Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Koushiro 10-29-07, 02:48 AM	I think a yes to this would be great! :D
Madfox11 10-29-07, 03:56 AM	Isn't it a bit early to speculate about non standard PC races if we even don't know what the standard races will be? ;)
Koushiro 10-29-07, 11:58 PM	Nonsense! It's best to strike early and often until we're allowed out god-given right to make Kobolds the Lawful Good race they truly are at heart. <3
MatteBlack 10-30-07, 12:53 PM	It's a matter of opinion but, I find Kobold characters have a tendency in drawing games in a direction I don't like. Alot of players use them as a license to "act" like a goofball or shatter party unity. Lee
Koushiro 10-31-07, 06:06 PM	Oh, well that's absolutely unacceptable! Kobolds are a proud and heroic breed of creature! Why else would gnomes be their most hated enemies? This is the kind of junk I hope to see phased out of the game come forth edition. People need to stop being jerks and trying to ruin everyone else's fun cause they think their funny. Joking around at a table has its place, we play a game for fun and to hang out with our friends but honestly...
Surgebuster 10-31-07, 08:51 PM	This is the kind of junk I hope to see phased out of the game come forth edition. People need to stop being jerks and trying to ruin everyone else's fun cause they think their funny. Joking around at a table has its place, we play a game for fun and to hang out with our friends but honestly... Uh, Koushiro, I don't think that particular issue is related to 3E. It is both a blessing and a curse of rpga campaigns that you get to play with a diverse range of personality types. I believe that due to the organised play aspect of the rpga, it may attract a somewhat higher percentage of antisocial types looking for a game. Luckily, my area has quite a few people who are patient enough to 'shepherd' many of these into the realms of fun, cooperative play. :-) Giving these players the option to have Kobold PCs is like giving my grandma the keys to a Ferrari. Sure, legally she's allowed to drive it, but boy, will others on the road regret it... Joe
cetiken 11-01-07, 11:07 AM	Just to be clear, you think that this problem is less severe if the same people play essentially the same personality with a gnome? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic, and suggest that properly applied peer pressure is the way to reform these players and never ever pulling a punch as DM. Most people who want to play kobalds I know are actually good role players who enjoy the challenge (and coolness) of being a draconic scion.
Surgebuster 11-01-07, 04:55 PM	Just to be clear, you think that this problem is less severe if the same people play essentially the same personality with a gnome? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic, and suggest that properly applied peer pressure is the way to reform these players and never ever pulling a punch as DM. Most people who want to play kobalds I know are actually good role players who enjoy the challenge (and coolness) of being a draconic scion. Ah, but one man's properly applied peer pressure is another man's bat to the head. ;-) I do think the problem is less severe with Gnome PCs, at least some of them seem to follow the 'absent minded tinkerer' archetype that has less scope for party destroying shenanigans. Most Kobold PCs in my area appear to use Deekin from NWN as the genesis for their personality and to be honest, he's the only Kobold of note I can think of so at least I can understand the logic. Joe
MatteBlack 11-02-07, 11:10 AM	My reservations about kobolds, and likely those of others, is not just over the party friction that often surrounds Kobold character but also in the style of fantasy you'd like to be involved in. There seems to be little middleground with how they are played, either very well or very poorly and those bad examples can really ruin a session for me. I find them to be cartoonish and feel they take away from my sense of immersion. This of course is just my opinion but, a fairly widely held one. Yes, even LOTR featured a similar type of character but, for my money, they are a bit too far out their from my vision of heroic fantasy.
tombollis 11-02-07, 02:40 PM	My reservations about kobolds, and likely those of others, is not just over the party friction that often surrounds Kobold character but also in the style of fantasy you'd like to be involved in. There seems to be little middleground with how they are played, either very well or very poorly and those bad examples can really ruin a session for me. I find them to be cartoonish and feel they take away from my sense of immersion. This of course is just my opinion but, a fairly widely held one. Yes, even LOTR featured a similar type of character but, for my money, they are a bit too far out their from my vision of heroic fantasy. The same could apply to half-orcs, or even elves. Your view on alternate races in LFR is prejudiced and may not be at all indicative of how such characters would be played in the new campaign, with the new rules. Tom Bollis
Keith53 11-02-07, 06:10 PM	First, I have no idea what changes, if any, 4E will do to kobolds, and whether they will be viable character options for PCs. Nor do I think I would accuse folks of being prejudiced against kobolds. Whether you are using a classical mythology reference to kobolds, or whatever edition of D&D monster manuel description, they are small, weak, not nice, somewhat evil, annoying creatures--what I call ankle biters. In groups, they can be dangerous to stronger opponents. Since kobolds are not real, living creatures who we could observe and understand, we can't say the above description is inaccurate. Could a player (in theory) have an exceptional kobold PC, which does not fit the normal stereotype of a kobold? Sure. Just like Drizzt is an exception to the normal drow male; I could see (a very few) exceptional kobolds. How plausable is that and does it fit within the campaign? Tougher question. Hey, in the 1980s I recall playing a D&D adventure as a purple haired, female drow (classic adventure at Gencon), but I am not sure that would work in a continuing campaign where trust and party unity is a valuable commodity. How do you limit rare characters in a shared world campaign (to keep the flavor of them being rare)? How does that work when the party leaps into slaughtering the group of traditional kobolds just encountered and their kobold member is...doing what? If 4E moves a group of creatures into could be most any alignment, not inherently evil, i.e., similar to humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, etc, then I would expect PCs would judge based upon behavior and evidence before attacking. I think we have to put off such decisions until 4E (and the 4E Forgotten Realms setting) is published. The debate might be a moot point. Keith
