@scriver "So you are agreeing with me that it's entirely arbitrary once again, then. You agree that they have no reason go be kobolds. You agree that it's entirely superficial writing."
Everything made up is arbitrary. You haven't offered any actual reasoning as to WHY you are so insistent that kobolds NEED to match a specific, geographical mythology. Germany didn't invent trickster spirits, that's a concept in literally every civilization to ever exist.
They didn't invent trickster spirits, but they did invent kobolds. And the essence of what a kobold is defined by what they invented, their stories, their folklore.
As for why? Because I want my media to not be shallow and uninteresting, obviously. Who does?
They didn't invent trickster spirits, but they did invent kobolds. And the essence of what a kobold is defined by what they invented, their stories, their folklore.
As for why? Because I want my media to not be shallow and uninteresting, obviously. Who does?
I’d think it’d be more shallow and uninteresting if the same type of creature(s) appeared in different mediums but didn’t have their own flair.
As I stated prior, when D&D was first released, the kobold of Germanic folklore was used as a low level weak monster. Over the generations of the game, it involved into what it is today.
If you read the article I posted above, one of the reasons why it evolved into what it is today was due to DMs not using the creatures to their full potential in campaigns. It was just another lowly level monster that could interchanged with goblin or xvart or gibberling and the player really wouldn’t know the difference besides it’s appearance. That is the definition of shallow.
Shallowness has nothing to do with what a thing is named. Shallowness has to do with not having a deep back story and lore behind it. D&D corrected this with a lot of its lesser races allowing them to standout a bit more and be different from all the other XP churning creatures.
This conversation has jumped the shark. Constantly replying with "but why" hasnt been instructive in any meaningful sense that I can see.
You have your own criteria for why a Kobold should be considered a kobold. This is not the only valid interpretation. Others have presented equally valid interpretations of some of the requirements for the monster we commonly know as a Kobold in 5e to be a kobold. At its essence, this defines and answers the claim perfectly: A kobold can be defined in many ways, subject to a person's opinion. There is no "one true" kobold. When we push this argument further out, it is why we can have likable Goblins and unlikable Gnomes.
If you want to conversation to persist, I recommend you stop asking "but why" and offer your own answer. Either it'll be accepted or rejected.
They didn't invent trickster spirits, but they did invent kobolds. And the essence of what a kobold is defined by what they invented, their stories, their folklore.
As for why? Because I want my media to not be shallow and uninteresting, obviously. Who does?
I’d think it’d be more shallow and uninteresting if the same type of creature(s) appeared in different mediums but didn’t have their own flair.
As I stated prior, when D&D was first released, the kobold of Germanic folklore was used as a low level weak monster. Over the generations of the game, it involved into what it is today.
If you read the article I posted above, one of the reasons why it evolved into what it is today was due to DMs not using the creatures to their full potential in campaigns. It was just another lowly level monster that could interchanged with goblin or xvart or gibberling and the player really wouldn’t know the difference besides it’s appearance. That is the definition of shallow.
Shallowness has nothing to do with what a thing is named. Shallowness has to do with not having a deep back story and lore behind it. D&D corrected this with a lot of its lesser races allowing them to standout a bit more and be different from all the other XP churning creatures.
I don't need to read the article, I am perfectly knowledgeable of their history.
And yes, shallowness of the name has everything to do with what it is name and why it is named that. If there is no reason to use a name, then it's superficial writing.
This conversation has jumped the shark. Constantly replying with "but why" hasnt been instructive in any meaningful sense that I can see.
You have your own criteria for why a Kobold should be considered a kobold. This is not the only valid interpretation. Others have presented equally valid interpretations of some of the requirements for the monster we commonly know as a Kobold in 5e to be a kobold. At its essence, this defines and answers the claim perfectly: A kobold can be defined in many ways, subject to a person's opinion. There is no "one true" kobold. When we push this argument further out, it is why we can have likable Goblins and unlikable Gnomes.
If you want to conversation to persist, I recommend you stop asking "but why" and offer your own answer. Either it'll be accepted or rejected.
