|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently, the Hoofed ability is a Monstrous ability.
That locks out 10pt. races with Satyr-like appearances, like Draenei.
It really needs to be open to everyone considering what it really is, as should any other ability that is primarily there for aesthetics that may be added later, be they antennae, fronds, horns, or tentacles.
I don't think the power level of the race you're making actively prohibits you from a low-RP race. The Lizardfolk under Sample Races has several Advanced-tier abilities yet still comes out at 10 RP.
I think in terms of 10-RP races the Standard/Advanced/Monstrous ability designation serves as more of a guideline than a hard rule, and only really matters if your campaign explicitly only allows for standard/advanced-type races.
Currently, the Hoofed ability is a Monstrous ability.
That locks out 10pt. races with Satyr-like appearances, like Draenei.
It really needs to be open to everyone considering what it really is, as should any other ability that is primarily there for aesthetics that may be added later, be they antennae, fronds, horns, or tentacles.
I agree The Hoofed ability should be both a Standard ability and cost 0RP, with the option of adding +1RP to have the Hooves do 1d4 damage (Medium) as a secondary attack.
|
|
I don't think the power level of the race you're making actively prohibits you from a low-RP race. The Lizardfolk under Sample Races has several Advanced-tier abilities yet still comes out at 10 RP.
I think in terms of 10-RP races the Standard/Advanced/Monstrous ability designation serves as more of a guideline than a hard rule, and only really matters if your campaign explicitly only allows for standard/advanced-type races.
Sorry, I meant Standard races. All the overlapping terminology and values am making me confus. ;)
But yeah, if a campaign allows only standard races, then according to the rules you can't have hooves, which are hardly an advantage at all.
On a related note, while hooves are locked away under Monstrous options, Claws are under Advanced. Those actually DO give a slight advantage in the form of a natural attack. On the other hand, isn't there a half-orc alternate racial feature that gives them a bite attack? And that's a Standard race.
So we have bites at Standard, claws at Advanced, and hooves that do nothing but switch out boots for horseshoes under Monstrous. It just doesn't add up, and just rubs the salt in that much deeper for folks that just want their Standard race to have cloppy feets.
Not only that, but anyone could just say their Standard race has fangs and claws and just not receive any mechanical benefit. Not so for hooves.
Can you even use hooves as a natural attack as a biped? Should using hooves as a natural attack be limited to 'quadrupeds'? And if you can't use it as an attack wouldn't it just be a penalty, because you can't wear shoes (and I think magical horse shoes come in groups of 4 meaning even less options).
Edit: By the way, the first question is about the verisimilitude not the rules
|
|
Personally I'd figure a biped with hooves kicking should just be doing an unarmed strike. The visualization gets a bit awkward in my head, gotta admit, what with the digitigrade legs.
I wouldn't mind hooves-as-natural attacks being limited to quadrupeds. It's easier to see working out for them. (as it's currently written, hooves don't even give quadrupeds a natural attack. they have to take a separate Natural Attack ability as well to get even that)
And yeah, if the bit on horseshoes coming in packs of four only is right, ouch. That makes the ability cost even more unfair.
edit-Yep, a quick look at the PRD shows it's all four or nothin'. So bipeds are paying for a disadvantage currently, if they can get it at all.
"All four shoes must be worn by the same animal for the magic to be effective."
Yep, groups of four. Making hooves technically nothing more than a penalty. I think it should cost -1 to be hooved for a biped (0 for quadruped). For a quadruped only, they should be able to spend 1 rp to gain their two natural attacks with their hooves.
I'm telling you man.
Horse racism.
Can you even use hooves as a natural attack as a biped? Should using hooves as a natural attack be limited to 'quadrupeds'? And if you can't use it as an attack wouldn't it just be a penalty, because you can't wear shoes (and I think magical horse shoes come in groups of 4 meaning even less options).
Edit: By the way, the first question is about the verisimilitude not the rules
Can Bi-Peds kick? Looks like Jackie Chan and Jet Li say yes. If you can kick then you can get a hoof attack.
Horses use hoof attacks in one of two ways they rear up and strike with the front hooves or kick strait back with the rear hooves. So as a Kick I can easily say they could get a hoof attack standard if unarmed secondary if armed just like a bite.
Can you even use hooves as a natural attack as a biped? Should using hooves as a natural attack be limited to 'quadrupeds'? And if you can't use it as an attack wouldn't it just be a penalty, because you can't wear shoes (and I think magical horse shoes come in groups of 4 meaning even less options).
Edit: By the way, the first question is about the verisimilitude not the rules
Can Bi-Peds kick? Looks like Jackie Chan and Jet Li say yes. If you can kick then you can get a hoof attack.
