| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Thieran |
Posted - 11 Apr 2012 : 15:09:24
Dear scribes,
I wondered whether any of you also noticed that in the 3.5 supplement Underdark, the Slyths, though described as beings living in the Underdark only, do possess neither darkvision nor low-light vision. Do you think this is an error? (I have already asked Bruce Cordell, one of the designers of the book, but he is not responding.)
I would be grateful for your opinions.
Cheers - Thieran
|
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Thieran |
Posted - 11 Apr 2012 : 23:47:24
Thanks for your posts!
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-No, we only have those. Three out of four (or two out of three?) suggest Human ancestry, so I'll assume that that kernel of myth is grounded most strongly in reality since it's so recurring.
That's a reasonable assumption (though I personally prefer the Chauntea one).
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
I have found many similar topics on other forums, and none gave an actual definitive answer. The consensus is that they have darkvision and its omission was a mistake.
I found no official errata for this sourcebook.
I also saw those answers, but I wanted to pick the brains most steeped in Realmslore 
quote:
Originally posted by Fellfire
I would feel that giving them either darkvision or tremorsense (or both) would be appropriate.
I was a bit more conservative and gave them low-light vision back when one of my players wanted to play a slyth druid, but I now also feel that darkvision would be more appropriate. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 11 Apr 2012 : 19:54:27
I would feel that giving them either darkvision or tremorsense (or both) would be appropriate. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 11 Apr 2012 : 18:34:07
I have found many similar topics on other forums, and none gave an actual definitive answer. The consensus is that they have darkvision and its omission was a mistake.
I found no official errata for this sourcebook. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 11 Apr 2012 : 17:42:38
quote:
Originally posted by Thieran
Has their descent from humans been clarified in a later sourcebook? Because in 3.5 Underdark, we are given different theories regarding their origin, one of which does not have them descended from humans.
-No, we only have those. Three out of four (or two out of three?) suggest Human ancestry, so I'll assume that that kernel of myth is grounded most strongly in reality since it's so recurring. |
| Thieran |
Posted - 11 Apr 2012 : 16:45:18
Thank you both for your replies!
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Don't know if it's an oversight or anything (personally, I think it would have to be). If it isn't, Slyth are descended from Humans, so maybe they haven't existed in the Underdark long enough to evolve Low Light/Darkvision? Doesn't make too much sense, but it's something.
Has their descent from humans been clarified in a later sourcebook? Because in 3.5 Underdark, we are given different theories regarding their origin, one of which does not have them descended from humans. But you are right, that would be one line of reasoning which would explain their lack of enhanced vision in-game. That would imply, though, that as a species, they are quite young, given that it took the human-descended Deep Imaskari less than 4000 years to develop low-light vision... (Which is possible since we are not told, at least not in that book, about the slyths' history.) |
| Galuf the Dwarf |
Posted - 11 Apr 2012 : 16:27:12
Being ooze-like in nature, I would think it would make sense for Slyths - at least in their ooze form - to have blindsense. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 11 Apr 2012 : 16:21:18
-Don't know if it's an oversight or anything (personally, I think it would have to be). If it isn't, Slyth are descended from Humans, so maybe they haven't existed in the Underdark long enough to evolve Low Light/Darkvision? Doesn't make too much sense, but it's something. |
|
|