The reason I keep asking "but why is it named kobolds/why is it kobolds" is because that is the very heart of the discussion. If there is no reason behind the creatures being kobolds, then why are they? If they might as well be called wheels, or smerps, they why aren't they called wheels or smerps instead? Because they are nothing like wheels? They are equally nothing like kobolds. Because it's dumb to call them smerps for no reason? It's equally dumb to call them kobolds for no reason.
And sure, you can define a kobold as per 5e's definition. I then ask you why you define that as a kobold. What is the link to kobolds. Why aren't you calling them smerps?
It all comes down to the usage being arbitrary, without reason, with no connection to the source: generic and uninteresting.
Caveat: I haven't played EA, but I did find the depiction of the Cockney-speaking goblins from videos to be rather odd and off-putting myself. I think it's more so the fact that "Why are these goblins all speaking Common? Shouldn't they be speaking Goblin, their native tongue? Especially between themselves?" than their accent (which admittedly I do find kinda strange) that really bothers me though. It might be a legacy of having played older D&D RPGs, where monster races tend to speak in guttural-sounding gobbledygook to make it sound like they're speaking their own language. ("Gaji gaju majaaa!")
It all comes down to the usage being arbitrary, without reason, with no connection to the source: generic and uninteresting.
Your opinion. Not fact. You can stop this conversation now if you have nothing left to add especially after I said in your games you can make them however you want. That’s the spirit of D&D.
It all comes down to the usage being arbitrary, without reason, with no connection to the source: generic and uninteresting.
Your opinion. Not fact. You can stop this conversation now if you have nothing left to add especially after I said in your games you can make them however you want. That’s the spirit of D&D.
No, if there's no reason, then there's no reason. Regardless of whether or not you think that is good thing. You're free to think arbitrarily calling rabbits smerps is a good thing if you want.
Literally nowhere have I argued that you can't call whatever you want kobolds. Not illegal. Not immoral. I'm arguing that it is shallow and bad writing to do so for arbitrary reasons.
Plenty of reasons were given. You dismissed them all because it does not fit your opinion.
No one here works for WotC, so no one here doesn’t actually know why the changes were made.
Literally nowhere have I argued that you can't call whatever you want kobolds. Not illegal. Not immoral. I'm arguing that it is shallow and bad writing to do so for arbitrary reasons.
Then you are arguing an opinion and it’s pointless to continue. People have already complained this is off topic and your not adding anything to the conversation.
So thank you for sharing your opinion, we all read it. Move on.
It all comes down to the usage being arbitrary, without reason, with no connection to the source: generic and uninteresting.
Your opinion. Not fact. You can stop this conversation now if you have nothing left to add especially after I said in your games you can make them however you want. That’s the spirit of D&D.
No, if there's no reason, then there's no reason. Regardless of whether or not you think that is good thing. You're free to think arbitrarily calling rabbits smerps is a good thing if you want.
Literally nowhere have I argued that you can't call whatever you want kobolds. Not illegal. Not immoral. I'm arguing that it is shallow and bad writing to do so for arbitrary reasons.
The core of the issue is that you have unilaterally decided that other people's opinion of what makes a Kobold a Kobold is "arbitrary" because it lacks connection to the supposed mythical source material. That view is valid, but it is only an opinion and has been clearly rejected by a variety of people for a variety of reasons (Their views being absolutely no less valid).
You're free to hold your opinion, but your "but why" askathon hasnt helped your case in the slightest. If anything, you've probably alienated your audience.
Since we already had a nice kerfuffle a few pages back about endlessly repeating the same point over and over again, I think it's rather time this subject goes to Avernus with a nice "Let's agree to disagree".
I don't want to derail the thread but I just discovered that the name xvart derives from the Scandinavian word svart, which means black. So how come they're blue? https://everything2.com/title/Xvart
Plenty of reasons were given. You dismissed them all because it does not fit your opinion.
No one here works for WotC, so no one here doesn’t actually know why the changes were made.
