Making the Kobold a playable race

[Nail]

Huzzah!

 

[Nail]

....More tomorrow. I'm off to supper!

Huzzah, I say! I can post!

(Peanut Gallery: Oh *%&$^!! Nail can post again. ......)

 

[Nail]

...I'm still having trouble posting......


[EDIT] Except when I have nothing to say, apparently. I've just lost a long post to this thread.....and I'm quite annoyed. For some reason or another, I cannot stay logged in...I'm constantly kicked out, and my posts are lost.

I'm at my wits end (which, as you might guess, isn't a long journey. )

 

[Nail]

Back On topic:

I'd like to divide the discussion. I have personal pet peeve, that's best removed from the conversation of making Kobolds a ECL +0 race: Darkvision.

Topic #1: Darkvision
The reason this grates on my sensibilities is that

• There's no predictable downside to being able to see perfectly in the dark.
• Most monsters get darkvision, even if it doesn't make sense that they get the ability.
• Darkvision isn't a "throw away" ability...it's awesome, and should be treated that way.

These are all IMHO, of course.

Now IMC, I've held off doing anything about this. I'd like to keep the rules simple, and the changes few. But with this kobold discussion, the subject's in the fore (at least for me ). I was planning on trying a limited sort of downside, tied to the range of the darkvision. Thus kobolds get 90ft range, but light sensitivity. ....My proposal has encountered stiff opposition..... So, a larger change is necessary for me to "move on".

Here it is:
From now on all creatures that have darkvision will also have Light Sensitivity. (Light Sensitivity causes the creature to be dazzled in bright light or daylight). Darkvision allows a creature to see objects, "edges of things", and movement....but does not allow colors or shades to be seen, i.e. no reading in the dark. (Unless it's chiseled into a stone tablet!) I especially like the picture of the mindflayer in the DMG when shown "in darkvision".

In addition, many creatures that formerly had Darkvision will have it changed into Low-light vision. For the most part, we'll use a fuzzy "Is this creature subterranean?" standard to make the call. Creature Types will no longer universally give Darkvision...unless it makes sense to do so. Outsiders often have darkvision, given their special planar origin. Many devils, for example, will have darkvision, even if they don't technically originate from "below ground". All undead have darkvision...again, because it "makes sense" (there's a reason they attack after nightfall!). Magical beasts usually will not have darkvision (like the Owlbear).

For PC races, Dwarves may either have darkvision (Mountain Dwarves) or not (Hill Dwarves). Other than that difference, the dwarvish sub-races are the same. Half-orcs have a choice between darkvision (and thus light sensitivity) or normal vision (rationale: Human or orcish blood dominant).

Whew......okay, with that off my chest, let's talk about these fascinating Kobold proposals....

...after my next class.

 

[Videssian]

Darkvision in Nail's Campaign

Back On topic:

I'd like to divide the discussion. I have personal pet peeve, that's best removed from the conversation of making Kobolds a ECL +0 race: Darkvision.

Topic #1: Darkvision
The reason this grates on my sensibilities is that

• There's no predictable downside to being able to see perfectly in the dark.
• Most monsters get darkvision, even if it doesn't make sense that they get the ability.
• Darkvision isn't a "throw away" ability...it's awesome, and should be treated that way.

These are all IMHO, of course.

Now IMC, I've held off doing anything about this. I'd like to keep the rules simple, and the changes few. But with this kobold discussion, the subject's in the fore (at least for me ). I was planning on trying a limited sort of downside, tied to the range of the darkvision. Thus kobolds get 90ft range, but light sensitivity. ....My proposal has encountered stiff opposition..... So, a larger change is necessary for me to "move on".

Here it is:
From now on all creatures that have darkvision will also have Light Sensitivity. (Light Sensitivity causes the creature to be dazzled in bright light or daylight). Darkvision allows a creature to see objects, "edges of things", and movement....but does not allow colors or shades to be seen, i.e. no reading in the dark. (Unless it's chiseled into a stone tablet!) I especially like the picture of the mindflayer in the DMG when shown "in darkvision".

In addition, many creatures that formerly had Darkvision will have it changed into Low-light vision. For the most part, we'll use a fuzzy "Is this creature subterranean?" standard to make the call. Creature Types will no longer universally give Darkvision...unless it makes sense to do so. Outsiders often have darkvision, given their special planar origin. Many devils, for example, will have darkvision, even if they don't technically originate from "below ground". All undead have darkvision...again, because it "makes sense" (there's a reason they attack after nightfall!). Magical beasts usually will not have darkvision (like the Owlbear).

For PC races, Dwarves may either have darkvision (Mountain Dwarves) or not (Hill Dwarves). Other than that difference, the dwarvish sub-races are the same. Half-orcs have a choice between darkvision (and thus light sensitivity) or normal vision (rationale: Human or orcish blood dominant).

Whew......okay, with that off my chest, let's talk about these fascinating Kobold proposals....

...after my next class.

Have you thought about making darkvision = infravision? (like it was in previous editions).. in some ways this makes quite a bit of sense, if you're looking for the different vision types to make logical sense.. low-light vision after all is very sensitive vision. Infravision would be extending the visual spectrum past red to where heat is visible. This exists in nature (I'm guessing with less/no perception in the purples).. it's reasonable for undead since heat is generated by living bodies.. and undead hunger for that life vitality.. underground, you could be hidden behind a rock but you'll still radiate (vertically) heat, and leave temporary impressions on objects you touch, so it would be great for hunting.. it just (to me) makes a lot of sense.. much more so than a magical sight that lets you see in the dark.. except when it's a darkvision spell.. so is it really dark or not?? Infravision just makes sense..