Horses use hoof attacks in one of two ways they rear up and strike with the front hooves or kick strait back with the rear hooves. So as a Kick I can easily say they could get a hoof attack standard if unarmed secondary if armed just like a bite.
I can kick and punch. Most humans with 2 arms and 2 legs can. Do humans get natural attacks?
I can kick and punch. Most humans with 2 arms and 2 legs can. Do humans get natural attacks?Can you even use hooves as a natural attack as a biped? Should using hooves as a natural attack be limited to 'quadrupeds'? And if you can't use it as an attack wouldn't it just be a penalty, because you can't wear shoes (and I think magical horse shoes come in groups of 4 meaning even less options).
Edit: By the way, the first question is about the verisimilitude not the rules
Can Bi-Peds kick? Looks like Jackie Chan and Jet Li say yes. If you can kick then you can get a hoof attack.
Horses use hoof attacks in one of two ways they rear up and strike with the front hooves or kick strait back with the rear hooves. So as a Kick I can easily say they could get a hoof attack standard if unarmed secondary if armed just like a bite.
Natural Attack (1 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Pick
one of the following natural attacks: gore, hoof (if therace has hooves), slam, talons, or wings (if the race has
f light). Members of this race receive one natural attack
of the chosen type. Gore, slam, and talons are primary
natural attacks, while hoof and wings are secondary
natural attacks. The damage is based on the creature’s size
(see Bestiary, page 301). Special: This ability can be taken
multiple times. Each time, pick a different natural attack.
They would if they had Hooves :).
Natural Attack (1 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Pick
one of the following natural attacks: gore, hoof (if the
race has hooves), slam, talons, or wings (if the race has
f light). Members of this race receive one natural attack
of the chosen type. Gore, slam, and talons are primary
natural attacks, while hoof and wings are secondary
natural attacks. The damage is based on the creature’s size
(see Bestiary, page 301). Special: This ability can be taken
multiple times. Each time, pick a different natural attack.
They would if they had Hooves :).
Well, if we're going to be pedantic about this, wouldn't that mean that anyone can take gore, slam, or talons as those don't seem to have pre-requisites?
As of now, I have to say Natural Attack is poorly written. Hawks have wings and can fly, but they don't have wing attack.
Also, natural attack is 1RP and hooves are 1RP, so it would be much cheaper to just get slam...
Natural Attack (1 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Pick
one of the following natural attacks: gore, hoof (if the
race has hooves), slam, talons, or wings (if the race has
f light). Members of this race receive one natural attack
of the chosen type. Gore, slam, and talons are primary
natural attacks, while hoof and wings are secondary
natural attacks. The damage is based on the creature’s size
(see Bestiary, page 301). Special: This ability can be taken
multiple times. Each time, pick a different natural attack.
They would if they had Hooves :).Well, if we're going to be pedantic about this, wouldn't that mean that anyone can take gore, slam, or talons as those don't seem to have pre-requisites?
As of now, I have to say Natural Attack is poorly written. Hawks have wings and can fly, but they don't have wing attack.
Also, natural attack is 1RP and hooves are 1RP, so it would be much cheaper to just get slam...
They do have Talons however and a Beak both of which give natural attacks.
Having Hooves should give you the option for a natural hoof attack. Horses prove that you do not need four hooves to attack with them they only use two at a time. They Kick or they stomp which is an equivalent to hand or foot attack but with Hooves you can select the Hoof attack.Also Hooves are harder than a standard foot so if my foot was made out of a hard heavier material than flesh then you should get a bonus to the damage.
Horse based humanoids, Outsiders with hooves, Monstrous Humanoids with Hooves, Fey with Hooves should be able to attack with said natural weapons.
As of now, I have to say Natural Attack is poorly written. Hawks have wings and can fly, but they don't have wing attack.
Also Hooves are harder than a standard foot so if my foot was made out of a hard heavier material than flesh then you should get a bonus to the damage.
And if you're wearing metal shoes...?
Also Hooves are harder than a standard foot so if my foot was made out of a hard heavier material than flesh then you should get a bonus to the damage.And if you're wearing metal shoes...?
I would treat them as if they were gauntlets allowing them to do lethal damage Spiked Boots however would be more like Cestus.
As of now, I have to say Natural Attack is poorly written. Hawks have wings and can fly, but they don't have wing attack.Hawks may not use em that way, but swans do...
As far as I know, not in pathfinder :/ Of course Pathfinder / D&D is not a good source for accurate information. I mean, realistically, what human could only attack once in 6 seconds? At least Pidgeotto had wing attack in Pokemon.
Can you even use hooves as a natural attack as a biped? Should using hooves as a natural attack be limited to 'quadrupeds'? And if you can't use it as an attack wouldn't it just be a penalty, because you can't wear shoes (and I think magical horse shoes come in groups of 4 meaning even less options).
