense of smell then I do, I have a friend who is color blind- do we not exist as members of the human race? Are we some weird new sub species of human? The color blinded smellless??

As for story, I'd say my imagination is sparked MORE by the Kobold lacking darkvision... Maybe that's why he was always ostrasized, and decided to leave his clan- No one wants to hang out with Torch Carry'n Yarpy!

Almost ALWAYS these arguments boil down to, OHHH X Ability would give me a leg up, so I need to find a way to get it!!! Cleverly disguised as an offense to someone's precious verisimilitude.

Can't see in the dark? Carry a torch.

The few times someone has managed to give me a somewhat compelling story reason they needed X ability, I've let them have it, but kept tabs on what they did with it. Almost always the real truth came out quickly enough.

Really the idea that every member of the race should be cookie cutter with the exact same abilities is the REAL offense to MY verisimilitude. Real life is full of suprises, uniqueness, and it's THOSE differences that make it interesting.

 

[Obryn]

Really? I cannot come up with a satisfying explanation for a renegade kobold adventurer being darkblind. I can wrap my head around the "genetic mutant" concept, but that's a pretty limited range of archetypes.

Once again, you're looking for simulation of reality in a game which fundamentally ignores simulation of reality. I'm not unhappy with saying, "This is what's required for you to play X monster race." If you are unhappy with this, it's just one of those places where your preferences and the game rules diverge.

If you must have some kind of evolutionary reasoning, I think there are plenty of examples of divergent evolution wherein "useful" traits disappear. Just as cave fish lose their eyes over generations because it's a wasteful feature, surface- or shallow-cave-dwelling kobolds may lose their darkvision. If you need an evolutionary reason, they're not hard to invent.

Outside of that, and we're in house-rule territory - which is still wide-open and vast. But without some kind of kludgy rule like a level adjustment, you simply won't see it published.

"Kobolds are overpowered." Still trying to wrap my head around that one. I don't think that's the case, really. I have a suspicion that some of the design team just felt it was a pain to have some of the party have darkvision and some not, so decided that in YOUR game, it just wouldn't be permitted.

Kobolds' "power" doesn't come from darkvision. It mainly comes from one of their racial features which makes them annoying and ... well, kobold-like ... to fight. It's a feature which most enemy kobolds should have, but it's not a genetic trait by any means. (If there's a PC kobold race, I'd expect it to have a cost of some sort, either feat or power-swap.)

Thus, darkvision is not readily available as a special ability, item, spell, etc. Thus, kobolds have something most characters just don't have. My reaction is basically, "And? That's kind of the point of having diverse PCs." Sure, the kobold will trump in some situations while being disadvantaged in others (due to opportunity costs). Sometimes the game is sort of rock-paper-scissors. 4e actively resists that dynamic, even though it crops up anyway.

I know you haven't been keeping up to date, but there are tons of ways for PCs to gain darkvision, for short or long times. There are several races with it, there are quite a few magic items that provide it, there are more than a few Utility powers which grant it, and there's even a way to pick it up with a feat if you're using the Spellscarred rules from Forgotten Realms. I have no doubt that a PC kobold race would, right now, have Darkvision.

The 4e designers started out very conservative. That changed pretty quickly, though.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

Once again, you're looking for simulation of reality in a game which fundamentally ignores simulation of reality. I'm not unhappy with saying, "This is what's required for you to play X monster race." If you are unhappy with this, it's just one of those places where your preferences and the game rules diverge.

The divergence comes when the cart is put before the horse, when the game is designed to serve the rules instead of the opposite.

 

[Scribble]

The divergence comes when the cart is put before the horse, when the game is designed to serve the rules instead of the opposite.

I would argue that what you want is the cart before the horse. Sure you've tried your best to make the rules fall in line in your mental fantasy ant farm... but now game play suffers as a result.

I say make the rules work first. I don't need help with my imagination I'm just fine on that, but numbers... I like it when some other dude figures all those things out ahead of time so I don't have to.