Jackrabbit kin

[jpariury]

The purpose of selectable racials is to compliment the kind of creature you are playing in a way that is in keeping with the theme of the animal-type. Profs, slays and assassinates on rabbits don't do it for me (jack, roger, or otherwise). If you want to be the rabbit that can occasionally pull off a slay, buy the skills like everyone else. As a racial, it doesn't really fly with me.

(Human-sized whale doesn't seem very threatening to me, tbh... should we be letting it have racial assassinate as well because "you'd never expect it!"?)

 

[Sunnfire]

But your not playing that animal, you are playing a hybrid of human and animal. Your roleplay should reflect your animal 'roots'.

I have never justified assassinate because ' you would not expect it'.

I could see any predator type animal that regularly chases its prey having assassinate.

I can see almost any kin having prof, slay or claws. When you get into some of the other ones, sure have some reasoning behind the choice, but really you are playing a game where your racials are setting you apart from Human. As an animal-human hybrid, you are already starting at the base of Human, and adding the animalistic side of your character to that. So really any trait that that animal has that would be better than ye standard human pretty much qualifies.

 

[jpariury]

I can see almost any kin having prof, slay or claws.

Whalekyn with claws? I generally think any kyn that wants claws needs to be from an animal that at least has, well, claws. Horsekyn/goatkyn/bullkyn/(insert hooved creature)kyn, whalekyn/salmonkyn/clamkyn, turtlekyn/toadkyn, slugkyn.... these don't even have claws. And I don't know that just because an animal has claws necessarily extends itself into combat claws. Slays and profs, imo, should be for animals that are generally considered aggressive and strong, respectively. Assassinates, imo, should be reserved for ambush predators. The only thing I tend to think of as the "all kyn should get this if they want" is resist poison (and maybe resist element), since there are a myriad number of things that are poisonous to humans that aren't poisonous to a given animal. Gypsy curse and resist magic don't really thrill for any kyn, tbh.

 

[Sunnfire]

Claws is a bad term. As we use 'claws' to represent the natural attack of any thing in the game.

That plant using claw reps does not have claws.

I am not disagreeing that it makes more sense for the pairings that you are suggesting, as those abilities are more directly correlated.

I think you are assigning racials to the existing animal kingdom in some relation to each other, which certainly makes sense.

Where as I am associating racials with laying the animal on top of a human starting point, which is really where everything game wise needs to start from anyway, as we are all playing humaniod types with racial abilities that are differing from the human starting point of 0 abilities and 0 requirements.

The issue really becomes that fact that it is open to a fair amount of interpretation, so you are going to have alot of different levels of what 'qualifies' for what.

There are very few combinations that would have me going, wait what did they pick? Because most people do tend to stick with things that make some sense.

If the rabbit kin came in asking for resist fear and resist binding, i might be like, what? and want some explanation. but i cant say that they would not have a species of rabbit to show me that had justification for that (I don't know much about rabbits, so that may or may not exsist). So I can't say I would say no to that, I would encourage something else certainly. But who knows.

Then you get into the fact that once its on the card you are done. So if some other owner let it in, I am basically stuck allowing it either way, and there are very few combinations of abilities that would be disallowed by every owner, so really allowing more leeway is just easier for everyone involved.

 

[Toddo]

My view is that you can justify pretty much anything because at the end of the day you are setting in stone what you can spend your build on. For jackrabbits I'd be more personally inclined to allow Slay than Assassinate. Rodents have a fight/flight response set to a "flight" default but if you back any rodent into a corner they will attack with a ferocity (I had a cat growing up that was killed by a squirrel) unthinkable in a creature their size and weaponry. Wylderkin are also the default race for non-standard races (HQ has the Cuulani, technically porcupine Wylders based on makeup requirements, but actually a separate race). For animal Wylderkin I'm personally very lenient as long as there is SOME justification for your choices. Someone choosing to playing a Wylderkin is accepting a huge makeup requirement and if they do the makeup/animal roleplay well enough I don't really care what the eff racials they picked. If someone is willing to take the restrictions and make the game better for everyone then let them have resist magic if they want. Wylderkin are tough to rep, and the players who do them well deserve some latitude, after all, they've locked their racials just like anyone else who's picked a race.

 

[jpariury]

Claws is a bad term. As we use 'claws' to represent the natural attack of any thing in the game.

