Small problem, Tiny issue (kobolds)

[Fouredged Sword]

I am reading

Whenever a kobold is subject to a (size modifier) or (special size modifier for an opposed check (such as Hide))

You are reading

Whenever a kobold is subject to a (size modifier or special size modifier) for an opposed check (such as Hide)

Both are proper English as far as I can tell. I may be reading it wrong. I would think there would be a comma between the words special modifier and for an opposed check if that phrase applied to both sets rather than just the second. IE

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.

Quote from a game I am running, me explaining my reading of a rule. Playground, am I right?

Ok, so, does a Kobold use the small or tiny size modifiers for his attack and defense bonus? I am reading it as they do, and my players are reading it as they don't. What is the correct reading of this web enhancement, and was this ever clarified?

[shylocke]

Take the rule book open it to the page that has the rules for size modifiers and beat him with it. Kobolds are small. They get the same size modifiers as halflings

[Fouredged Sword]

This is a reference to this web addition (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a), which give kobolds a slight build ability. They count as tiny for some modifiers, and I am trying to get a clarification on my reading of that.

[OldTrees1]

This is your disagreement:

Interpretation 1: Small AC
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.

Interpretation 2: Tiny AC
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.

I can't identify one as being more correct. However English is my worst subject.

[Fouredged Sword]

That is exactly the crux of the issue. What reading is correct?

[Forrestfire]

I personally prefer the second reading, but it's honestly a DM call, I think.

[OldTrees1]

It is an ___ or ___ clause with a relative clause ("for ...") attached. I cannot find that proper English rules for identifying if the relative clause is distributed over both or only over the last.

[KillianHawkeye]

It is the first reading. Placing a comma in that sentence like you suggest is not proper comma usage. The benefit of slight build, just like with powerful build, is limited to opposed checks only. It basically just makes them better at hiding.

[Fouredged Sword]

I just think it's odd to have a rule that provides a +4 to skill checks for opposed rolls, but not when applied to flat DC checks. Nothing about the kobold changed, why would he get different bonus?

Don't mind my opinion though. I am trying to find a consensus, and I fear there may not be. Everyone, how has it been ruled in games you have played?

[KillianHawkeye]

I just think it's odd to have a rule that provides a +4 to skill checks for opposed rolls, but not when applied to flat DC checks. Nothing about the kobold changed, why would he get different bonus?

Are there even any skill checks that take the user's size into account that are taken against a flat DC rather than being an opposed check?

[Drachasor]

Well, I don't think it would make sense to talk about
size modifiers for opposed checks
and
special size modifiers for opposed checks.

AFAIK, those are the exact same thing.

So I think it is the first reading.

[Fouredged Sword]

Why not just say "size modifiers for opposed checks" and be done with it. Why specify a second set of "Special size modifiers" after an OR function except to specify that they are treated differently somehow?

[Segev]

It applies only to opposed checks. Otherwise, there would be no reason to say they're Small, because every rule would treat them as Tiny, and the "for opposed checks" section would be meaningless.

A kobold gets treated as Tiny any time he is engaged in an opposed check. Hiding, grappling, etc. He is treated as Small (his actual size) for anything else, including to-hit and AC bonuses.

[Drachasor]

It applies only to opposed checks. Otherwise, there would be no reason to say they're Small, because every rule would treat them as Tiny, and the "for opposed checks" section would be meaningless.

That's not true. Grappling gives a penalty for smaller size for instance.

[Fouredged Sword]

Except he is treated as small by default for all issues, and only is treated as tiny for modifiers and only when beneficial, meaning he is treated as small when grappled for instance.

[ddude987]

It applies only to opposed checks. Otherwise, there would be no reason to say they're Small, because every rule would treat them as Tiny, and the "for opposed checks" section would be meaningless.

A kobold gets treated as Tiny any time he is engaged in an opposed check. Hiding, grappling, etc. He is treated as Small (his actual size) for anything else, including to-hit and AC bonuses.

It wouldn't apply for grappling because it is not advantageous to have a lower grapple check.

[Segev]

Ah, sorry, missed the "only when beneficial" part.