Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7186371" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Exactly. I know there are lots of different play styles out there, but I have to say that I've never really understood or had this problem.  First, you can still do exactly what you want. Just because somebody else can, it doesn't stop you, even if they can do it "better." Is it because you won't be able to take the first shot? I guess that only matters if the tabaxi can drop the opponent, but that means you can each take a different target and be twice as deadly.The tabaxi move works without shadows. That's a benefit. But they can only do it once every other round at best. If there are shadows, then you can shadow step the same distance it can move in that turn, plus you can still move your regular distance. And you can do that every round.If they also have shadow step, that's a great combination. But they can move twice as far as you every other round, then only shadow step the following round if they want to have the extra movement back. Otherwise, they are the same as you until they don't move for a round. It's a great combination on the first strike. But after that it's not that much difference.This is really the issue I have with "roles" that have been around for a while, but were codified in 4e. With a TTRPG (and especially the 5e design) you don't need a narrow role that pigeonholes you into a certain place. More importantly, roles are almost always focused around combat, which doesn't need to be the entire focus of the game. I'm not saying you're doing it wrong - whatever you find as enjoyable is the way to do it. I just think it's putting too much focus on what ultimately becomes fairly repetitive - Combat? Yay! I move in quick, attack, and shadow step out. I've had a few players in my campaign in the past (one in particular), where their focus was always on the "cool" aspects of race/class, etc, as opposed to the character themselves. And they inevitably grew bored of their collection of special abilities and wanted to do something different. Or a new supplement would come out and they wanted to do that now. Or a movie or a game (Assassin's Creed was one) that would have the "perfect" character. But perfect was always based around the special abilities (almost always centered on combat), and once the combo had been used a few times, it grew old (to them). Again, nothing wrong with that, but most of my players have characters that grow and develop over many years. The characters have shared history and stories, have an impact of some sort on the world around them, and feel more like real people. On the other hand, he (the player) had shared stories with the group, but no character to go with that history. Over time even he couldn't always remember which character experienced what, largely because none of them really had much lasting impact on the game world, party, or story. I also think it might have something to do with the DM's style. Combats are rarely that predictable in my campaign. While it's natural for people to gravitate toward their strengths, and to have a sort of "go-to" approach, the environment, conditions, and tactics of the opponent are all working against that. But even if it does work: move in, attack, shadow step - it's so predictable and expected at that point, I wonder why it becomes such a focus for measuring enjoyment of the game.And I guess that's the part I just don't get. Combat should be exciting, and tense, but not really because of specific (and probably repetitive) tactics, but because you might fail. What I find most enjoyable in and out of combat are the things that are unexpected. That make me think and figure out how to succeed. The things that make the usual tactics not work and I have to come up with something else.The other issue that's at play here, is that the rules have changed for the campaign in terms of races (and probably archetypes too). Personally, I allow only certain races and classes in the campaign, and adding something later is a group decision. But it's very rare (almost never). For me it's a function of world-building. Before this there were no tabaxi, and now there is? That has a lot of potential ramifications in the game world itself. If you're in the middle of an adventure that takes you to Chult, and you need to add a new character, then I'd be less concerned about adding a tabaxi character from the game world side of things, but then we have to deal with any issues that the players might have.As I look at the design of the race a little more carefully, I don't have a problem with the abilities as much as the design.The movement ability of the tabaxi doesn't make sense to me. Explain in-world why it can sprint for 6 seconds, and then can't sprint again until it stops moving at all for 6 seconds. If the combat takes two hours of in-game time, it still can't sprint again until it stops moving for 6 seconds. It can do anything else it wants, just not move. I get it, they want to give it a burst speed, and needed to find a way to limit it. I just think it's a poor design. So I'd either allow a faster move speed, grant them the ability to dash as a bonus action (which incidentally would fix the shadow step conundrum, although they'd still have it at a lower level and - gasp! - now they step on the rogue's toes), come up with another solution, or drop the move ability altogether. I don't have an issue with stealth and perception, it's a cat person after all. It's just two free proficiencies, and I hand proficiencies out for all sorts of other reasons anyway. It frees them up to get some other proficiencies, but I don't see that as a huge deal either. The claw attack? I don't see that as remotely game breaking, and while I don't disagree with [MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION] about the dragonborn, I think that the entire design of dragonborn is utterly stupid and they don't appear in my campaigns anyway. It obviously makes the monk a preferred class, which I'm fine with. The idea of a tabaxi paladin in full plate with a great sword? Not so much. Oddly, they also seem to be pushing them in the direction of bards too.The reality, though, is that a tabaxi character in my campaign would have all sorts of other non-combat issues to deal with. To start with, just because they are intelligent and humanoid, doesn't mean they will share any culture, beliefs or language with other humanoids. While the game attempts to differentiate them by making them loners and wanderers, (which essentially says "not a good choice for an adventuring party" to me), they still are treated as humans in a cat suit. It says they have little attraction for wealth, but an insatiable desire to find ancient relics and magic items. I agree with the gold (without agriculture, being carnivores, they likely wouldn't have developed towns and cities, nor mining, nor a monetary-based society), but the ancient relics thing perplexes me. Why would they care about the ancient relics of other races? I don't think they'd have many of their own, and certainly not in distant lands outside of their homelands. They are travelers that act as minstrels and trade interesting objects in human lands? Why? They aren't above discreet theft? Do they even share the same concept of ownership as human societies? If not, there is no theft. None of this makes sense to me. What are they trading for? Wandering creatures have to carry everything they own with them. They seem to be modeling them after stereotypical gypsies here. Except that gypsies shared a human culture, but had no permanent home. Why would cat-people share a human culture? All of this is written solely to fit a game where they can have the same classes and roughly the same behaviors as humans. It just doesn't make sense to me. Of course, they must speak common since they can communicate with other races. To me, the appeal of a race like tabaxi is to explore something different. Develop a campaign around them and start from there.This has almost always been the case with the game, because it has to be. The new playable races have to work with the same classes, and with all other races. Hey, it's a game, fair enough. Just not the way I would handle it, or care to.Regardless, I think that adding new race and class options to an existing campaign with existing characters is something that is a more complicated than just allowing them. In part because of [MENTION=6865035]FrostyFire[/MENTION]'s concerns. In my campaign, the player and I would have quite a challenge coming up with a reasonable explanation for including the race at all. And as an exception, that would have to gain unanimous agreement from the rest of the table. Because not only might it be the only tabaxi, but it might be the only exception race allowed in the group.</blockquote>

Verification