Dragonlance What do you think of the Kender?
- Thread starter Waller
- Start date
Faolyn
(she/her)
Small creatures have disad with heavy weapons. They could have given kender an ability to ignore that restriction, of course, but without that ability, making hoopaks into heavy weapons would have been detrimental to them.
Level up has slingstaffs, which can be used as either a staff or a sling (otherwise no special stats for the weapon), which means that Sharpshooter should be able to be used with it no prob.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yeah I’m a little bummed about that. I hope that they at least include the weapon in the book.
Tbh weapon proficiencies should be more freely available. I certainly plan on giving anyone raised by kender proficiency in the hoopak, even if I have to homebrew the damn thing into the game.
humble minion
Legend
I agree with almost all of this, especially it being a martial weapon, but to paraphrase a previous Australian Prime Minister - any DM who doesn’t let a kender pc use Sharpshooter when using a hoopak as a ranged weapon is a bum.
Ok, I admit, I was going off of experience, not empirical data. I've personally taken damage of other types far more often than poison.
Demetrios1453
Hero
From the text under "Special":
"You can use the hoopak as a martial ranged weapon"
So, when used that way, you can use Sharpshooter.
I do agree that it should be in the list for allowed rogue weapons though, and that's a quick houserule for my table.
Shadowdweller00
Adventurer
What foes you face are kinda campaign / setting/ DM dependent. So your experience isn't necessarily invalid. Have been enemy listings released since last I counted anyway, so I might not even still be correct.
Peter BOSCO'S
Explorer
It might be better if Hit Dice were a resource that were used only for cool stuff that tires people out. Otherwise we have to explain why their use is limited by your hit dice and if you spend them all you will need a long rest to get them back and two long rests to get them all back.
Couldn't Taunt negate the Auto-Advantage on attack rolls against a Kender Barbarian using Reckless Attack, while still allowing the Kender Barbarian to have Auto-Advantage attacks against the opponent, who now doesn't have advantage?
Last edited:
I think ever since the Yuan-ti Pureblood got released as a PC option in Volo's, they've been like SUPER cautious about giving playable races that straight up have an immunity to damage types.
I mean, look HOW LONG it took them to FINALLY give us Force, Necrotic, Thunder, and Radiant as damage type choices that a Dragonborn could use for their breath weapons? Because anytime a similar choice of damage type selection for an ability or what not was an option, WoTC ALWAYS gives the standard Fire, Ice, Acid, Poison, and Lightning selection choice. The Gem Dragonborn have been the ONLY exception to that paradigm so far IIRC.
WoTC just seems to be TOO cautious at times. Despite allowing various options before in the past that was a bit of a bump in power on the PCs end.
Yeah, I mean, imagine you had resistance to force. How often is that going to come up? What does it break? Not a gosh-darned thing. Bear Totem Barbarians can take half damage from force during major confrontations, almost effectively doubling their hit point total (save for psychic damage), and that's perfectly fine. Sure, some damage types are common- undead have a tendency to throw around necrotic damage, fire-using creatures are a dime a dozen in D&D. In a lot of cases, however, it's a situational ability, depending on the campaign and foes fought, it could be little more than a ribbon.
Like being a Ranger who has practiced fighting Giants. Sure, Ogres, Trolls, and the like aren't exactly uncommon foes, and if you're playing Against the Giants or Storm King's Thunder, it will be handy to have bonuses against Giants- but even there, these are not the only things you fight.
When I played SKT, the most memorable fights were against a remorhaz, a dragon, and a kraken. Giant-slaying would not have helped.
But I get it. It isn't that WotC doesn't realize these things. They're probably tired of the knee-jerk rage from DM's who imagine the worst-case scenario, that a player could manage to trivialize one enemy type or encounter, perhaps even one of their favorites.
The tired old "5e is easy mode" arguments come out, and the wail about how "power creep" is destroying their ability to challenge the players. Which, you know, maybe a new DM might run into some issues, but it doesn't take a lot to trivialize an immunity or resistance. In fact, it's so easy to do, that it's harder to give the player moments where they can shine.
What a lot of people seem to forget, with these sorts of arguments, is that 5e's model isn't based on attrition the same way older versions of the game were. The players are generally supposed to win in 5e. It's possible to lose, but the circumstances that cause this to happen are extreme, by design.
WotC wants to make money, and they feel the best way to do that is not produce a game with Dark Souls-esque difficulty. If Billy the Noob sits down to play D&D, if his first encounter results in his character dying to a goblin's spear, he might decide this game isn't for him.