No. The character skill "Claws" is expressly distinct from the Claws/Body Weaponry monster ability (pg 57, last sentence: This skill is not the same thing as the monster ability Base Claw/Body Weaponry.) The Claws skill are claws (retractable, for all your glove-wearing needs, even).

I think you are assigning racials to the existing animal kingdom in some relation to each other, which certainly makes sense.

That's pretty much the spirit of the wylderkyn rule, isn't it?

Where as I am associating racials with laying the animal on top of a human starting point, which is really where everything game wise needs to start from anyway, as we are all playing humaniod types with racial abilities that are differing from the human starting point of 0 abilities and 0 requirements.

I get that, but that runs counter to what appears to be the intent of the wylderkyn rules. What purpose does saying things like "A rabbit-kin runs and hides when in danger" if we're suggesting players can have whatever racials they want, willynilly?

Then you get into the fact that once its on the card you are done. So if some other owner let it in, I am basically stuck allowing it either way

That is not what is stated in the rulebook. If plot teams are not intended to have veto power over wylderkyn racial selections (and on visiting character selections), then that section of the rulebook needs to be voted on and removed.

Wylderkin are tough to rep, and the players who do them well deserve some latitude, after all, they've locked their racials just like anyone else who's picked a race.

Other races are tough to rep as well, that doesn't mean we get to let them just pick whatever the heck they want, though. If you pick a flutterbykyn, you shouldn't be getting racial prof and assassinate, even if they carry three times their body weight and have a poisonous coating on their wings.

 

[Toddo]

Dark Elves (for example) have specific makeup requirements that you get cool racials and plot for to thank you for picking that race. Wylderkin plot tends to be specific to the race not the animal type... therein is the difference. With the amount of races that require racial plot it is asking a lot for a plot team to cater to the myriad of races that Wylderkin encompasses. Unless a group of PCs all start playing (for example) fossa-kin the Wylder plot I write will usually be more for generic animal types than specific animal types. Elves get a lot of plot because a lot of people play them and they are largely the same. Wylders have so much variability built into every aspect of the creation process that you're pretty much creating your own race, which may not have huge racial plots behind it. That's the racial drawback that the RB doesn't cover.

 

[Mobius]

seems to me, another point not considered is how little most carnivorous animals actually use their claws for anything beyond holding their prey. take wolves, for instance - it is common custom that all Wolfkyn are allowed Claws as their primary attack form, except wolves "in the wild" use their teeth and jaws the most to actually kill their prey by breaking spines or merely tearing out bloody chunks. the claws of the wolves (lions, jackals, etc) are mostly intended as a means of locomotion, traction (gotta hold onto the suckers) and, in severe cases, a secondary (tertiary if you count shear speed) line of offense/defense. really, claws in the animal kingdom are rarely the primary weapon

as such, since Wolfkyn are allowed Claws and that's a sketchy description of how wolves actually hunt, ¿why not do the same for Harekyn? Wilderkyn have never been "realistic" in their portrayal of animals, it's all analogue

 

[jpariury]

as such, since Wolfkyn are allowed Claws and that's a sketchy description of how wolves actually hunt, ¿why not do the same for Harekyn? Wilderkyn have never been "realistic" in their portrayal of animals, it's all analogue

I'm not a fan of wolfkyn with claws either, though, so you're preaching to the choir on that mark. And lionkyn are not permitted.

 

[Sunnfire]

No. The character skill "Claws" is expressly distinct from the Claws/Body Weaponry monster ability (pg 57, last sentence: This skill is not the same thing as the monster ability Base Claw/Body Weaponry.) The Claws skill are claws (retractable, for all your glove-wearing needs, even).

Like I said its a bad term. It should, like the rest of anything in the game with 'claws' represent that creatures natural attacks.

That's pretty much the spirit of the wylderkyn rule, isn't it?

No its that they make some sense. My justification for how they makes sense is just as valid as yours.

I get that, but that runs counter to what appears to be the intent of the wylderkyn rules. What purpose does saying things like "A rabbit-kin runs and hides when in danger" if we're suggesting players can have whatever racials they want, willynilly?

That is role play. Once backed into a corner most animals will turn around and bite you. humans can bite hard enough to break small bones, and most animals have the ability to bite harder than humans, so just because something chooses to not fight does not mean it is incapable of doing so, and doing so effectively.

That is not what is stated in the rulebook. If plot teams are not intended to have veto power over wylderkyn racial selections (and on visiting character selections), then that section of the rulebook needs to be voted on and removed.