tombollis 11-02-07, 08:05 PM	First, I have no idea what changes, if any, 4E will do to kobolds, and whether they will be viable character options for PCs. Nor do I think I would accuse folks of being prejudiced against kobolds. Whether you are using a classical mythology reference to kobolds, or whatever edition of D&D monster manuel description, they are small, weak, not nice, somewhat evil, annoying creatures--what I call ankle biters. In groups, they can be dangerous to stronger opponents. Since kobolds are not real, living creatures who we could observe and understand, we can't say the above description is inaccurate. As you don't know what 4e kobolds will be like, you have pre-judged them - pedudice. You cam't be sure what you have said about them will be accurate. Could a player (in theory) have an exceptional kobold PC, which does not fit the normal stereotype of a kobold? Sure. Just like Drizzt is an exception to the normal drow male; I could see (a very few) exceptional kobolds. How plausable is that and does it fit within the campaign? Tougher question. Hey, in the 1980s I recall playing a D&D adventure as a purple haired, female drow (classic adventure at Gencon), but I am not sure that would work in a continuing campaign where trust and party unity is a valuable commodity. How do you limit rare characters in a shared world campaign (to keep the flavor of them being rare)? How does that work when the party leaps into slaughtering the group of traditional kobolds just encountered and their kobold member is...doing what? Same applies to encountering traditional groups of evil humans. If kobolds are allowed as PCs. it will be an indication that you should not pre-judge all kobolds to be enemies. If 4E moves a group of creatures into could be most any alignment, not inherently evil, i.e., similar to humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, etc, then I would expect PCs would judge based upon behavior and evidence before attacking. Yes. That is the attitude you should have re all PC races. I have always disliked the assumption that a member of race X is automatically Y. In one of the first LC modules there vas a vampire peacefully runing a bar in Ravens Bluff and a variety of encounters that could be handled nonviolently if you were observant and didn't pre-judge; it was a fun and challenging module that got me hooked on LC. Tom Bollis
cetiken 11-04-07, 12:26 PM	Could a player (in theory) have an exceptional kobold PC, which does not fit the normal stereotype of a kobold? Sure. Just like Drizzt is an exception to the normal drow male; I coulhttp://forums.gleemax.com/images/editor/separator.gifd see (a very few) exceptional kobolds. How plausable is that and does it fit within the campaign? Tougher question. Hey, in the 1980s I recall playing a D&D adventure as a purple haired, female drow (classic adventure at Gencon), but I am not sure that would work in a continuing campaign where trust and party unity is a valuable commodity. How do you limit rare characters in a shared world campaign (to keep the flavor of them being rare)? How does that work when the party leaps into slaughtering the group of traditional kobolds just encountered and their kobold member is...doing what? I had thought that all PCs were by definition exceptional. My LG ranger/horizon walker is certainly fairly far from the norm for Oridian Peasants. I think we have to put off such decisions until 4E (and the 4E Forgotten Realms setting) is published. The debate might be a moot point. Ah, but that would imply that the powers that be were willing to feed us any information at all about the upcoming campaign. Personally I'd like to see exotic (a term I prefer of exceptional) races/classes handled with campaign cards that way at least nublets who never intend to play another rpga game wouldn't run about with such coolness. (yes, I'm okay with mild elitism)
tombollis 11-04-07, 01:21 PM	Personally I'd like to see exotic (a term I prefer of exceptional) races/classes handled with campaign cards that way at least nublets who never intend to play another rpga game wouldn't run about with such coolness. (yes, I'm okay with mild elitism) Personslly, I hate the idea of access via campaign cards. I would prefer access to exceptional features open to anyone, though I'm ok with limiting how many exceptional things a given character can have access to. Player rewards should be dice, maps, mats, subscriptions, books, miniatures, etc. rather than wxclusive access to play options. Tom Bollis
Keith53 11-04-07, 07:52 PM	Personally I'd like to see exotic (a term I prefer of exceptional) races/classes handled with campaign cards that way at least nublets who never intend to play another rpga game wouldn't run about with such coolness. (yes, I'm okay with mild elitism) :-) While I would not endorse elitism, the player reward campaign cards is an option, and certainly much better than the discarded method of auctioning off the privilege for the exotic/special/exceptional (choose your term) race/class option for real money (usually for charity). :-( The PRCC are open to every player regardless of location, who they know, etc., and the only real bias/filter is players who play more RPGA adventures will have more cards, which I don't see as a bad thing. Cards can be traded. I do have some concerns about usage of creation cards in an indefinite life campaign as compared to fixed (short) duration like the D&D campaigns--how to keep the option open for players who join later, yet prevent the numbers from growing w/o bounds. I would suppose that a good mix of highly desirable PRCC usable in the campaign would help by forcing players to make choices. Did that appear to work that way in LG? Keith
dark_poet 11-05-07, 01:54 AM	"What's this about 'absent-minded' and 'party destroying shenanigans'? My mother is dead. My father is dead. I died. People think I'm mad because there are voices in my head. They shun me because I exalt the Reaper. Rather death be for you then against you I always say. It doesn't matter. Those who oppose me shall know fear." -Da'kar Darkmantle, Gnomish Wizard I'm all for 'breaking the mold' really. And I believe modeling is the best way to deal with players that are irritating. If they see everyone characters being somewhat more sophisticated, they will realise that they aren't quite doing things right. Of course if they are constantly irritating, then your characters just treat them as one treats generally irritating people. But that's quite harsh. Of course where I play groups are regular and relatively small so after some time we don't usually encounter this problem. Of course in 3.5 Kobolds are kinda mechanically weak. The quote I remember from the the player my DM tried to encourage to play a kobold was: "Ahh! I'm sorry. I just can't do this." But that's not the point. BTW: My LG region is Perrenland. So while we don't worship Nerull per se, being chummy with him is perfectly fine. Or so my ARs suggest.
