D&D 5E (2014) Tabaxi Feline Agility Question- How Would You Rule

[Remathilis]

I don't see the flaw. The rule looks fine to me. The suggestion was, "if you don't like it, houserule it", not that it was flawed.

And I'm saying just because you don't have a problem with the rule doesn't make it a good rule. There are people who feel gender-based strength limits in 1e are a good rule. Doesn't make them right. As a Viking suggested above, a flat cost or cap to getting up would fix the problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And I'm saying just because you don't have a problem with the rule doesn't make it a good rule

And just because someone has a problem with a rule doesn’t make it a bad rule.

There will always be someone who has a problem with any rule.

As a Viking suggested above, a flat cost or cap to getting up would fix the problem

There is no problem. There will always be someone who can’t do the maths no matter how much you dumb down. And you seem to be worried that someone might make a suboptimal choice and end up not running quite as far as they otherwise would. I suggest you buy them the world’s smallest violin. You honestly believe all suboptimal choices should be removed from the game?!

 

[Remathilis]

And just because someone has a problem with a rule doesn’t make it a bad rule.

There will always be someone who has a problem with any rule.

There is no problem. There will always be someone who can’t do the maths no matter how much you dumb down. And you seem to be worried that someone might make a suboptimal choice and end up not running quite as far as they otherwise would. I suggest you buy them the world’s smallest violin. You honestly believe all suboptimal choices should be removed from the game?!

I think that a suboptimal choice that is made by parsing specific rules and then setting up your turn with triggers that happen in a specific order to exploit interactions between them goes against the spirit of the game. If I wanted that level of rules micromanaging, I'd play Pathfinder. And if you prefer to exploit RAW rather than RAI, I suggest you play it instead of 5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think that a suboptimal choice that is made by parsing specific rules and then setting up your turn with triggers that happen in a specific order to exploit interactions between them goes against the spirit of the game. If I wanted that level of rules micromanaging, I'd play Pathfinder. And if you prefer to exploit RAW rather than RAI, I suggest you play it instead of 5e.

This is a steaming pile of manure! How can choosing in what order to do things be contrary to the spirit of the game?!

How simple do you want the rules to be? I have gotched people in Naughts and Crosses.

 

[saviirkad]

spend

see thats the word you all overread!

It means you spend movement already as d you act like that did not happen.

We're not the ones who are acting like it didn't happen. That's you.

I was just thinking of the different speeds and if it would affect things if i have say, swim 20, walk 30, and fly 60. I can go back and forth between then if I still have movement left. If I swim 20 and then want to walk the other 10- do I need to stand up? I do not think the rules say anything or with nothing I get a free stand to enter my other mode of speed.

Granted if it is not in combat it does not really matter, but just wondering.

I don't think there's any rule that says while swimming you have the Prone condition, so there should be no sacrifice of speed just to switch. That's a gotcha.

A DM might say the ladder out of the pool, or wading through knee high water to reach the shore, counts as difficult terrain.

 

[Tigris]

I think that a suboptimal choice that is made by parsing specific rules and then setting up your turn with triggers that happen in a specific order to exploit interactions between them goes against the spirit of the game. If I wanted that level of rules micromanaging, I'd play Pathfinder. And if you prefer to exploit RAW rather than RAI, I suggest you play it instead of 5e.

What kind of "exploit" is here? The tabaxi ability was written relative late in 5e and the ability to move faster sometimes is hardly broken even when you can stand up and still move fast.


The ability was written specifically that you can activate it at any time. So it just feels more like a "gotcha" from GM side to not allow the tabaxi player 15 feet of movement, which is hardly too strong.

Also as you said there is a clear best order, so there is no reason to ever force the player to use the bad order.

 

[AlViking]

I was just thinking of the different speeds and if it would affect things if i have say, swim 20, walk 30, and fly 60. I can go back and forth between then if I still have movement left. If I swim 20 and then want to walk the other 10- do I need to stand up? I do not think the rules say anything or with nothing I get a free stand to enter my other mode of speed.

Granted if it is not in combat it does not really matter, but just wondering.

Depends on how good you are at exiting the water.

 

[Remathilis]

This is a steaming pile of manure! How can choosing in what order to do things be contrary to the spirit of the game?!

It goes against the natural language of how rules should be parsed. That's not a natural consequence of actions (move, attack, retreat) it's a obscure rules interaction between two different rules (standing up and feline agility) which has been dissected to achieve maximum effect by triggering it at a specific time in your action rather than being a part of the action like it should be. The timing your FA after you stand up so as to avoid the extra cost of movement is a bug, an exploit and it should be clarified and corrected. Just because it's a rather benign one doesn't mean it's good.

 

[Remathilis]

What kind of "exploit" is here? The tabaxi ability was written relative late in 5e and the ability to move faster sometimes is hardly broken even when you can stand up and still move fast.


The ability was written specifically that you can activate it at any time. So it just feels more like a "gotcha" from GM side to not allow the tabaxi player 15 feet of movement, which is hardly too strong.

Also as you said there is a clear best order, so there is no reason to ever force the player to use the bad order.

The fact that, if we are looking from a RAW side, the rules have a optimal order of declaration (not action, just when you declare you are using it) shows it's an unintentional interaction. All I'm saying is the rule could be cleaned up so that FA works the same regardless if you declare it before or after you stand up so that the player isn't penalized for declaring them in the wrong order and the DM has to say "it's ok, I know what you meant."

The rules should not require players to declare their turns with the specifically of a Wish spell...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It goes against the natural language of how rules should be parsed. That's not a natural consequence of actions (move, attack, retreat) it's a obscure rules interaction between two different rules (standing up and feline agility) which has been dissected to achieve maximum effect by triggering it at a specific time in your action rather than being a part of the action like it should be. The timing your FA after you stand up so as to avoid the extra cost of movement is a bug, an exploit and it should be clarified and corrected. Just because it's a rather benign one doesn't mean it's good.

I repeat: horse manure. It’s perfectly natural language for someone to say if they stand up before or after they change speed. And, as pointed out, it’s consistent with how other speed changes, from walking to flying for example, are handled. It’s simply a case of doing things in the order in which they happen.