Literally nowhere have I argued that you can't call whatever you want kobolds. Not illegal. Not immoral. I'm arguing that it is shallow and bad writing to do so for arbitrary reasons.
Then you are arguing an opinion and it’s pointless to continue. People have already complained this is off topic and your not adding anything to the conversation.
So thank you for sharing your opinion, we all read it. Move on.
Ah yes, the many reasons all coming down to "because"
Now, I ignored this the first time, but you are plenty able to stop this conversation at any point by moving on yourself. Stop insisting other people stop responding for your sake.
Since we already had a nice kerfuffle a few pages back about endlessly repeating the same point over and over again, I think it's rather time this subject goes to Avernus with a nice "Let's agree to disagree".
If you think so, then do so. Your -- because it was your -- kerffuffle about repeating the same point over and over again was to me kerfuffle about you repeating demands for what other forum members are allowed to say over and over again. Which it seems you still do.
While it's true the discussion is a bit off topic, I did learn alot from it. I looked up the German kobold on wikipedia. And people here have made good arguments on both sides.
That being said, after I looked up the German kobold, I learned two things that I think are relevant here.
1. Even in that mythology they're pretty flexible. This isn't to say that any of them look like the dog-ish or or lizard-ish Forgotten Realms depictions. But there's not really a canonical kobold, at least from a physical perspective.
2. If they were represented faithfully, they would probably just resemble the smaller human-like creatures that already heavily populate Forgotten Realms. A true German kobold isn't all that different from a fairy or a leprechaun, or in the case of D&D a halfling -- at least in some of their depictions.
So I think it's actually perfectly reasonable for Forgotten Realms to have moved away from this traditional depiction. And to give them a depiction that is much, much more distinct. This is quite similar to what has been done to elves in FR, which in typical European mythology are also more flexible.
I can't help but think that this game engine with the ruleset of 3.5e would have been amazing, and easily the best DnD game of all time even with a lesser story than the likes of MoTB or PS:T. It could have taken advantage of so many skills and abilities that never got replicated in a video game.
Ah well, it's still good, but most of my problems stem from my dislike of the ruleset rather than any design choices by Larian.
Yeap decided to try it after all and I'm still getting used to 5th edition. Did clerics lose the convert spells into cure ability or am I missing something?
So looks like the patch mucked things up for some Steam users. I'm not alone with this either. But basically for some Steam users once they download the patch it won't finish the download (even when its been at like 538 mb forever). It was saying for awhile that it was allocating space or something (20 minutes to do this seems a bit much).
In my case I restarted Steam after it had been like this for too long (thinking it was a client issue and I could just redownload the patch worst case scenario).
That was a mistake it turns out. Because now, despite me trying to verify the game on Steam when it started this, it turns out that it's now redownloading the entire 60gb game again.
Yeap decided to try it after all and I'm still getting used to 5th edition. Did clerics lose the convert spells into cure ability or am I missing something?
I think so, but don't quote me on it. DnD 5e changed a lot of things. Paladins can be chaotic evil. Your skills and attack bonuses are severely limited to the extent that a well built 8th level character in 3e overpowers your level 20 fighter. It's DnD-lite.
In 5e, you have X number of spell slots (how many spells you can cast per level) and can prepare Y number of spells (that is, out of the spells you know, you can cast only the spells you’ve prepared for the day). As long as one of your prepared spells is a cure spell, you can convert any of your spell slots into a cure spell.
So you’re not directly converting Guided Bolt (or whatever spell) into cure wounds, but you’re just choosing the spell slot be used for cure wounds instead of whatever spell.
But maybe I’m forgetting another feature from 3/3.5 you’re talking about. Been a looooooong time since I’ve played either.
In 5e, you have X number of spell slots (how many spells you can cast per level) and can prepare Y number of spells (that is, out of the spells you know, you can cast only the spells you’ve prepared for the day). As long as one of your prepared spells is a cure spell, you can convert any of your spell slots into a cure spell.
So you’re not directly converting Guided Bolt (or whatever spell) into cure wounds, but you’re just choosing the spell slot be used for cure wounds instead of whatever spell.