MatteBlack 11-05-07, 11:04 AM	The same could apply to half-orcs, or even elves. Your view on alternate races in LFR is prejudiced and may not be at all indicative of how such characters would be played in the new campaign, with the new rules. Tom Bollis Like I stated, it is just my opinion but the only thing prejudicing that opinion is my experiences with kobolds as PCs. I can't recall one that I felt enhanced my experience and can recall several certainly did not. I also know that many of the players I have seen most excited by the prospect of playing a Kobold are the same that are most frequently noted for anoying play. It's my opinion that I don't want them in the new game.
jpchapleau 11-09-07, 05:59 PM	As you don't know what 4e kobolds will be like, you have pre-judged them - pedudice. You cam't be sure what you have said about them will be accurate. Tom, Its not prejudice to state that kobolds have always been evil in D&D. What you are saying is that suddenly 4e might decide that elves are evil, the dwarves 15 feet tall and halfling cannibalistic cigar-smoking ninjas and that would be fine? No. That's not gonna happen and its not prejudice. Kobolds, like goblins and orcs are traditional villains in D&D and many Fantasy RPGs. Its a staples. Now 4e may give them low-light vision instead of darkvision, abilities with the spear rather than javelin etc... but change them to good-types? Nope... I seriously doubt it'll happen. That said I would oppose the use of Kobolds as PC races (as I have in LG), ONLY if they are known to be the traditional enemies of one of the main PHB races (gnomes, I heard weren't gonna be in the 4e book). As others have stated, such oddball/unique characters are either played very well or very poorly. They detract from *MY* enjoyment of the game, when if they played something else I'm sure would be fine. I for one have not played with a kobold, but know people who do and avoid playing with those players. In organized play (since a home game is another story), anything that forces the dm & player to a 1 on 1 is something I dislike. Kobolds create that. Btw... Kobolds are vermin. That's not gonna change :D JP
tombollis 11-09-07, 09:05 PM	Tom, Its not prejudice to state that kobolds have always been evil in D&D. What you are saying is that suddenly 4e might decide that elves are evil, the dwarves 15 feet tall and halfling cannibalistic cigar-smoking ninjas and that would be fine? It is prejudice to assume that alignment won't change, especially when we have been informed that alignment will be handled differently, and we have the example of changes to orcs. The 3.5 MM has mostly LG dwarves, but also evil gray dwarves; most elves are CG, but there are also evil dark elves. Thus there is precedent for some good kobolds, differing from the historical evil majority. Canibolistic halflings were in Dark Sun. 15' dwarves aren't comparable to good kobolds. No. That's not gonna happen and its not prejudice. Kobolds, like goblins and orcs are traditional villains in D&D and many Fantasy RPGs. Its a staples. The most common traditional evil villains have been human, as have been the most common good heros. It's prejudice to assume there won't be a significant number of good kobolds. goblins, or orcs. Tom Bollis
MwaO 11-10-07, 11:04 AM	It's prejudice to assume there won't be a significant number of good kobolds. goblins, or orcs. Tom Bollis No, it isn't. Heroic fantasy, especially of the D&D kind, doesn't have significant numbers of good 'evil' creatures. There are the exceptions that breaks the rule(Drzzt, Deekin, etc...), but they're exceptions, not the norm. Remember, 4e is points of light in the darkness. Things are bad and evil is winning...