Yeah. That has never happened, and likely never will. Refusing a character that was approved somewhere else is is really a can of worms you don't want to get into.

Other races are tough to rep as well, that doesn't mean we get to let them just pick whatever the heck they want, though. If you pick a flutterbykyn, you shouldn't be getting racial prof and assassinate, even if they carry three times their body weight and have a poisonous coating on their wings.

Racial makeup requirements should be a consideration, though certainly not the primary argument.

Though I have to agree with Toddo in that if you come in with the best makup and costume, and role-play the **** out of your race, I would be far less likely to give a crap what you picked for racials.


Lionkin are sarr, which get claws.

 

[jpariury]

Like I said its a bad term. It should, like the rest of anything in the game with 'claws' represent that creatures natural attacks.

Enh, that's a horse of a different color. I'm not talking about how the rules could or should be, but how they are (in this particular discussion at this time, local restrictions may apply, consult your physician, licenses may vary, etc, yadda). Under the current rules, claws are claws. If you're a scorpionkyn, you don't get to keep using your claw just because you want it to represent your tail.

No its that they make some sense. My justification for how they makes sense is just as valid as yours.

Clearly, neither of us think so, or we wouldn't have differing opinions.

That is role play. Once backed into a corner most animals will turn around and bite you. humans can bite hard enough to break small bones, and most animals have the ability to bite harder than humans, so just because something chooses to not fight does not mean it is incapable of doing so, and doing so effectively.

That would be done by buying the skill, not inferring a natural inclination to it. Again, the argument isn't that -kyn of any given type should be barred from buying any particular set of skills, only that they should not buy those racial skills that do not support the animal-type that they correspond too. You want to play a slothkyn with mad-dodgy prowess? Have at, just make sure to buy the weapon skills and backstabs needed to support it first.

Yeah. That has never happened, and likely never will. Refusing a character that was approved somewhere else is is really a can of worms you don't want to get into.

You don't get to refuse the character, just the racials. It's the one exception to the whole "you can't play a lower-level version of your character" thing.

Racial makeup requirements should be a consideration, though certainly not the primary argument.

The point is that if you want to play a -kyn with racial prof and slay, you should be picking the appropriate -kyn. If you want racial dodge and half-cost legerdemain, you play a hobling, not a dark elf, despite going through more hoops to have cool makeup. By the same token, if you want racial prof and slay, you don't play a jellyfishkyn.

Lionkin are sarr, which get claws.

No, sarr do not pay double cost for r/w, and any two sarr that are played are restricted to the same set of racials. Two moosekyn of the same phenotype, otoh, can have vastly different racials. Sarr are not kyn, and not necessarily expected to act in the same way as their corresponding large cat acts. They are distinct from kyn in numerous ways. (I debated arguing that lions and such actually do use their claws in aggressive fashions for more than holding prey, but figured it wasn't worth getting into since sarr aren't -kyn to begin with, and catkyn of any stripe {or spot if you're so-inclined} simply aren't permitted.)

 

[Agahi]

So it should be a maybe on the jackrabbitkin with claws. Some people say yes, some say know. Some chapters may say yes, some may say no. Maybe sounds good to me.

 

[Sunnfire]

Lionkin are sarr, which get claws.

No, sarr do not pay double cost for r/w, and any two sarr that are played are restricted to the same set of racials. Two moosekyn of the same phenotype, otoh, can have vastly different racials. Sarr are not kyn, and not necessarily expected to act in the same way as their corresponding large cat acts. They are distinct from kyn in numerous ways. (I debated arguing that lions and such actually do use their claws in aggressive fashions for more than holding prey, but figured it wasn't worth getting into since sarr aren't -kyn to begin with, and catkyn of any stripe {or spot if you're so-inclined} simply aren't permitted.)

I was being facetious with that one.

As there should not be a sarr race, they should be varieties of feline kin.

Because a Snow leopard is vastly different, in both habitat and mannersims then say a Lion.

They should not really be restricted to having the same racials. But that is another discussion.

 

[Wraith]

I was being facetious with that one.

As there should not be a sarr race, they should be varieties of feline kin.

Because a Snow leopard is vastly different, in both habitat and mannersims then say a Lion.

Quoting this due to an absolutely uncommon amount of truth and making sense.

 

[Inaryn]

I was being facetious with that one.

As there should not be a sarr race, they should be varieties of feline kin.