Edit: By the way, the first question is about the verisimilitude not the rules
Can Bi-Peds kick? Looks like Jackie Chan and Jet Li say yes. If you can kick then you can get a hoof attack.
Horses use hoof attacks in one of two ways they rear up and strike with the front hooves or kick strait back with the rear hooves. So as a Kick I can easily say they could get a hoof attack standard if unarmed secondary if armed just like a bite.
That's a good point, (though I was thinking of the whole trampling / stomping with the hooves) Which brings up the question, how come humans can't have natural attacks again? Of course that's something that would rework a good portion of the game if you were to try and 'fix'. I think it might be a humanoid limitation, maybe.
If humans had Claws, Enlarged Canines, or Hooves they would. Many games have no problem with this concept. Sabertooth from Marvel Comics in his earlier pre-adamantium still had a bite and claw attack.
If humans had Claws, Enlarged Canines, or Hooves they would. Many games have no problem with this concept. Sabertooth from Marvel Comics in his earlier pre-adamantium still had a bite and claw attack.
Humans have unarmed attacks instead of natural attacks, because they are not naturally "armed," which is essentially what I think Realmwalker meant by his last post.
BECAUSE humans don't have natural weapons, they don't have natural attacks. Unless you have special training that basically turns your body into a "weapon" like some martial arts claim to do. Blocking a kick from a leather boot would not be easy (for you and I) by any means, if the attacker really meant to do harm and had any strength to speak of. Blocking a bone-hard hoof would be even more difficult.
Animals are genetically designed with these defense mechanisms. Humans are designed with the intellect to craft tools (read: weapons).
Not to mince words, but I've yet to see an actual human being with hooves.
I get your argument that by itself it should cost nothing to put hooves on a biped (provided using them as a natural attack still costs). I just don't get the argument against them being monstrous. Again, human beings do not have hooves.
If you feel so adamant that you should be able to put hooves or some other aesthetic, and I am assuming from what you have said, useless characteristic on some creature you're making, then just go ahead. If it's merely an aesthetic, why even worry about the rules?
But I highly doubt of the things you mentioned, that your players would think their tentacles, antennae and horns are going to be only aesthetic. If I had those things, I would expect them to be useful, and some of those are pretty darned useful (and so ought to be expensive).
Honestly I do not see a point in the "standard/advanced/monster" categories. At most you should have Normal/advanced, but I would not even have that, points and a point limit, handles that far better then liming them by names such as standard and advanced. A 7-14 RP race is well within the normal limit, while 16-25 or so is "advanced and anything past that is pure Monster realms. Limiting what you may select in ways other then points is simply not needed.
Not to mince words, but I've yet to see an actual human being with hooves.
I get your argument that by itself it should cost nothing to put hooves on a biped (provided using them as a natural attack still costs). I just don't get the argument against them being monstrous. Again, human beings do not have hooves.
If you feel so adamant that you should be able to put hooves or some other aesthetic, and I am assuming from what you have said, useless characteristic on some creature you're making, then just go ahead. If it's merely an aesthetic, why even worry about the rules?
But I highly doubt of the things you mentioned, that your players would think their tentacles, antennae and horns are going to be only aesthetic. If I had those things, I would expect them to be useful, and some of those are pretty darned useful (and so ought to be expensive).
Why aren't kobolds monstrous then?
Not to mince words, but I've yet to see an actual human being with scales.
I get your argument that by itself it should cost nothing to put scales on a biped (provided using it as natural armor still costs). I just don't get the argument against them being monstrous. Again, human beings do not have scales.
If you feel so adamant that you should be able to put scales or some other aesthetic, and I am assuming from what you have said, useless characteristic on some creature you're making, then just go ahead. If it's merely an aesthetic, why even worry about the rules?
[/sarcasm]
That was the level of justification your argument held for this fantasy game...
|
|
Digitigrade (walking on the length of the digit) isn't hooves, it's what cats and dogs have. Hooves is Ungulate (walking on the tips of the digits/the nails).
I know, that's just the sort of leg I'd put hooves on. Straight-up human legs with hooves just doesn't look right to me. ;)
Not to mince words, but I've yet to see an actual human being with hooves.
I get your argument that by itself it should cost nothing to put hooves on a biped (provided using them as a natural attack still costs). I just don't get the argument against them being monstrous. Again, human beings do not have hooves.
If you feel so adamant that you should be able to put hooves or some other aesthetic, and I am assuming from what you have said, useless characteristic on some creature you're making, then just go ahead. If it's merely an aesthetic, why even worry about the rules?
But I highly doubt of the things you mentioned, that your players would think their tentacles, antennae and horns are going to be only aesthetic. If I had those things, I would expect them to be useful, and some of those are pretty darned useful (and so ought to be expensive).
