The most traditional average first level wizard hit point value is 1d4. Until 3e, wizards had 1d4hps (avg:2.5) and fighters had 1d10 (avg:5.5). If the kobold had 2hp, PCs had 2-6 hp.
In the DDN playtest, the PCs have between 15 (IIRC) and 20 hit points. Kobolds still have 2hp or an increase of 0%. The PCs hit points has increased by about five times the kobold's total hit points. This is the disconnect.
I can't believe I am agreeing with you of all people but: THIS.
Again, if the kobold had 1/3 or 1/4 a PC's starting HP then I wouldn't have this issue at all. But if they have 2 HP and the party has 20 then they have too few. They aren't rats, they are humanoids afterall.
@
the Jester this is what I am saying. I'm not being absolute here. I am saying that even the basics of the math don't make sense.
@
Kamikaze Midget ...
"Kobolds Are Supposed To Be Pathetic Combatants" okay I just object to HOW pathetic.
3e raised HPs across the board, for the very reasons you've been outlining (then again 3e allowed power attack and cleave at level 1 so a 3e fighter could kill 2 of these buggers which can't, as of yet, happen in 5e)
See above. 3e raised the HP, 4e raised them more. The problem is that only in 5e are we dealing with PCs at 3e and 4e level HP when the kobolds have 1d4 level.
in 4e the basic kobold was a 1hp minion - so translates almost exactly here. the 27 HP ones were, I believe Dragonshields, which have 15 HPs in the current playtest (and are definitely not the "standard" kobolds)
Which is why I said the minions had 1HP and the non-minions had 27. The level 1 SKIRMISHER kobold had 27 HP. The level 2 dragonshield (which I didn't post about) had 36.
You keep saying "on a miss," for this to make any headway here you have to move past the "miss" part and just accept that it's damage dealt when a certain condition is met. Think of it as anyone who has this training never misses, maybe that's too much - but it's got some precedent (Bulls Eye, Green Arrow etc.)
A. I do keep saying on a miss, because the slayer is the only one who hits a miss. No other players hit on a miss. The wizard does damage with a spell on a miss, but that is an area effect - WHICH HAS AN EXPLANATION. Even magic missile doesn't deal damage on a miss.
B. Are you seriously saying all first level PCs should be Green Arrow accurate? He is basically a meta-human in DC terms given his accuracy. This would be a less important thing LATER but at first level it is just too strong. Even if we were talking that the fighter did 1 HP on a miss per level that would make more sense then them miraculously dealing 3 damage every single time ... on a miss.
I despise the "it's magic" explanation. I can just as easily say the reaper ability is "mythic" (and you know what, there's not enough mythic stuff in today's D&D - which is a loss.) the training as mythic appeals to me.
As long as one is founded in reality and one isn't I don't have a problem with the words.
I do have a problem when the explanations are set in both being magic but one being a "martial" power source.
Also, if it is a "mythic" feat then I certainly don't expect them to do it over and over and over, every time they miss an opponent. Even robin hood (or green arrow) misses every once in a while. With this ability the slayer never can.
Magic missile scales better and quicker than reaper (mage gets more missles faster than the fighter gets a bonus to his strength). Further, the fighter will never intentionally miss as his minimum damage on a hit is 9 and average damage is 14. Further low damage resistance is a pretty common thing, and I bet they bring it into 5e, meaning the ability would be countered in certain circumstances.
But we aren't talking about potential or future strength. The fighter can conceivably increase his STR (though not too far in 5e) and will likely get new tricks to hit more accurately and for more damage later on. Considering those will be his real talent later I think the discussion should really deal only with the basic level ability at first level.
The problem is, there are plenty of reasons; I've even listed several which I think are good reasons. You just disagree as to them being good.
I haven't seen reasons, let alone good ones, for this particular class feature. I have the explanation only, but no reasoning for the explanation. As they do well to explain any number of other aspects I would appreciate them putting some effort into explaining something that makes no sense given the outlined structure put forth by Mearls about how HP work in 5e.
And I think a level one ability that allows you to drop certain weak creatures, 1 at a time, even at first level, is fine.
And I don't. Clearly it is a matter of opinion then and not fact.
Let me ask, have you played through this encounter? Because you keep saying, too weak even in large groups. When more than just me has stated, they are actually a decent threat in large groups! The fact that no character died, does not mean they were not a significant threat!
When I see scores that show that no PCs die (unless something went terribly wrong) when killing droves of kobolds, goblins and ogres then I see a problem. I report that problem to WotC and to you. It
may be a matter of preference that some people dislike PCs dying at first level or enjoy having more HP than kobolds and the rest. However what I see is a matter of balance, threat and difficulty. When the kobolds don't seem to have a chance of ever defeating the party or when I see that the party can kill them on min rolls (or no rolls) then I see a problem. You can tell me that you LIKE it that way and that is fine. You can't tell me that it isn't a problem for those who DON'T. I am clearly not alone in thinking that the kobolds are TOO WEAK if KM thought a thread was necessary to clarify his feelings on the subject.
