Why do they hate the catfolk races?

[fbmf]

That would be my answer as well, but we'll probably be accused of being whatever "anti-furries" are called now.

Game On,
fbmf

[User3]

In a perfect world, Wizards would put out a book that was nothing but a collection of racial adjustmentless versions of various popular races and creatures, besides just the normal DnD archtypes, for players who might actually want to play a level one fairy, catgirl, centuar, vampire or what ever the hell nonstandard crap players might ask to play.

Course, in that perfect world, they would also have half-orcs that didn't suck, a sorcerer that was designed by someone who liked the class, melee classes that are good at level 10, and rule systems that aren't still tainted by 20 year-old legacy content. Oh and Darksun, Spelljammer, and Planescape would still be supported...

...yeah, in retrospect this was pointless post, sorry.

[Crissa]

But Human girls do have tailbones and ears. They don't come with dresses or lingere, either, but many people like those added to girls...

-Crissa

[Digestor]

1173244764[/unixtime]]But Human girls do have tailbones and ears. They don't come with dresses or lingere, either, but many people like those added to girls...

-Crissa

Yes, human girls do have tail bones and ears... and they're like, practically the exact same as rabbit ears and cat tails... not!

I'd also beg to differ on the dresses/lingerie comment but that's a conversation for another time and another place.

[Draco_Argentum]

Gotta wonder why so many threads get onto the subject of furries here. I have seriously read more posts about the topic here than on furry messageboards and I'm a furry.

[Cielingcat]

1173244764[/unixtime]]many people like those added to girls...

-Crissa

I beg to differ.

Gotta wonder why so many threads get onto the subject of furries here. I have seriously read more posts about the topic here than on furry messageboards and I'm a furry.

Because this started as such a topic?

Animal composition ranges from 0-15% are always acceptable. Ranges from 15-25% can sometimes be accepted. Ranges of 100% are fine too. This is according to the official chart, which is official.


But in an attempt to actually stay on topic, what are the essential things people want in a catfolk race? A Dex bonus, obviously, as well as Listen and Move Silently, but what else would be needed for an ECL 1 race?

[User3]

1173272409[/unixtime]]
But in an attempt to actually stay on topic, what are the essential things people want in a catfolk race? A Dex bonus, obviously, as well as Listen and Move Silently, but what else would be needed for an ECL 1 race?

Hrm...

Quick and Dirty ECL 0 Catgirl Race

+2 Dex -2 Wis

Catgirls are quick and agile but also prone to flightiness and easily distractible.

Lowlight Vision

Basic Unorginal Natual Weapons: A Catgirl's unarmed attack does 1d6 slashing damage and does not provoke an AoO.

Cat Type Crap: Catgirls get a +2 bonus to all Balance, Climb, Jump, Move Silently, and Tumble skillchecks but also have a -2 penalty to any Concentration or Swim check.

Catgirls get the Alertness and Scent feats for free.

A catgirls favored classes are Rogue and Scout.




It's a bit unpowered, but we don't want to give people too much reason to play the race beyond just for the flavor.

[Endovior]

Scent is a feat, now? I thought it was still an (Ex) ability. It might show up in Savage Species for me to overlook, though, and I'm too lazy to check... plus, it's more or less irrelevant, as it's the same thing either way.

All and all, looks pretty good... I'd personally tighten up the wording a little, but it's a quick and dirty version anyways.

[Fwib]

I think that scent was an optional feat for ... (orcs and gnomes? or something) ... in 3.0 - dunno if it is still in 3.5 somewhere.

[Crissa]

But the problem with that race is that your average Wizards board poster will say that it is overpowered and should be LA +2 for having a Feat and a Natural Weapon.

-Crissa

[Cielingcat]

1173596027[/unixtime]]But the problem with that race is that your average Wizards board poster will say that it is overpowered and should be LA +2 for having a Feat and a Natural Weapon.

-Crissa

Posters there have been known to call Monkey Grip overpowered.

[Endovior]

That's like saying a sharp knife is a problem, because some idiot might cut himself on it.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

They banned sharp knives where I work for that very reason.

I wish I was joking.

[MrWaeseL]

So...you guys now cut everything with dull knives?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

We're not allowed to use knives at all.

Most people bring in their own pocket knives in direct violation with company policy to cut things with, and the plant manager is pretty understanding, but if the wrong person higher in the company caught them, they'd be in deep shit.