Now, that having been said, a DM can certainly house rule the game to be more difficult. Gritty realism, less generous resting, banning elements they think make the game too soft. And that's fine! It's all about what your playgroup finds fun.
But the instant WotC produces anything cool for players, why, it's the death of the game! And rather than just quietly saying "I think it's a bit much for my campaign, but I'm sure it's fine for others", you get "TWILIGHT CLERK HAX!!!!1111", and endless threads talking about how this thing or that thing is destroying their vision of the game, which most likely was already not the default anyways.
And I'm not defending WotC here, mind. Some things they make are a bit extra. Just as some things that they make are too conservative, to the point that no one is excited to use these options.
What truly bothers me is, I don't understand why WotC chooses to listen to this feedback sometimes, and ignore it completely in other times. They went ahead full steam with the Tasha's Cleric archetypes, but nerfed the thing about Yuan-Ti and Kender that made them unique. It's truly maddening.
DarkCrisis
Legend
Yeah I’ve only experienced fun Kender at my table. Any handling is strictly RP only and hurts no one. Fun is had by all.
The biggest WTF for 5E Kender is a rogue can’t use a hoopak? What major screw up is that?
Cordwainer Fish
Imp. Int. Scout Svc. (Dishon. Ret.)
I like kender but I could never eat a whole one by myself.
Followed by the hoopak being pathetic, like any sling weapon in D&D. Never no mind how effective Balearic slingers were during the Punic Wars, lol.
Faolyn
(she/her)
Sometimes I think they believe magic missiles are still the go-to damaging spell for wizards.
Scribe
Legend
Yep. But to hear the internet tell it, it never happens.
Bedrockgames
Legend
I honestly never encountered any complaints about Kender until the internet (and I probably only became aware of the criticism after 2010). It might just have been that the kender worked for the sense of humor in area I lived in. Or maybe we just used them differently. But it never created any bad blood. There were plenty of other types of characters I saw create issues at the table (but those were usually a product of the players gaming style rather than something inherent in the class or race choice they were making).
What happened in my area was that the people who played Kender wanted to play Tasslehoff Burrfoot specifically, the "lovable scamp" who was always performing pranks on his fellow party members (like the time he glued one of his "friends" sword into it's sheathe).
The problem was, while they had great fun themselves, these pranks were often not well-received by other players. Yet somehow, we were expected to go "oh that Kender, lol" no matter how much trouble they caused. Toss onto this "I'm just playing my character", and the AD&D trope of "my character is a Thief, stealing is what I do" that was already running rampant at the time, and you had people insisting that their aberrant playstyle was not only in-character, but officially endorsed!
Both players and DM's that I knew got tired of such antics quickly, and thus the Kender hatred was spawned. This actually got to the point that when I wanted to play a Kender (a Kender Barbarian, to be precise), all my attempts to reason with the group that I wouldn't be acting in that way fell on deaf ears. To them, any Kender was bad news.
The Drow boom eventually supplanted the Kender hate (later followed by Psionics hate), but it never really went away. And interestingly, over time, even official supplements started to veer away from the way Kender had been portrayed, with the dour Ravenloft Kender, or the broken PTSD Kender of the later eras, after Kendermore had been subjugated by a powerful Dragon.
Clint_L
Hero
I think they are a thinly veiled halfing that was created for copyright reasons.
When they were introduced, they were obviously hobbits, just as Takhesis was obviously Tiamat. I think most of the dislike of Kender was simply because they feel like a rip-off.
The dislike of Drow was because everyone started copying Drizz't's backstory and moody characterization and it was incredibly boring.
And the dislike of psionics pre-dates both, by years. Those rules were controversial from the moment they were introduced, and the version of psionics brought into AD&D was hugely unbalanced, a pain to use, and thematically off, like someone had inserted 70s soft sci-fi into a fantasy setting. Most campaigns rejected them.
When they were introduced, they were obviously hobbits, just as Takhesis was obviously Tiamat. I think most of the dislike of Kender was simply because they feel like a rip-off.
The dislike of Drow was because everyone started copying Drizz't's backstory and moody characterization and it was incredibly boring.
And the dislike of psionics pre-dates both, by years. Those rules were controversial from the moment they were introduced, and the version of psionics brought into AD&D was hugely unbalanced, a pain to use, and thematically off, like someone had inserted 70s soft sci-fi into a fantasy setting. Most campaigns rejected them.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