tombollis 11-10-07, 06:45 PM	Heroic fantasy, especially of the D&D kind, doesn't have significant numbers of good 'evil' creatures. There are the exceptions that breaks the rule(Drzzt, Deekin, etc...), but they're exceptions, not the norm. That is prejudice. You assume kobolds will be an evil race in 4e without proof. Heroic fantasy, including D&D, has examples of heroes from villainous races and villains from heroic races. The Orc King shows an orc kingdom hat isn't strictly villainous. There are vilainous sub-species of dwarves and elves in D&D, etc. Half-orcs were evil in 2nd edition. Your argument is faulty. If kobolds aren't an "evil" race in 4e, your argument against kobold PCs falls appart. If they are conciderwd a strictly evil race, then no one seems to expect them to be available as a free choice for LFR PCs. Tom Bollis
MwaO 11-10-07, 07:17 PM	That is prejudice. You assume kobolds will be an evil race in 4e without proof. You don't need proof to make assumptions about 4e and it is not prejudice to do so. I assume there will be some sort of arcane caster in 4e. There is no proof for this until the actual PHB 4.0 is published, no matter what anyone from WotC might say otherwise - they could decide to throw out arcane magic right before publication and just call it psionics. It would be silly and inane, but they could decide to do that. By your argument, anyone assuming that there are arcane casters are guilty of prejudice for the same reason. But they're not - they're just unable to prove a negative. There is evidence that kobolds will be an evil race - they've been such since 1.0 - half-orcs weren't evil in any edition, they just tended that way. Things which are canon tend to stay canon - Magic Missile still does 1d4+1 damage per missile because that's what it did in 1.0. Is that proof? Nope. But until someone gives me actual evidence that they have decided to change canon, I will base my assumptions on how they have acted previously. I don't think they'll be a race in LFR unless they're not an evil race period.
tombollis 11-10-07, 07:51 PM	You don't need proof to make assumptions about 4e and it is not prejudice to do so. I assume there will be some sort of arcane caster in 4e. There is no proof for this until the actual PHB 4.0 is published, no matter what anyone from WotC might say otherwise - they could decide to throw out arcane magic right before publication and just call it psionics. It is predjudice, and I freely admit I am prejudiced in my belief that there will be arcane casters in 4e - I have made a judgement before knowing the facts. There is evidence that kobolds will be an evil race - they've been such since 1.0 - half-orcs weren't evil in any edition, they just tended that way. Things which are canon tend to stay canon - Magic Missile still does 1d4+1 damage per missile because that's what it did in 1.0. There is evidence that the alignment system will undergo major changes, and that usually evil (in 4.5e) tieflings will be a PHB character race. The MM lists kobolds as USUALLY lawful evil, goblins as USUALLY neutral evil, orcs as OFTEN chaotic evil, elves as USUALLYhaotic good, etc. PHB page 19: "Half-orcs inherit a tendency towards chaos from their orc parents, but, like their human parents, they favor good and evil in equil proportions. Half-orcs raised among orcs and willing to live our rheir lives with them are usually the evil ones." Yet we have players of lawful half-orcs, including paladins that were raised by orcs. Is that proof? Nope. But until someone gives me actual evidence that they have decided to change canon, I will base my assumptions on how they have acted previously. I don't think they'll be a race in LFR unless they're not an evil race period.
MwaO 11-10-07, 09:18 PM	It is predjudice, and I freely admit I am prejudiced in my belief that there will be arcane casters in 4e - I have made a judgement before knowing the facts. That's a somewhat archaic usage of prejudice. The typical meaning is more along the lines of this one: 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice) Both you and I are making reasonable assumptions about arcane casters by examining previous systems. i.e. we are using knowledge, thought, and reason. It is not prejudice and claiming otherwise is implying that the other person is not using reason. Which is why people rarely use the 2nd version in speech.. There is evidence that the alignment system will undergo major changes, and that usually evil (in 4.5e) tieflings will be a PHB character race. That's not evidence for Kobolds. We don't know how the alignment system will shift and tieflings are not a strong canon race. At the moment, it is those with some small taint from extraplanar evil sources. But it could also easily mean those with some kind of taint, similar to the bloodlines from Unearthed Arcana. PHB page 19: "Half-orcs inherit a tendency towards chaos from their orc parents, but, like their human parents, they favor good and evil in equil proportions. In other words, half-orcs are not an evil race in any way. A lawful half-orc raised by orcs might be unusual, but a city guard deciding to let him into the city is not. Ditto for elves. That's not true for Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, or any other thing generally known for being evil. And that's a big problem for LFR when a mod's hook involves the party getting into a city and there's no reason the city guard should let the kobold in. Sure, the DM can handwave it, but that destroys the internal reality of the adventure. There are really two ways around that: Kobolds are no longer evil, but similar to half-orcs. Some good, some evil, the majority neutral. Kobolds are not in LFR.
dark_poet 11-14-07, 09:13 PM	Well...I can understand the whole kobolds are evil thingy. And largely I believe so. But here are a few points in support of Tom. 1) Like he said you have Drow and all. There is good indication by the developers that there will be major changes in races. So there is a noteworthy possibility of a sub-race of good Kobolds. The fact that they have introduced Kobolds before via campaign cards makes it slightly more likely that they my want to develop the idea of Kobolds as heroes. And re-defining Kobolds nature is a good way to go about it. 2) Before Eberron who ever imagined a good Red Dragon. Personally Eberron has shattered my sterotypical view of D&D. And while this is FR, developers do 'test' out ideas in a controlled environment (in this case a campaign world) before implementing it whole scale. Maybe they actually want to move towards a less sterotypical D&D. However Tom, there has been no real indication that Kobolds won't be evil. And based on your definition (which is quite borad) of prejudice we indeed are prejudice. But that level of prejudice is going to be in most forum discussions and in play (IC and OOC) as well. I believe that things got lost in the definition of prejudice. I belive the differences over the original issue (introduction of Kobolds) arise from different perspectives. We are looking from the perspective: I don't want Kobolds in the game because Kobolds are bad. Tom however is looking from a perspective that I believe the developers will be looking from if they consider this: We want Kobolds in the game so can we make them good. Thus he says the possibility of taking this route is present.
