15
\$\begingroup\$

I'm playing a Dragon Fire Adept Kobold, and the Slight Build feature made it seem like I could share a space with a party member.

Slight Build: The physical stature of kobolds lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category smaller. Whenever a kobold is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as Hide), the kobold is treated as one size smaller if doing so is advantageous to the character. A kobold is also considered to be one size smaller when "squeezing" through a restrictive space. A kobold can use weapons designed for a creature one size smaller without penalty. However, the space and reach of a kobold remain those of a creature of their actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject's size category.

So I could share a square with my fighter and use my breath weapon against the enemy without hitting my fighter?

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hi Kaz, welcome to RPG.StackExchange.com! Good first question. Please take a look at our About when you get a chance. I edited your question, please make sure I preserved the intent. \$\endgroup\$
    – C. Ross
    Nov 2 '13 at 19:22
14
\$\begingroup\$

No, you can't.

The slight build quality explicitly tells you "the space [...] of a kobold remain(s) that of a creature of their actual size", meaning they cannot be considered tiny for, between other things, sharing squares with teammates.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

By strict RAW, no, you cannot. The Slight Build rules you quoted itemize the exact circumstances for which you count as Tiny, and determining square-sharing is not covered by any of the listed items. However, it seems probable that the RAI was for you to function as Tiny pretty much whenever doing so is to your benefit, and even if this is not the true RAI, it is still a very reasonable thing to allow. I would allow it in my own games, and would recommend that other GMs do likewise, but with the clear understanding that it is a house rule to do so, and not supported by RAW.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this answer would be improved by not claiming "it seems probable that the RAI was function as tiny whenever doing so is to your benefit". If that was the intent, the rule would probably say "lets them function as if they were one size category smaller whenever this is beneficial" instead of "in many ways", and then listing exactly which ways. \$\endgroup\$
    – Lord Ingo
    Jun 25 '20 at 6:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @LordIngo Hardly. There are abundant examples of such cases where it seems obvious to everyone what other wording they should have used if they intended X, but yet it later comes out that they did, indeed, intend X, and the wording they used instead of the obvious one was just a poor choice of phrasing on their part. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 2 '20 at 0:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .