Kobold Inconsistancy

[FadedC]

Yes, and it was recognized as a flaw in past D&D games, and was left behind. Until 4e, it appears.

Yes and that's why there are no monsters with unique spells and equipment or monster/race specific prestige classes in all of 3.x. Oh wait...

 

[hong]

I am really really really getting tired of this response.

... which might imply you have misunderstood the response.

It seems like every post were I complain of some flaw is met with, "Well, that was a problem in earlier editions too." or else, "Well, you can always house rule the problem away."

"You can house rule the problem away" is absolutely valid. It's the flipside of reversing the "take the DM out of the equation" philosophy which pervaded much of 3E's design.

 

[hong]

The armor isn't a problem ... yet. Right now, most of the kobold armor is worse than normal armor, which is easily explainable, and PCs are unlikely to take it for that reason.

But someday soon, I predict we'll see something like an "Bugbear Juggernaught", who wears super-tough spiked armor which grants him Resist Weapons and does damage to people attacking him. And then either the PCs fight a Bugbear and all have super-armor, or the really lame excuses that piss off players start.

Any 3E DM worth his salt will have noted the plethora of monsters with unexplained natural armor bonuses to AC out the wazoo. Nearly all 3E players will be pretty used by now to the plethora of monsters with huge ACs that somehow cannot be transferred away. A DM who thinks of a bugbear juggernaut as necessarily having manufactured super-armour clearly has not DMed enough 3E.

 

[Spatula]

Yes and that's why there are no monsters with unique spells and equipment or monster/race specific prestige classes in all of 3.x. Oh wait...

Well, I can't say what goes on in the FR books, because I don't buy them and have no use for them, but in everything else I've seen... there are no unique monster-only spells or prestige classes. I'm not even sure where the idea that there are comes from (FR? dunno, it's not in the basic game that I've seen). There are weapons that are particular to some monster types, but anyone can pick them up, learn to use them, buy them, etc. - they are statted out the same as any weapon (usually exotic) in the PHB.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Any 3E DM worth his salt will have noted the plethora of monsters with unexplained natural armor bonuses to AC out the wazoo. Nearly all 3E players will be pretty used by now to the plethora of monsters with huge ACs that somehow cannot be transferred away. A DM who thinks of a bugbear juggernaut as necessarily having manufactured super-armour clearly has not DMed enough 3E.

The steel devil from FC2 wears +17 armor. When it dies "the fine steel used to construct its armor transforms into warped, worthless lead."

That's a 3e book everyone. 3e.

Did I mention it was in 3e?

 

[Imban]

The steel devil from FC2 wears +17 armor. When it dies "the fine steel used to construct its armor transforms into warped, worthless lead."

That's a 3e book everyone. 3e.

Did I mention it was in 3e?

Uh, yeah. Late 3e stuff is full of 4e-style design-by-exceptions because that was what they were switching to. From a 3e rules point of view, the few things that do that in Monster Manual IV and the many things that do that in Monster Manual V and Fiendish Codex II are friggin' dumb.

In 4e it's not so dumb because that kind of stuff is what the rules are based around. Of course, it's still not for everyone, and I still hate it myself, but a line like that looks blatantly retarded in 3e and fine in 4e, from the paradigm of the rest of the system.

 

[Spatula]

The steel devil from FC2 wears +17 armor. When it dies "the fine steel used to construct its armor transforms into warped, worthless lead."

That's a 3e book everyone. 3e.

Did I mention it was in 3e?

I had no idea was FC2 even was... looking it up, it appears to be a late 3e book, came out a little over a year ago. I think it's fair to say that the designers have strayed from 3e's original guiding principles in the latter days (hence the changes in 4e), so this doesn't particularly surprise me. It's a design flaw in the steel devil, just as it is wherever it appears elsewhere in 3e or 4e.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It seems to me there's a very long tradition in D&D of providing a simulationist justification for things that are actually gamist. Which is really irksome in the case of the steel devil. I think it would be more honest if the DM just came out and said "You can't have the armor for balance reasons."

Maybe D&D needs some explicit genre rules. Like in superhero comics, a very rule-heavy genre, lots of things happen for reasons other than simulation. Iron Man doesn't kit all the Avengers out in sets of his armor cause it wouldn't be cool. Each hero needs his own schtick.

 

[Wormwood]

It's a design flaw in the steel devil, just as it is wherever it appears elsewhere in 3e or 4e.

Aye. No true Scotsman breaks those rules.

 

[Lizard]

It seems to me there's a very long tradition in D&D of providing a simulationist justification for things that are actually gamist. Which is really irksome in the case of the steel devil. I think it would be more honest if the DM just came out and said "You can't have the armor for balance reasons."

Or maybe the designers need to develop things in such a way as to avoid these kinds of problems?

Forex, have the steel devils have the ability to turn their skin to steel for 2d4 rounds, or whatever, as a Swift Action 1/day. (Minor Action/Encounter in 4e). There. They now have the AC bonus and no Magical Disappearing Armor. Exact same game effects, no head-go-splodey lame explanations.