Koushiro 11-29-07, 08:05 PM	We want Kobolds in the game so can we make them good. That about sums up the whole point of what I've been wanting for the whole of D&D for some time. I'd much rather see good kobolds and evil gnomes then anything else.
trollbill 11-29-07, 09:08 PM	It's a matter of opinion but, I find Kobold characters have a tendency in drawing games in a direction I don't like. Alot of players use them as a license to "act" like a goofball or shatter party unity. Lee So you are telling me these same people actually won't act like goofballs and shatter party unity if they aren't allowed to play a Kobold? I have my doubts. The problem isn't the race, its the players. You can make any character silly and disruptive if you want to. Restricting races to those who can role-play them well because others use them as excuses to do something they would do anyway whether they have the excuse or not is not the solution. I admit my own kobold monk has a bit of silly streak in him, as well. He is, afterall, a master of the ancient kobold art of "Cower Fu." But given that he is a very effective AC monkey/speed bump, he is also a valued member of the party. I really don't see what is so bad about being a comedic sidekick considering how prevalent they are in heroic fantasy.
Surgebuster 11-29-07, 10:40 PM	I really don't see what is so bad about being a comedic sidekick considering how prevalent they are in heroic fantasy. It's because of the incredible table variance on what constitutes comedy that tends to make this style of character unpopular with others. Since there's no objective way to argue what constitutes funny in the antics of someone roleplaying a Deekin/Pippin/Tasslehoff personality (ie: I'd be entertaining but you wouldn't) I would advise leaving it to a home game where one is better able to judge what is appropriate at the table. I tend to view it in the same way I view those who retell a comedian's jokes. The overwhelming majority of people seem to think they can deliver a Chris Rock joke as well as he can...yet very, very few do it justice. Joe
MwaO 11-29-07, 10:49 PM	So you are telling me these same people actually won't act like goofballs and shatter party unity if they aren't allowed to play a Kobold? I really don't see what is so bad about being a comedic sidekick considering how prevalent they are in heroic fantasy. It is similar to the Matt Groening cartoon: The French are funny. Sex is funny. Comedy is funny. But no French sex comedies are funny. --- i.e. the thing that makes a comedic sidekick funny in heroic fiction is that they have plenty of time to establish themselves. You understand why the hero still has them along, as they've proven themselves useful time and time again. Absent that time, a lot of players have to resort to broad strokes to establish themselves as being that comedic sidekick. And given the character is a kobold, they think merely being annoying and useless is funny. Annoying can be funny. Kobolds can be funny Being useless can be funny. But annoying useless kobolds are not funny. Especially when they don't have the writer on their side.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 12:51 AM	So you are telling me these same people actually won't act like goofballs and shatter party unity if they aren't allowed to play a Kobold? I have my doubts. The problem isn't the race, its the players. You can make any character silly and disruptive if you want to. Restricting races to those who can role-play them well because others use them as excuses to do something they would do anyway whether they have the excuse or not is not the solution. I admit my own kobold monk has a bit of silly streak in him, as well. He is, afterall, a master of the ancient kobold art of "Cower Fu." But given that he is a very effective AC monkey/speed bump, he is also a valued member of the party. I really don't see what is so bad about being a comedic sidekick considering how prevalent they are in heroic fantasy. I'd argue that without the racial justification, some might reign it in a bit and that a small percentage who might be drawn to the campaign due to the possibility of playing such a character might decide to pass. My assumption is that it would make for at least a slight reduction in idiotic play over a campaign with Kobolds allowed and any reduction is a welcome one to me.
ankhwearer 11-30-07, 04:33 PM	Well, now that Races and Classes has made it clear that Gnomes are not in the first PHB, but a medium size lizard-like race called Dragonborn is, it's exceptionally unlikely that Kobolds will be playable in the first year. What are those poor, socially inept players out there going to do?!? No Kobolds, no Gnomes! And the only draconic race is going to be an effective party member! And open access! Oh woe!
trollbill 11-30-07, 10:01 PM	It's because of the incredible table variance on what constitutes comedy that tends to make this style of character unpopular with others. Since there's no objective way to argue what constitutes funny in the antics of someone roleplaying a Deekin/Pippin/Tasslehoff personality (ie: I'd be entertaining but you wouldn't) I would advise leaving it to a home game where one is better able to judge what is appropriate at the table. I tend to view it in the same way I view those who retell a comedian's jokes. The overwhelming majority of people seem to think they can deliver a Chris Rock joke as well as he can...yet very, very few do it justice. Joe There is incredible table variance on what constitutes heroics and there is no objective way to argue what constitutes being hero, either. Many PCs try and fail to be as heroic as Beowulf, or Aragorn, or Superman, but that doesn't mean they should be disallowed from trying. I'd argue that without the racial justification, some might reign it in a bit and that a small percentage who might be drawn to the campaign due to the possibility of playing such a character might decide to pass. My assumption is that it would make for at least a slight reduction in idiotic play over a campaign with Kobolds allowed and any reduction is a welcome one to me. Some perhaps, but how many others might play Kobolds in a legitimate manner would suffer because of this. This sounds a lot like a case of punishing the many for the actions of a few, and that is not a good thing. D&D is about expressing creativity and having fun. As long as those expressions are not disruptive they should be allowed. Yes, comedy can be disruptive. But so can the other end of the spectrum; those who take their play so seriously they can tolerate no other styles. In fact, it has been my experience that the latter have caused more game table meltdowns than the former. Organized play groups like the RPGA are going to have a wide variety of playstyles in them. No style should be discouraged as long as it doesn't destroy everyone else's fun in the process.