But maybe I’m forgetting another feature from 3/3.5 you’re talking about. Been a looooooong time since I’ve played either.
This. Functionally, every available spell slot you have as a Cleric (or Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard) can be filled by any spell you have prepared.
So if you know Cure Wounds, and can cast 4 level 1s and 2 level 2s, there is nothing preventing you from casting cure wounds 6 times (4 at level 1, 2 at level 2). You dont have to decide that ahead of time.
Gone is the function of saying "I want to have 2 Cure wounds, 1 Spiritual Weapon, 1 Healing word..."
Think of it like a spontaneous caster (Sorcerer from 3rd edition), only its easier to prepare different spells and you can cast spells at different level ranges (Cure wounds heals for 1d8 at level 1, and 2d8 at level 2).
The easiest way yo explain it compared to 3.5 us indeed to say that every caster is a spontaneous caster now. The only difference is that the the old spontaneous casters learns less spells than the wizards and clerics and what have you.
Indeed, you do not have metamagic anymore if you do not multiclass with a sorc or you´re a sorc yourself (yeah, you can use sorcery metamagic with divine or natural spells). I kinda miss it.
but at least now all casters can heighten any spell you have in a higher-level slot for free and many of them became more powerful or have stronger effects.
For example, you do not have to learn and prepare cure or inflict wounds every spell level (cure light, cure serious, cure moderate) you just have the cure wounds spell you learn at level one and if you cast it using a spell slot higher ( lvl 2 spell slot, lvl 3 spell slot) you heal more hp with the same spell (1d8, 2d8, 3d8hp, etc + the spellcasting modifier you have at your level)
That`s handy for spontaneous casters like sorcs and bards with less known spells.
Also, cantrips get stronger with your level so many spells you learn at lower levels are still useful when you reach the third tier.
Even if you multiclass you learn fewer spells than a single-class character, but the spells you know are as powerful as them if both classes are full caster classes (ej: a cleric and a druid, sorcerer or wizard) because now the damage and stuff of a spell you cast depend on the spell slot you use to cast it, your proficiency (that depends on your character total level, not on your class level) and your casting stat, not the level of your casting class.
ed: Yep, that meant you heal the same number of hp with a cleric 1/wizard 19 of 20Wis and with a Cleric 20 of 20WIS (with no special modifiers) using cure wounds. But the cleric 20 will have better, higher-level divine spells.
And you can cast arcane spells in armour if you have the proficiency with it without a problem. Yep, you can play Morrowind heavy-armored battlemages in 5e if you want to. There are races and feats that give you proficiency in armor so you do not even have to multiclass. Just pick a gith or mountain dwarf wizard and start throwing firebolts and magic missiles in half-plate.
Anyone here played with a low end GPU? Is the game playable on very low with a GTS 450? Everything else in my PC is good and meet the requirement, except the GPU, a n GTS 450. I had an more modern GPU but got problems with her. I can play BF1 and other games with that GPU.
Anyone here played with a low end GPU? Is the game playable on very low with a GTS 450? Everything else in my PC is good and meet the requirement, except the GPU, a n GTS 450. I had an more modern GPU but got problems with her. I can play BF1 and other games with that GPU.
I'd hold off playing with a low-end GPU until they optimize the game. I have 2 devices: GeForce 1060 runs smoothly, GeForce 960 has FPS drops in areas like Avernus and during dialogues.
Comments
Everything made up is arbitrary. You haven't offered any actual reasoning as to WHY you are so insistent that kobolds NEED to match a specific, geographical mythology. Germany didn't invent trickster spirits, that's a concept in literally every civilization to ever exist.
This is the last I will be replying.
As for why? Because I want my media to not be shallow and uninteresting, obviously. Who does?
I’d think it’d be more shallow and uninteresting if the same type of creature(s) appeared in different mediums but didn’t have their own flair.
As I stated prior, when D&D was first released, the kobold of Germanic folklore was used as a low level weak monster. Over the generations of the game, it involved into what it is today.
