Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 5034880" data-attributes="member: 23977">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.</blockquote>

Verification