MatteBlack 11-30-07, 11:39 PM	Some perhaps, but how many others might play Kobolds in a legitimate manner would suffer because of this. This sounds a lot like a case of punishing the many for the actions of a few, and that is not a good thing. My personal experience is that it would be punishing the few for the actions of the many but, that isn't too much more valid. I am all for people untertaking playstyles they enjoy but, some things just aren't appropriate in all settings no matter how enjoyable. From my point of view, all the kobolds I have seen played are immersion breaking for me. I think the very rare occasion of the appropriately played PC doesn't warrant the effort of the racial option's inclusion and likely risk of disruptive play. There are other races I'd prefer to see that time and ink spent on that would be more likely to improve the campaign.
MwaO 12-01-07, 10:43 AM	D&D is about expressing creativity and having fun. As long as those expressions are not disruptive they should be allowed. Yes, comedy can be disruptive. But so can the other end of the spectrum; those who take their play so seriously they can tolerate no other styles. In fact, it has been my experience that the latter have caused more game table meltdowns than the former. Organized play groups like the RPGA are going to have a wide variety of playstyles in them. No style should be discouraged as long as it doesn't destroy everyone else's fun in the process. The thing is, you don't need to play a kobold to attempt comedy, no more than you need to play a particular race to be a heroic archetype. Either your character is funny or he's not. Being a kobold shouldn't make or break it. To take your character as an example, is there any reason a Half-Orc couldn't know the art of Cower-Fu? Or for closer to the original concept, simply being a Gnome or Halfling? Yes, access to Kobold probably spurred the idea, but you should be able to play the character concept without it. I do like the idea of the Dragonborn which sounds like a Lizardman being available though. Having read Quag Keep all those years ago...
tombollis 12-01-07, 11:12 AM	The thing is, you don't need to play a kobold to attempt comedy, no more than you need to play a particular race to be a heroic archetype. Either your character is funny or he's not. Being a kobold shouldn't make or break it. To take your character as an example, is there any reason a Half-Orc couldn't know the art of Cower-Fu? Or for closer to the original concept, simply being a Gnome or Halfling? Yes, access to Kobold probably spurred the idea, but you should be able to play the character concept without it. I do like the idea of the Dragonborn which sounds like a Lizardman being available though. Having read Quag Keep all those years ago... All of which just supports allowing players to play the race of their choice - as you imply, how you play a character isn't determined by the race but by the player. Tom Bollis
trollbill 12-01-07, 11:19 AM	The thing is, you don't need to play a kobold to attempt comedy, no more than you need to play a particular race to be a heroic archetype. Either your character is funny or he's not. Being a kobold shouldn't make or break it. To take your character as an example, is there any reason a Half-Orc couldn't know the art of Cower-Fu? Or for closer to the original concept, simply being a Gnome or Halfling? Yes, access to Kobold probably spurred the idea, but you should be able to play the character concept without it. I do like the idea of the Dragonborn which sounds like a Lizardman being available though. Having read Quag Keep all those years ago... I agree. But the argument cuts both ways. You don't need access to Kobold to play a character badly either. My point is that good players will play well and poor players will play badly regardless of the races available. Limiting races, regardless of which one (kobold or otherwise), really isn't going to change anything. To be sure, certain races do lend themselves to certain character concepts, but as you pointed out, the concepts can be used with just about any race. IMO, the only reason not to allow any race is purely an issue of balance. Trying to balance the 300 or so potential character races in D&D would just be a nightmare. But I would hardly call Kobolds unbalanced even if my current 2nd-level Kobold can get his AC up to 27 right now. And a slow introduction of new races, like what was done with Kobolds and Snow Elves is something to be encouraged. Now it doesn't matter that much to me if Kobolds specifically are or aren't a playable race in early LFR. I am not going to specifically petition for such a thing in my administrative position (if that's what some of you are concerned about). I just don't like the idea of limiting any race because some people don't like how some other people play that race (if for no other reason I can make that arguement for just about any race).