If you read the article I posted above, one of the reasons why it evolved into what it is today was due to DMs not using the creatures to their full potential in campaigns. It was just another lowly level monster that could interchanged with goblin or xvart or gibberling and the player really wouldn’t know the difference besides it’s appearance. That is the definition of shallow.
Shallowness has nothing to do with what a thing is named. Shallowness has to do with not having a deep back story and lore behind it. D&D corrected this with a lot of its lesser races allowing them to standout a bit more and be different from all the other XP churning creatures.
You have your own criteria for why a Kobold should be considered a kobold. This is not the only valid interpretation. Others have presented equally valid interpretations of some of the requirements for the monster we commonly know as a Kobold in 5e to be a kobold. At its essence, this defines and answers the claim perfectly: A kobold can be defined in many ways, subject to a person's opinion. There is no "one true" kobold. When we push this argument further out, it is why we can have likable Goblins and unlikable Gnomes.
If you want to conversation to persist, I recommend you stop asking "but why" and offer your own answer. Either it'll be accepted or rejected.
I don't need to read the article, I am perfectly knowledgeable of their history.
And yes, shallowness of the name has everything to do with what it is name and why it is named that. If there is no reason to use a name, then it's superficial writing.
The reason I keep asking "but why is it named kobolds/why is it kobolds" is because that is the very heart of the discussion. If there is no reason behind the creatures being kobolds, then why are they? If they might as well be called wheels, or smerps, they why aren't they called wheels or smerps instead? Because they are nothing like wheels? They are equally nothing like kobolds. Because it's dumb to call them smerps for no reason? It's equally dumb to call them kobolds for no reason.
And sure, you can define a kobold as per 5e's definition. I then ask you why you define that as a kobold. What is the link to kobolds. Why aren't you calling them smerps?
It all comes down to the usage being arbitrary, without reason, with no connection to the source: generic and uninteresting.
Your opinion. Not fact. You can stop this conversation now if you have nothing left to add especially after I said in your games you can make them however you want. That’s the spirit of D&D.
"Always has been."
No, if there's no reason, then there's no reason. Regardless of whether or not you think that is good thing. You're free to think arbitrarily calling rabbits smerps is a good thing if you want.
Literally nowhere have I argued that you can't call whatever you want kobolds. Not illegal. Not immoral. I'm arguing that it is shallow and bad writing to do so for arbitrary reasons.
No one here works for WotC, so no one here doesn’t actually know why the changes were made.
Then you are arguing an opinion and it’s pointless to continue. People have already complained this is off topic and your not adding anything to the conversation.
So thank you for sharing your opinion, we all read it. Move on.
The core of the issue is that you have unilaterally decided that other people's opinion of what makes a Kobold a Kobold is "arbitrary" because it lacks connection to the supposed mythical source material. That view is valid, but it is only an opinion and has been clearly rejected by a variety of people for a variety of reasons (Their views being absolutely no less valid).
You're free to hold your opinion, but your "but why" askathon hasnt helped your case in the slightest. If anything, you've probably alienated your audience.
Since we already had a nice kerfuffle a few pages back about endlessly repeating the same point over and over again, I think it's rather time this subject goes to Avernus with a nice "Let's agree to disagree".
Ah yes, the many reasons all coming down to "because"
Now, I ignored this the first time, but you are plenty able to stop this conversation at any point by moving on yourself. Stop insisting other people stop responding for your sake.
If you think so, then do so. Your -- because it was your -- kerffuffle about repeating the same point over and over again was to me kerfuffle about you repeating demands for what other forum members are allowed to say over and over again. Which it seems you still do.
That being said, after I looked up the German kobold, I learned two things that I think are relevant here.
1. Even in that mythology they're pretty flexible. This isn't to say that any of them look like the dog-ish or or lizard-ish Forgotten Realms depictions. But there's not really a canonical kobold, at least from a physical perspective.
2. If they were represented faithfully, they would probably just resemble the smaller human-like creatures that already heavily populate Forgotten Realms. A true German kobold isn't all that different from a fairy or a leprechaun, or in the case of D&D a halfling -- at least in some of their depictions.
