It seems that the catfolk are paying 3 for low light vision. 1 in the vision group and 2 in the abilities. Is this correct?
It looks like it, I'd either give them Darkvision or subtract 2RP from the total.
Looks like just a typo, sense no other race has it. I don't even see it listed as an option in the document for 2 RP. So drop 2 from their cost and call it good. (Cat's definitely do not have darkvision.)
They should of had claws though. wich was the only thing about them that I was a little diapointed about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cat's definitely do not have darkvision.
I'm surprised to read you say this. If anything, I think they would be the poster-animals for real world darkvision-possessing creatures.
Cat's definitely do not have darkvision.I'm surprised to read you say this. If anything, I think they would be the poster-animals for real world darkvision-possessing creatures.
Reflective membranes on the back of certain animal's eyes can reflect weak light enough to see better in relative darkness. But a cat in an airtight dark room is as blind as we'd be. So, low light vision is apt in their case.
Edit: Just found this article on it...
An aside: The catfolk have their own 1st edition type Artifacts and Relics... like the Mighty Litter Box of Leuk-o and the Scratching Post of Seven Parts. Fascinating culture, theirs.
They should of had claws though. wich was the only thing about them that I was a little diapointed about.
Actually, that extra 2 points for low-light vision was likely supposed to be claws.
They should of had claws though. wich was the only thing about them that I was a little diapointed about.Actually, that extra 2 points for low-light vision was likely supposed to be claws.
That would make sense.
Actually, I very much hope claws don't enter into the race at all, simply because of how wonky natural attacks are in relation to other attack forms.
I.e., I want the entire race to work as a part of whatever class the player happens to pick and a Catfolk Monk is either flurrying or using the claws but not both without a feat expenditure that is above and beyond what should be necessary.
A trait that lets them treat their unnarmed damage (whether they have Improved Unarmed Strike or not) as bludgeoning or piercing (or slashing, for that matter) damage? Good. Claws? Please no.
I hope it is claws because it makes sense, It would be worth the loss of the human bonus feat, I have characters/feats based on catfolk with claws, and I like claws(and still think the sorcerer bloodlines should of got them at will). Also it makes more sense for them to have claws then let say changelings.
Isn't the whole point of the custom races to allow the GM to decide if the catfolk of his world get claws or not?
Actually, I very much hope claws don't enter into the race at all, simply because of how wonky natural attacks are in relation to other attack forms.
I.e., I want the entire race to work as a part of whatever class the player happens to pick and a Catfolk Monk is either flurrying or using the claws but not both without a feat expenditure that is above and beyond what should be necessary.
A trait that lets them treat their unnarmed damage (whether they have Improved Unarmed Strike or not) as bludgeoning or piercing (or slashing, for that matter) damage? Good. Claws? Please no.
You don't want claws because of one specific race / class combination?
You don't want claws because of one specific race / class combination?Actually, I very much hope claws don't enter into the race at all, simply because of how wonky natural attacks are in relation to other attack forms.
I.e., I want the entire race to work as a part of whatever class the player happens to pick and a Catfolk Monk is either flurrying or using the claws but not both without a feat expenditure that is above and beyond what should be necessary.
A trait that lets them treat their unnarmed damage (whether they have Improved Unarmed Strike or not) as bludgeoning or piercing (or slashing, for that matter) damage? Good. Claws? Please no.
That one specific race / class combination is my example of how poorly I believe natural attacks and regular attacks interact.
I mean, a natural attack is an unarmed attack that counts as armed, can deal lethal damage of a type that might be something other than bludgeoning, and can't be used any more times than the specified amount.
I mean, what's the difference between a person giving a kick and a horse rearing up and using a hoof attack. They're both kicks, but one interacts with the ruleset in one way, the other in a completely different way, and I just want the catfolk's version of "clawy attack with claws" to be able to interact with more of the resources a PC can expect to use rather than less.
If the rules for how natural attacks got adjudicated were written differently then I'd probably go for claws, too.
So you don't understand the rules so your going to punish a players choices over it, is that it?
Personelly I would rather be hit by a person's kick then a horse's kick anyday, there is a very big difference to me.