Koushiro 12-14-07, 04:51 PM	I'd be curious how you manage to get a 2nd level character to AC 27 with or without it being a kobold but really that isn't the point. I'm just tired of kobolds being ranked on so much by people and I plan to do something about it. We're getting Tieflings and Dragonborn in 4th Edition though, so at least it isn't all bad. I can play something that isn't an elf or a dwarf and be happy. We should just call the Dragonborn people in LFR Kobolds.
bitznarf 12-14-07, 05:21 PM	I'd be curious how you manage to get a 2nd level character to AC 27 with or without it being a kobold but really that isn't the point. +1 Size +1 Dex +8 Full Plate +4 Tower Shield +3 From w/e else (Combat Expertise, Fighting Defensivly, etc.)
trollbill 12-14-07, 06:57 PM	I'd be curious how you manage to get a 2nd level character to AC 27 with or without it being a kobold but really that isn't the point. I'm just tired of kobolds being ranked on so much by people and I plan to do something about it. Sor1/Monk1 1st level spells - Shield, Blades of Flame Draconic Ritual Rites of Passage spell-like ability: Mage Armor ST 8; DX 16; CN 12; IN 10; WS 14; CH 12 10 Base +1 Small +3 Dex +2 Wisdom +1 Natural Armor +4 Mage Armor +4 Shield +2 Fighting Defensively (goes up by one more next level when I get 5 ranks in tumble) Total = 27 with no armor on
The_Jester 12-16-07, 02:26 PM	Of course, the whole kobolds = silly, useless PC will probably not apply in 4E. When they are detailed as a PC race they'll probably be balanced to be no better or worse than any other. But monsters aren't shaping up to use the PC rules anymore, so monsters as PCs will be fewer (the rules and ECL and such were a good idea but impossible to balance and more than a little broken). So unless there are extensive rules for kobolds (or drow, or other races) in the released books they won't be in expansion cards. Heck, expansion cards at all are unlikely since "everything is Core", meaning if there's a race/class/spell/feat in expansion books it should be permitted.
Puggle Halfwine 12-17-07, 12:16 PM	Heck, expansion cards at all are unlikely since "everything is Core", meaning if there's a race/class/spell/feat in expansion books it should be permitted. In theory there isn't any difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Living Greyhawk (and pretty much every D&D campaign ever) changed or banned things from their "core" rules (such as the PHB). I wouldn't be surprised if this trend continues, but I hope it doesn't. I like the idea that I can simply tell new players at my Games Days, "You can use everything in X,Y,Z books."
gomeztoo 12-18-07, 04:14 AM	Some things simply needed banning. Just becaus e adeisgnber thinsk up something, and it passed the editor's notice and ended up ina book doesn't mean it was a well thought out idea. I don't like creation cards much. But I don't think that 'everything goes' is a good idea.
aljergensen 12-18-07, 10:24 AM	Some things simply needed banning. I for one, disagree. IMHO the limitations/bans are significant deterrent to LG. But let's wait to have this debate until we have at least a little more information about 4e. Allen.
trollbill 12-18-07, 09:10 PM	I for one, disagree. IMHO the limitations/bans are significant deterrent to LG. But let's wait to have this debate until we have at least a little more information about 4e. Allen. I doubt there will be anything worth banning from LFR in the Core 4th Editions rules, unless it's flavor specific, like the Red Wizard of Thay PrC is banned from LG, for obvious reasons. It is, afterall, the beginning of a cycle. The cycle works like this. 1) Game company comes out with new game (or new edition of a game). 2) Gamers always want shiney new things to play with, and game publishers have to live by the same rules as other publishers, i.e. publish or perish. So because both the gamers want it, and the publishers need to, expansions come out. 3) Each expansion increases the number of variables in the game. The more variables, the harder it is to keep balance and the more complicated the game becomes. 4) Sales reach a point of diminshing returns because the game has become so complex it turns off new players and even with a product like D&D you can only come up with so many original things to give the old players to keep their interest, especially when the shear volumn of rules becomes burdensome. Game balance becomes an increasing issue as the number of variables becomes too great for even the most talented of designers to predict the outcome of. 5) In order to stimulate new players by simplifying the game, get rid of the burden of copious rules, return game balance to a more reasonable level and create a tabula rasa for new product so that sales will increase, game companies come out with a new version. 6) Repeat steps 1-5 as needed. The net result of this is that the latest version of the game is almost always simpler (if for no other reason that a lot of the extra rules are now gone) and more balanced (because there are fewer variables to deal with). Which means that there is very little in the basic rules of the game that would need to be 'banned.' So I doubt the initial LFRGS (which I have not seen yet) will ban much of anything. But I do expect this to change over time. It is simply the nature of the beast.
Surgebuster 12-18-07, 10:02 PM	I wholeheartedly agree Bill. Your 6 steps of RPGs needs to be posted on a few of the more rabid threads over in the 4E section of the boards. :) Joe
draxynnic 12-19-07, 01:37 AM	I for one, disagree. IMHO the limitations/bans are significant deterrent to LG. But let's wait to have this debate until we have at least a little more information about 4e. Allen. There is some stuff that has come up that looks really embarassing. There's a reason I refer to the last installment of the Complete series as Complete Cheese. The theory in my local area is that it wasn't playtested because Wizards was concentrating on 4e. I can understand why some of the stuff in the 'core three' was removed - for instance, there is no easily accessible way to bring someone back to life after being hit by a Destruction spell, so it got removed so that characters couldn't be permadeaded by one low saving throw.
