Revisionist game publishing

[catsclaw227]

Same thing can be said about bonuses though, but we like those, so we ignore them more easily I guess.

I'm not really sure what you mean.

Seems obvious to me.

If a racial writeup (or class or item or power or whatever) rattles someones sense of what is "right", it seems that the complaint is only about something that would nerf the PC and never something that would aid or provide a bonus.

Seems obvious to me.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not a big fan of Bob II type characters, but it's understandable if, when a PC dies, they want to play a substantally similar character.

Even then, you're still only talking two characters. Hardly the fourth (or even more) that I was responding to. I'm thinking that the idea that there's going to be hordes of a MM race in a given group is a bit off. It certainly doesn't jive with my experience.

--------------

Really though, this gets back to the biggest difference with 4e D&D and that has been noted - monsters and PC's are fundamentally different. But, there's an offshoot to this as well. Monsters are no longer consistent and they aren't meant to be.

In earlier versions of the game, the Monster Manual was almost a biology textbook. Creatures came in one type and only one type and that's what the creature was. There was a real sense that these creatures evolved into the world they exist in. Look at the whole "Ecology" sections in the 2e Monster Manuals for an extreme version of this.

4e doesn't take this approach. Monsters are just that - monsters. Unnatural creatures out to make life miserable for those around them. Kobolds IIRC in mythology are underground evil spirits. So, why do they even need a species? They are magical creatures. Who says they even give birth? Maybe they are spontaneously created, or whatever tickles your fancy.

Same with every other creature in 4e D&D. There is no sense to 4e creatures that they are somehow natural creatures. They are all magical or at least fantastical.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I think the issue some might be having has to do with biology and not "skill".

For instance, the idea that multiple monsters of a given type may all be different in their combat abilities/tactics/powers is an excellent idea. It really makes a lot of sense.

The problem comes when you start changing abilities that should be based purely on biology. The aforementioned Darkvision would fall into that category.

Not giving the PC version of a monster the same special "powers", sure, I'm fine with that. But saying that physically they must be different. That's where it becomes too much of a stretch unless its a one-time thing, not an every time thing.

"I want to play a Kobold"
"Okay, but you have to be hairy, and you don't have a tail."
"Whu-, why?"
"Well, because PC's are different from Monsters."


But honestly, there hasn't been too much of this in reality. There is no official PC write-up of the Kobold, the Minotaurs in the MM don't have the over-sized weapons, and the write-ups in the back of the MM do clearly say: "use at your own risk".

So really, it's not a problem until they start officially creating PC versions of monsters that radically depart from the baseline monster versions.

 

[Hussar]

The problem comes when you start changing abilities that should be based purely on biology. The aforementioned Darkvision would fall into that category.

See, to me, darkvision has zero to do with biology. For one, creatures that grow up in total darkness don't spontaneously develop the ability to see in the dark, rather, they lose all vision completely. Darkvision isn't biological at all. It's a magical ability. Thus, it doesn't have to conform to any sorts of logic or realism.

Now, my question would be, why does my kobold have to be hairy and not have a tail? Tails and body hair are not particularly magical in nature. You can make a pretty good arguement for a biology issue here.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Not sure on this, but is Darkvision a magical ability by RAW? Or do they still distinguish between EX, SP, and SU in 4e?

But isn't Darkvision essentially infravision? Which real world animals have.

 

[Scribble]

I think the issue some might be having has to do with biology and not "skill".

Mentioned this before but I think it bears repeating- The "problem" with this line of thought is that D&D does this in a lot of different areas. The fact that there's a feat that allows you to gain dark vision (a couple different ones actually) in my opinion sort of negates the whole argument.

Monsters in 4e are abstract representations of a wholly formed class/race construct; how you built them is less important then the outcome. Since they aren't built using feats, the PC power system, the PC class system, or paragon paths, it's kind of impossible to say a PC version of a monster "has" to have anything. The ability the monster has could have come from anywhere really, a class bonus, a race bonus, a feat- whatever.

Furthermore, monsters in 4e are NOT built to be representations of the whole group. A 4e goblin blackblade no more represents the entire race of goblins then a single human fighter represents the entire race of humans. It's entirely possible to create a new kobold monster that lacks darkvision (because it doesn't need it for whatever you're doing) and it would be perfectly fine.

So a PC version of a Kobold not having darkvision is a moot point. Do you want it to have darkvision like those kobolds you fought in the mines? Give it a feat/power/class/path that has darkvision, and voila. Is it gained in a different way then the Monster? Mechnically? sure, but you're a differen't class/power/feat/path combo then it is to begin with. (Just like the way a mage gains the ability to do some stuff is different then the way a fighter does because they're different classes to begin with.). Storywise? who knows- that's up to you.

 

[Hussar]

Not sure on this, but is Darkvision a magical ability by RAW? Or do they still distinguish between EX, SP, and SU in 4e?

But isn't Darkvision essentially infravision? Which real world animals have.

Sorry, wasn't clear. I didn't mean magical in the rules sense, but magical in the "this doesn't really occur in nature" sense.

Insects have something that kinda/sorta approximates infravision. As do a few reptiles (pit vipers come to mind). But, I'm scratching my head for anything other than that. Low light vision? Oh, sure, lots of stuff can see better than humans in low light. But seeing in the infra-red (or ultra-violet for that matter) isn't all that common.

And, for that matter, darkvision is not infravision. It doesn't see heat. You get perfect, if black and white, vision in total darkness. In other words, you can read a book with darkvision. You generally can't with infravision.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I guess it does all boil down to individual player expectations and perceptions of how a game does/should work!

But as has been said, it is a moot point.

 

[WayneLigon]

But really. Is this really a problem? I think every player that wants to play something out of the ordinary will be able to come up with a background that supports their race choice, if they would like.

Yes, yes it is. It's one (small) reason I haven't played 4E: the concept that two creatures have a difference -- especially a biological difference like size or darkvision -- based on whether or not they are a PC is a game-breaking problem for me.

 

[WayneLigon]

But, "fourth"? Really? How many kobold PC's do you actually see in the same group? I'd be shocked, outside of some very specific campaigns (Hey, guys, let's ALL be kobolds!) if a given table sees more than a couple of kobolds over the lifespan of the group. Same with most of the "monster" races outside of the PHB's.

Up until recently, it was a common thing for us to have game settings lasting five, seven, ten years. Over that period of time, you can bet that more than one person wants to play Race x.