Ion Raven pretty much covered much of my sentiments on this. Take a look through the Bestiary and you'll find a LOT of races with fangs, horns, and hooves that don't grant them any mechanical benefits. Furthermore, building a centaur with the current rules doesn't grant them any natural attacks with hooves either UNTIL they take the Natural Attack ability.
But that isn't to say that I'd expect all instances of horns, hooves, tentacles, etc. to be just for looks. I just want them mainly for theme. If they come with mechanical benefits or need them, fine, but I don't think that should require locking them out for Standard races. That and there are any number of ways to provide mechanical options to reflect these races having those features. Tentacles alone could be anything to a simple slam attack if used as a standard attack, grant bonuses to grapple checks, offer the grindylow's trip attack, or something new. They can also come with drawbacks, such as being unable to use certain types of equipment or playing havoc on their land speed and stability depending on what humanoid limbs they may replace. And that's just for starters.
It's not written in stone that those features have to be overpowering for standard races. Suggesting otherwise and locking them out in a toolkit meant to help people make NEW races outside the boundries of Tolkienland is shooting the cart before burning the horse.
As for the other argument against them being monstrous: Monstrous by whose standard? This is for us to build new races for our own settings. Some of those settings have a greater range amongst their major races we want as player races. Insisting that everything needs to be judged by Middle-Earth standards pretty much wrecks it for people who want worlds that look more like Azeroth, Athas, Tantooine, or Sigil. People with horns or hooves or tails or stingers or whatever may seem monstrous in the real world. That is not necessarily the case on any number of fictional worlds we want to build with these rules.
Having hooves does not give you a natural attack unless whatever is giving them to you specifically says that they are.
Having hooves does not give you a natural attack unless whatever is giving them to you specifically says that they are.
But they do give you that option.
I agree hooves as written should not cost RP all they do is apply a prerequisite to having hooves as a natural attack and negate the use of a boot slot. I also agree that it should be a standard choice not a monstrous one.
Having hooves does not give you a natural attack unless whatever is giving them to you specifically says that they are.But they do give you that option.
I agree hooves as written should not cost RP all they do is apply a prerequisite to having hooves as a natural attack and negate the use of a boot slot. I also agree that it should be a standard choice not a monstrous one.
Giving a summoner's eidolon hooves is more of a penalty than a benefit as well... In that instance, it costs one evolution point to swap a quadruped's claws out for hooves, and hooves are considered secondary natural attacks, thus taking a -5 penalty. But you SPENT A POINT to swap out a free evolution for something that is likely just for flavor. I wonder why Paizo thinks that way... because, you know... it's a hive mind... <<; Or something.
Having hooves doesn't give you a natural attack, and having human feet doesn't give you one either. But you have the OPTION to put on spiked greaves and make an "unarmed" attack with them (this has been addressed on these forums). So, putting cleated horseshoes on a hoof, by logical extension should allow the same thing.
Having hooves does not give you a natural attack unless whatever is giving them to you specifically says that they are.But they do give you that option.
I agree hooves as written should not cost RP all they do is apply a prerequisite to having hooves as a natural attack and negate the use of a boot slot. I also agree that it should be a standard choice not a monstrous one.
Giving a summoner's eidolon hooves is more of a penalty than a benefit as well... In that instance, it costs one evolution point to swap a quadruped's claws out for hooves, and hooves are considered secondary natural attacks, thus taking a -5 penalty. But you SPENT A POINT to swap out a free evolution for something that is likely just for flavor. I wonder why Paizo thinks that way... because, you know... it's a hive mind... <<; Or something.
Having hooves doesn't give you a natural attack, and having human feet doesn't give you one either. But you have the OPTION to put on spiked greaves and make an "unarmed" attack with them (this has been addressed on these forums). So, putting cleated horseshoes on a hoof, by logical extension should allow the same thing.
Humans can't have Darvision either but they have the "option" of wearing nightvision goggles. Using humans as a base for whether or not a natural attack should be used on an entirely different race is just plain f'n silly. Human feet are much more squishy than a bull, or horses hoof.
Using this argument means the following has to apply to everything else:
Darkvision humans don't have neither should anyone else.
Claws Humans don't get natural attacks with thier hands so neither should any one else.
See where this is going? A race with Hooves are not human just because a Human does not get a natural attack with his feet, does not mean a race with hooves should have to follow the same rule...they are not HUMAN.
Stuff...
I didn't think I was disagreeing with you... ... ...?
Was that a question? I don't know.
o-o;
Stuff...I didn't think I was disagreeing with you... ... ...?
Was that a question? I don't know.
o-o;
lol maybe it was just me :) I'm sorry if I mistook what you said.