MwaO 12-19-07, 10:19 AM	There is some stuff that has come up that looks really embarassing. There's a reason I refer to the last installment of the Complete series as Complete Cheese. The theory in my local area is that it wasn't playtested because Wizards was concentrating on 4e. I think it is because of a rule that likely exists in 4e. I'm not a playtester, but my guess is that anything that potentially has synergy is going to require an action of some sort. So Pounce, Ride-By-Attack, Spirited Charge, and Shock Trooper would all require swift actions to activate. Maybe even Power Attack. You could do any one of them, but you couldn't do all of them. In that context, some of the stuff in Complete Champion and Mage aren't that bad - yes, they're overpowered if that's not the rule, but if everyone can do roughly that level of swift action and only one swift action, it isn't that bad. It also explains why they think things will be easier to balance and simpler - you simply wouldn't be able to have a charger build do a full attack ride-by-attack with Shock Trooper for 500 hp of damage.
aljergensen 12-19-07, 11:20 AM	Ok, perhaps I was a little hasty on the 'no restrictions'. But what are we going to restrict? No evil? Wait, most PCs will be unaligned. How about banning Dragonborn? I don't like the drawing! :P My point was that until we see the new rules, we have no clue. If there is something that needs to be banned I just hope it's the extreme exception ... maybe 1% of the content of 4e, not the 25% (or more) of the 3.5 content that we have now. I know some people like gaining access ... that they think it makes their character special because they got access to some PRC or item. I disagree. My dwarven fighter won the item access lottery and now has a Vest of Flying which is incredibly useful for his build but at 10th level he's never had access to adamantine. Other characters have gotten access to really cool prestige classes that would have been perfect for my concept but came too late for me to meet the prereqs. Don't even get me started on the frustration levels I hit trying to figure out spells for my high level paladin after I got my Spell Compendium until somebody pointed me to an unofficial web site that had it all detailed out. In other words, if kobolds are introduced as a core race in PHB II I think they should be allowed as pcs. I don't personally see the point of kobolds as characters, but it would be much, much easier to hand newbies a list of allowed rulebooks and a page or two of LFR rules when they create their character. As far as 3.5 being too rules heavy, I agree. Maybe 4e won't get that bad. Maybe, this time, pigs will fly! Allen.
draxynnic 12-19-07, 10:51 PM	I think it is because of a rule that likely exists in 4e. I'm not a playtester, but my guess is that anything that potentially has synergy is going to require an action of some sort. So Pounce, Ride-By-Attack, Spirited Charge, and Shock Trooper would all require swift actions to activate. Maybe even Power Attack. You could do any one of them, but you couldn't do all of them. In that context, some of the stuff in Complete Champion and Mage aren't that bad - yes, they're overpowered if that's not the rule, but if everyone can do roughly that level of swift action and only one swift action, it isn't that bad. It also explains why they think things will be easier to balance and simpler - you simply wouldn't be able to have a charger build do a full attack ride-by-attack with Shock Trooper for 500 hp of damage. For the record, that wasn't the only thing I was looking at... Consider the Devotion feats. Good Devotion gives everything Glorious Weapons does and more, with faster activation and a longer duration on activation, and one use per day that doesn't require burning a turning attempt. Arguably Glorious Weapons may have been slightly underpowered to begin with, but the Devotion feats aren't even balanced appropriately with each other - there are some that have quite powerful-looking effects that only require one turn attempt to activate after the first use, while others have fairly weak effects that nevertheless require multiple turn uses to activate after the first use in the day. If it was just the pounce, I'd call it one cheesy thing and call it a day without coming up with terms like CHeese AMPlified through Insufficient Oscillation of Nerfage. In truth, though, if I was in charge of the campaign and I was deciding what to allow and what not to... the list of stuff that was Closed would probably be longer than the list of open or NONC material.
MwaO 12-20-07, 12:18 AM	here are some that have quite powerful-looking effects that only require one turn attempt to activate after the first use, while others have fairly weak effects that nevertheless require multiple turn uses to activate after the first use in the day. I'd view that as them experimenting with the concept of swift actions as something that everyone has.
cetiken 12-23-07, 12:28 PM	Well, now that Races and Classes has made it clear that Gnomes are not in the first PHB, but a medium size lizard-like race called Dragonborn is, it's exceptionally unlikely that Kobolds will be playable in the first year. What are those poor, socially inept players out there going to do?!? No Kobolds, no Gnomes! And the only draconic race is going to be an effective party member! And open access! Oh woe! I think they'll play halflings.
Koushiro 12-24-07, 03:44 AM	If they actually take the time to put thought into their product and don't make stupid broken spells/feats/rules then there shouldn't need to be a reason to ban things, correct? The most we should be looking at initially is probably something along the lines of no evil characters as it is a living campaign and that is or was a rule at one time.
MatteBlack 12-24-07, 11:59 AM	If they actually take the time to put thought into their product and don't make stupid broken spells/feats/rules then there shouldn't need to be a reason to ban things, correct? D&D AD&D 2nd Ed. 3rd Ed. 3.5 Which one didn't eventually offer forth numerous broken segments of the rules? I am fairly confident the initial release of 4th will be a pretty tight ruelset but, history doesn't paint a very bright picture for them holding up to years of play and new rules additions. Between the drive to offer players more saleable content and play options(generally with much less playtesting) and an army of twinks looking for advantages to exploit, having a plan for how the campaign's rules should be restricted is very reasonable and advisable strategy.