So I think it's actually perfectly reasonable for Forgotten Realms to have moved away from this traditional depiction. And to give them a depiction that is much, much more distinct. This is quite similar to what has been done to elves in FR, which in typical European mythology are also more flexible.
Reptilians secretly rule Earth
Kobolds are Reptilians
Therefore, Kobolds secretly rule Faerun
There! Pure logic!
Ah well, it's still good, but most of my problems stem from my dislike of the ruleset rather than any design choices by Larian.
So looks like the patch mucked things up for some Steam users. I'm not alone with this either. But basically for some Steam users once they download the patch it won't finish the download (even when its been at like 538 mb forever). It was saying for awhile that it was allocating space or something (20 minutes to do this seems a bit much).
In my case I restarted Steam after it had been like this for too long (thinking it was a client issue and I could just redownload the patch worst case scenario).
That was a mistake it turns out. Because now, despite me trying to verify the game on Steam when it started this, it turns out that it's now redownloading the entire 60gb game again.
I think so, but don't quote me on it. DnD 5e changed a lot of things. Paladins can be chaotic evil. Your skills and attack bonuses are severely limited to the extent that a well built 8th level character in 3e overpowers your level 20 fighter. It's DnD-lite.
So you’re not directly converting Guided Bolt (or whatever spell) into cure wounds, but you’re just choosing the spell slot be used for cure wounds instead of whatever spell.
But maybe I’m forgetting another feature from 3/3.5 you’re talking about. Been a looooooong time since I’ve played either.
This. Functionally, every available spell slot you have as a Cleric (or Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard) can be filled by any spell you have prepared.
So if you know Cure Wounds, and can cast 4 level 1s and 2 level 2s, there is nothing preventing you from casting cure wounds 6 times (4 at level 1, 2 at level 2). You dont have to decide that ahead of time.
Gone is the function of saying "I want to have 2 Cure wounds, 1 Spiritual Weapon, 1 Healing word..."
Think of it like a spontaneous caster (Sorcerer from 3rd edition), only its easier to prepare different spells and you can cast spells at different level ranges (Cure wounds heals for 1d8 at level 1, and 2d8 at level 2).
Also that only Sorcerers get metamagics, sadly.
but at least now all casters can heighten any spell you have in a higher-level slot for free and many of them became more powerful or have stronger effects.
For example, you do not have to learn and prepare cure or inflict wounds every spell level (cure light, cure serious, cure moderate) you just have the cure wounds spell you learn at level one and if you cast it using a spell slot higher ( lvl 2 spell slot, lvl 3 spell slot) you heal more hp with the same spell (1d8, 2d8, 3d8hp, etc + the spellcasting modifier you have at your level)
That`s handy for spontaneous casters like sorcs and bards with less known spells.
Also, cantrips get stronger with your level so many spells you learn at lower levels are still useful when you reach the third tier.
Even if you multiclass you learn fewer spells than a single-class character, but the spells you know are as powerful as them if both classes are full caster classes (ej: a cleric and a druid, sorcerer or wizard) because now the damage and stuff of a spell you cast depend on the spell slot you use to cast it, your proficiency (that depends on your character total level, not on your class level) and your casting stat, not the level of your casting class.
ed: Yep, that meant you heal the same number of hp with a cleric 1/wizard 19 of 20Wis and with a Cleric 20 of 20WIS (with no special modifiers) using cure wounds. But the cleric 20 will have better, higher-level divine spells.
And you can cast arcane spells in armour if you have the proficiency with it without a problem. Yep, you can play Morrowind heavy-armored battlemages in 5e if you want to. There are races and feats that give you proficiency in armor so you do not even have to multiclass. Just pick a gith or mountain dwarf wizard and start throwing firebolts and magic missiles in half-plate.
I'd hold off playing with a low-end GPU until they optimize the game. I have 2 devices: GeForce 1060 runs smoothly, GeForce 960 has FPS drops in areas like Avernus and during dialogues.