You doen't like how they interact or lack there of with a monk, it is easy to house rule that a clawed monk uses there claw or unarmed damage wich ever is higher and can change there unarmed damage type to blugeoning, slashing, or peircing.
If you want to take it away from the race in your own campain I do not care but I do want it as the base so I can play it that way without asking the DM to give them claws.
I gave the catfolk monks in my world a special Favored Class option for Monk. If they take it for 5 levels, they can use their claws with flurries, and their claw damage becomes their monk unarmed damage. This is functionally the same as a human monk at level 5+, other than the fact that they can make slashing attacks in stead of bludgeoning if they choose to. I don't find it unbalanced in any way. Honestly, after level 3, a pair of 1d4 claws (or a pair of 1d8 claws for a monk) is not overpowered compared to someone with a 2d4 falcatta or a 1d8 punching monk.
Looks like just a typo, sense no other race has it. I don't even see it listed as an option in the document for 2 RP. So drop 2 from their cost and call it good. (Cat's definitely do not have darkvision.)
+1
I gave the catfolk monks in my world a special Favored Class option for Monk. If they take it for 5 levels, they can use their claws with flurries, and their claw damage becomes their monk unarmed damage. This is functionally the same as a human monk at level 5+, other than the fact that they can make slashing attacks in stead of bludgeoning if they choose to. I don't find it unbalanced in any way. Honestly, after level 3, a pair of 1d4 claws (or a pair of 1d8 claws for a monk) is not overpowered compared to someone with a 2d4 falcatta or a 1d8 punching monk.
Hell, for a feat any monk can deal slashing/piercing damage with their unarmed strikes anyway, and they get more bonuses than just that from the feat.
How about I propose a compromise, one that, if implemented, would impact and, I think, benefit more races than just the Catfolk?
I propose the ARG be written with at least the following four sections, if the book wasn’t already going to have them already:
1) new premade races, such as the Catfolk, Ratfolk, and Vanara,
2) alternative favored class features, for the races introduced in the ARG as well as those in the Bestiaries (AND making sure to allow the seven standard races to possibly have more options for picking Magus as a favored class than just +1 hit point or skill point (yeah, they forgot that, didn’t they?)),
3) alternative racial traits, for the races introduced in the ARG as well as those in the Bestiaries (---- my point, right here), and
4) the ruleset for custom creating new races (i.e., what the current playtest is about),
as well as whatever else they were going to put in the book.
The reason I advocate 3 is because while there’s a good amount of customization for the seven standard races, we’d probably like to do other things with the other nominally playable races besides the stock options. For those of us who don’t like how Spell Resistance doesn’t act like a firewall (and I think Bulmahn is one of them), we’d probably love a premade alternative to the Drow’s Spell Resistance. For those of us who play Tieflings and emphasize certain qualities of their appearance, we’d probably like to knock off something to make that tail prehensile or to make those horns an actual weapon.
As for the Catfolk, if the community is dead-set on them having Claws, then I propose that be the primary racial trait (assuming everything else stays the same) with an alternative racial trait available looking something like this (and yes, I’d want this to be an alternative racial trait since it’s easier to ask a DM for a pre-selected alternative rather than permission to rebuild an entire race from the ground up):
Nail-Claws: You may deal slashing damage with your unarmed strikes. You also gain the benefit of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, but only when dealing slashing damage (you must gain the Improved Unarmed Strike feat through some other means to be able to use it with bludgeoning damage).
Of course, this could work for other such races as well. I’m sure Tengus might like to have those bird-like feet do something “talony” without being stuck with Talons.
So you don't understand the rules so your going to punish a players choices over it, is that it?
Personelly I would rather be hit by a person's kick then a horse's kick anyday, there is a very big difference to me.
You doen't like how they interact or lack there of with a monk, it is easy to house rule that a clawed monk uses there claw or unarmed damage wich ever is higher and can change there unarmed damage type to blugeoning, slashing, or peircing.
If you want to take it away from the race in your own campain I do not care but I do want it as the base so I can play it that way without asking the DM to give them claws.
You do realize how that reads, right?
“I don’t care if you have to butter up your DM to let you play the race with the features you want it to have, as long as I don’t have to.”
I don't post here that often, so I'm not familiar with your record, but my faith in simple human decency says you're better than this.