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Have you thought about making darkvision = infravision? (like it was in previous editions).. in some ways this makes quite a bit of sense, if you're looking for the different vision types to make logical sense.. low-light vision after all is very sensitive vision. Infravision would be extending the visual spectrum past red to where heat is visible. This exists in nature (I'm guessing with less/no perception in the purples).. it's reasonable for undead since heat is generated by living bodies.. and undead hunger for that life vitality.. underground, you could be hidden behind a rock but you'll still radiate (vertically) heat, and leave temporary impressions on objects you touch, so it would be great for hunting.. it just (to me) makes a lot of sense.. much more so than a magical sight that lets you see in the dark.. except when it's a darkvision spell.. so is it really dark or not?? Infravision just makes sense..

It's a pain to adjudicate, however. Massive differences in opinion come up on what does and does not put off heat, how much "residual" heat is left behind for things like tracking, etc. Do undead put off heat? And so on.

Also, for the record, there is no actual analogue to infravision in nature. Heat-detection in animals is not done through the eyes. If you "saw" heat, your visual world would be incredibly complicated and full of noise. Heat-sensing is through an entirely different sense. If I had to go out on a limb, I would say it was most like hearing, but it's tough to say that for certain since we don't have it. Creatures that sense heat tend to use it in conjunction with scent, or to compensate for the fact that their motion detection is good, but visual detail is poor. i.e. they know something in front of them is moving, but they can't tell if it's food or a stray leaf. Their heat detection, however, shows a heat source, so it's probably food. That kind of thing.

Also, heat detection wouldn't help you navigate in your environment at all, unless every object in the environment, including the walls and floor were giving off notably different amounts of heat.

Ultraviolet light is used in vision in some species (mainly insects, iirc), but what they do is alter color perception, for the most part. The simple version of this is, they can see more colors than we can.

 

[Nail]

It's a pain to adjudicate, however.

Yup.

Canis said said just about everything I would have said on the issue of infravision/ultravision. I agree completely.

In a past campaign, I had elves and gnomes have "life-sight", and dwarves and underground creatures had "stone sight". (I'll let you decide what those abilities allowed them to see.) It was a neat idea, but even that was hard to adjudicate without arguement. Darkvision is better by being simpler.

My only beef with how darkvision works: You shouldn't be able to see "shades" of color. Therefore, you cannot read ink on a page while in the dark. And you'd have extreme difficulty judging what kind of metal a beerstien was made out of, for example.

Darkvision = no color, tone, or shade. "Edges" only.

IMHO => YMMV.

 

[DrSpunj]

Here it is:
<snip House Rules>

Please take time before our next session to update your House Rules document to reflect this so we, as players, know what to expect in your game. While you're at it try to tackle Scent, too. Actually, with those two nerfs put together I'm sensing you like surprises and don't like them being spoiled by "ordinary" senses. Or is there some other reason this really gets under your skin?

Anyway, it's obvious (even before you stated as much) this is a pet peeve of yours and you've given it a lot of thought, however the ramifications will likely be subtle. I, personally, would like clarification about Mor'Elandi's Favored Enemies, and any race with racial enemies deserve notification as well (since that would be considered "common knowledge", IMO).

And Videssian, just as an FYI, it is usually not necessary to quote someone's entire post. Quoting the relevant part for your own message, as long as the author is correctly identified (which most boards, including this one, now do automatically) is more than sufficient, even when you're posting to a very busy thread. If you are responding point by point, please take the time to break the quoted text into manageable and relevant sections with your response so your thoughts are more easily perceived by others.

Sorry to play Ms. Manners here, but these threads are long enough without reading/scanning some posts twice (like just above with Nail's post, then you quoting his entire post before adding a few lines & thoughts).

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

My only beef with how darkvision works: You shouldn't be able to see "shades" of color. Therefore, you cannot read ink on a page while in the dark. And you'd have extreme difficulty judging what kind of metal a beerstien was made out of, for example.

Darkvision = no color, tone, or shade. "Edges" only.

DARKVISION
Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black and white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.

Nail, since the rules seem to agree with you...ummm...what's your beef with them again?

Although I have to say, with what I've bolded above from the 3.5 SRD, the Core rules would allow someone to read in the dark; after all, a book is typically black on a white background. What's the problem again?

Thanks.

DrSpunj

Edit: BTW, Nail, I'm reading through Wulf's SH again and found this post by you. You're last comment there struck me as extremely ironically funny after reading your last couple posts here and past discussions about Scent!

 

[Videssian]

And Videssian, just as an FYI, it is usually not necessary to quote someone's entire post. Quoting the relevant part for your own message, as long as the author is correctly identified (which most boards, including this one, now do automatically) is more than sufficient, even when you're posting to a very busy thread. If you are responding point by point, please take the time to break the quoted text into manageable and relevant sections with your response so your thoughts are more easily perceived by others.

Sorry to play Ms. Manners here, but these threads are long enough without reading/scanning some posts twice (like just above with Nail's post, then you quoting his entire post before adding a few lines & thoughts).

Thanks.

DrSpunj

Umm.. I'll quote how I see fit, thanks... You already know that I'm not in the habit of quoting an entire message and replying with a single sentence.. so you can reasonably infer that I felt it was necessary to quote the piece that I did. And I'll leave it at that..