[Digestor]

..is cutting a required part of your job?

[Crissa]

1173596541[/unixtime]]

1173596027[/unixtime]]But the problem with that race is that your average Wizards board poster will say that it is overpowered and should be LA +2 for having a Feat and a Natural Weapon.

Posters there have been known to call Monkey Grip overpowered.

Now you know why Savage Species made me cry. That's a direct suggestion from it.

-Crissa

[Fwib]

1173652057[/unixtime]]

1173596541[/unixtime]]

1173596027[/unixtime]]But the problem with that race is that your average Wizards board poster will say that it is overpowered and should be LA +2 for having a Feat and a Natural Weapon.

Posters there have been known to call Monkey Grip overpowered.

Now you know why Savage Species made me cry. That's a direct suggestion from it.

-Crissa

And then you apply the 'acid test' to see if the estimated LA is too high (which it often is) and move the LA down until it is playable.

[Cielingcat]

But the "acid test" means that if they're better than a Core race at absolutely anything ever they're overpowered.

Seriously, the design goal of Savage Species was to make people not play monstrous characters. I'm not fucking kidding, the book was literally intended to make people not use it.

[MrWaeseL]

And here's the actual quote by Rich Redman:

The assumption here is that "Racial HD are a bad thing, as they do not provide class effects, and generally are weaker than equivelent classed HD."

As Canamrock has pointed out in his LA Law thread on this board, racial HD buy monster abilities that classes don't have like natural armor, better ability scores, breath weapons, spell-like abilities, and so forth.

I know everyone who reads the preceding paragraph will argue that you're paying for something twice - once with racial HD (which do you get you BAB and saving throw bonuses just like character levels) and once with LA. You're right. That's the real challenge: Balancing racial HD vs. LA. You're goal is an acceptable ECL.

Which, of course, raises what may be the core issue: What's "acceptable"? For many people on these boards, an acceptable ECL is one that makes the monster PC roughly as viable as the standard race PC. Most people acknowledge some urge to power game, and most people acknowledge that they're willing to err on the low side for ECL because they or their players will play the role to the hilt and the role-playing drawbacks of the race will have a real effect in the campaign. I don't think anyone needs me to tell them to lower ECLs if that works better in their game - come on. We play RPGs. We always house rule things.

The design guidance that I had was to make ECLs slightly worse than playing a standard race character. Otherwise all the Wizards of the Coast campaign worlds (it's been almost a year and I still want to say "our") become invalid. Look at them. Dragonlance, FR, and even Greyhawk are populated almost entirely by standard race characters. Not just the RPG products, but the books as well. In order to maintain that racial balance, we provided a mechanical reason for standard race characters to be more common.

You can disagree with that. I'm not sure I agree with it anymore. I'm not arguing one way or the other. Nor am I claiming that the job we did on SS was perfect (I've complained enough in the past about errors that crept in at various points after I left the process). I'm just pointing out that if you change that underlying assumption about campaign worlds, there's a ripple effect on ECLs.

source

[tzor]

1173244764[/unixtime]]But Human girls do have tailbones and ears. They don't come with dresses or lingere, either, but many people like those added to girls...

Humans do have tailbones but not tails. Thus having a tail is somehow considered "exotic" in the popular culture in general. One can go back to as far as a Wizard of Oz and the cowardly lion to see the tail as an important exotic accessory of an intelligent biped.

Human girls do have ears. They tend not to be feline however. They can and often are very elvin, some almost vulcan like. This can be most noticable when the girl wears straight hair.

Most importantly, human girls do not have fur. Indeed many girls go out of their way to remove any hair that is not associated with the head. Thus the furry is in some ways the inverse of human girl.

[Crissa]

1173878096[/unixtime]]Most importantly, human girls do not have fur. Indeed many girls go out of their way to remove any hair that is not associated with the head. Thus the furry is in some ways the inverse of human girl.

But the term 'Cat-Girl' doesn't refer to an anthropomorphic cat - it refers to a human with animal features instead. While this may seem a small difference, it makes a big difference in who's willing to indulge in them...

So a 'cat girl' only has fur on her ears and tail beyond what a human already has.

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I'd like to point out here that if cat girls were real, I'd probably try to nail one at some point.

[Fwib]

ManBearPigCat?

[MrWaeseL]

I'd like to point out here that if cat girls were real, I'd probably try to nail one at some point.

But that's only because you're desperate