Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 5932330" data-attributes="member: 762">Since no one in this thread is an actual game designer, I'm not sure why you're expecting some sort of definitive answer on their motivation.But I'll take a stab at it. It's simply an arbitrary decision (that carries across editions) that basic kobolds are the weakest "humanoids" around - so they have 2 HPs. I sincerely doubt it's any more complicated than that.When one of the design goals is modularity (picking and choosing aspects you like and ignoring those you don't) why is this a problem?First, kobolds have 2 HPs for this playtest. If this sits badly for you, it's the perfect opportunity to express your dislike to the designers (for example in the survey, there is plenty of room for specific comments).The ability allows an automatic kill on anything with less than 3 HPs - so if said guards or mooks have that - then yes it can be done.I notice that you haven't brought the mage's magic missile into this - the mage can auto kill the kobolds too, at range even! Is you're lack of problem just because "it's magic?"I was just pointing out that your comment re 4e was incorrect. As to the opinion part, of course it's a matter of opinion, we're not discussing rules interpretations here, this is all a matter of preference.I can practically guaranty that the discussion by the designers was something to the effect of, how can we mitigate the fact that the supposedly high damage fighter does exactly 0 if he has a streak of bad rolls? And one answer was to set a minimum level of damage to ensure the fighter can at least do "some" damage, because he's supposed to be good at it. As for the magic missile comparison: Magic missile is easy to rationalize because "it's magic," while reaper is harder because it requires a further abstraction of HPs and what exactly a hit vs. a miss is. In fact it requires you to accept the fact that someone with the reaper theme never "misses" in the traditional D&D sense - which is something that caused a bit of a fuss when 4e did it, and the designers are clearly testing to see how accepted it is in 5e.Kobolds in the test module have 2 HPs for because the designers said so, that's it. Someone (or a group) were converting the module and decided kobolds should have 2 HPs - and there you go. I think one of my players has the original module (from way back), I'll have to ask him how many HPs the kobolds had. I would not be the least bit surprised if it was 2.The problem is you are clearly looking for a "real world" reason and there likely isn't an "all encompassing" one. It's a mechanical ability that requires a level of abstraction where "hit" and "miss" take on slightly different meanings than you've always been used to.Again, you are looking for a "real world" reason, and there really isn't a definative one. The real reason is almost certainly to test how this mechanic 1) balances and 2) how people like it in relation to other shticks. Play what you like, there's not enough time to focus on things you don't!That said, this is an early playtest. You were clearly interested enough to participate, don't you want to stick around long enough to see if and how your concerns are addressed?The problem you face is to many, your concern isn't a hole, it's a feature. Why should PCs have the same HPs as a kobold to start? Why not have enough to not risk immediate death when confronted by one of the weakest creatures in the game? Starting with 3e (when max HPs at 1st level became the norm and the level caps on HPs were removed) D&D has been trending to giving the PCs more HPs. The PCs are not just random joe schmoes living in the world, they are the PCs -and the game designers decided that deserves an edge, small as it may be.I also think your attitude of "I care and they clearly don't" is misguided. Yes WoTC is a business but the design team et al. is staffed by people who really, really, really care about gaming and I think you do them a disservice by thinking otherwise. Just because they're focus is not your focus, does not mean they don't care!You'll have to excuse me if some of my points seem rambling or repetitive, there's a lot of text and it is way too late here for fully coherent thought!</blockquote>

Verification