Because a Snow leopard is vastly different, in both habitat and mannersims then say a Lion.

Quoting this due to an absolutely uncommon amount of truth and making sense.

I'd happily give up my racial assassinate and pay double for read and write. In return, I'd get ranged weapons, blunt weapons, and WAYLAY. I'd call it a more than fair trade.

I love my racials, but I don't play a sarr for the racials. I play a sarr because I'm insane and think orange paint and black spots make me look cool, or something.

Racials do have mechanical effects... but the biggest effect they have is flavor. No other race but wylderkyn get to tailor that portion of their flavor that way. And, frankly, if someone wants to drop 10 build on racial prof and another 10 on racial dodge, well, sure, I guess they're cheaper than buying the skills normally... and Imma be laughing my way to the bank with their gold when they can't resist the three spells or globes I throw at them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, so what if it doesn't just quite fit what you think? If the player can justify it, truly make a case for it to their plot team, why not just let them have it? The game is already designed so that certain racials can't be purchased more than once. And there's only two racials that it's really really hard to justify for nearly any animal.

Frankly, my personal opinion is that the racial advantage and disadvantage system need to be redesigned a bit, but that's crazy talk or something.

 

[jpariury]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, so what if it doesn't just quite fit what you think?

The rule is that it must deemed fitting by the plot team, and if you visit another chapter, it must be deemed fitting by that plot team as well or you don't get to use that skill. If the rule is being played as "justify it, somehow, to any one person, and we're good", then the rule needs to be rewritten.

 

[Inaryn]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, so what if it doesn't just quite fit what you think?

The rule is that it must deemed fitting by the plot team, and if you visit another chapter, it must be deemed fitting by that plot team as well or you don't get to use that skill. If the rule is being played as "justify it, somehow, to any one person, and we're good", then the rule needs to be rewritten.

Agreed.

 

[Toddo]

Not sure where you're getting the impression that's how the rule is being played. I am probably more lenient than some, but someone who wants to play a scavenger with x,y racials at HQ will have to justify it to me as a first step, then I send it to my team to be vetted once I can make the argument on the player's behalf. There are some combinations that are difficult to justify if not impossible, I can't think of a valid argument for giving a slug dodge for example and I personally wouldn't approve it.

Some racials are also hard to justify in general, Gypsy Curse is difficult to get approved unless you come at it folkloreicly (sp). Coyotes and Ravens are/were considered magical tricksters by certain cultures and I'd approve it after telling the player in question to be extra careful to be respectful to the culture or group. Most players I've encountered pick a particular animal kin because they want to play the animal and I've yet to encounter a player who wasn't ok with it when I've said no and suggested alternate racials.

My feeling on this is that if a player does their homework, can make a strong case and is not asking for something the animal in question could not concievably do then the benefit of the doubt goes to the player. There are a lot of arguments on this thread both for and against a jackrabbit having slay but what it comes down to for me is this:

Is a jackrabbit capable of dealing a large wound on something attacking it? (I see this as plausible)

Are there racials that would better fit my personal feelings on what a jackrabbit should have? (absolutely, I'd personally recommend Dodge to a player in my response, but at this point I don't see slay as impossible so I wouldn't disallow it)

Is this breaking the game in some way or going to have a negative effect on other players? (A single extra slay is by no means game breaking, especially as you reach higher levels and unless the player tells other PCs what their racials are it's likely be a long time before anyone even knew)

At the end of the day, as long as the player is asking to do something the animal is capable of I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed even if there are better choices out there. I personally wouldn't play a bear-kin without racial prof, but if somebody wanted to go with resist element/claws I see that as a viable life choice.

 

[Inaryn]

The rule as written is that someone with an established wylderkyn character, whose racials have been approved in their home chapter, must get their racials approved in your chapter when they transfer for an event... that any chapter can deny those racials at any time.

The way I've read it described as played is that once approved, they're set.

Either the way people talk about it has been incorrect, or there is a distinct discrepancy between RAW and played.

 

[jpariury]

as long as the player is asking to do something the animal is capable of I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed

(italics mine) Under those auspices, every animal is "capable" of any racial skill. Why shouldn't a slugkyn be allowed racial dodge? Aren't they capable of moving out of the way of something? Why you tryin' to keep the slug down with your oppressive regime?

At that point (capable vs known for), the need for justification is meaningless.

I was being facetious with that one.

My bad. Smilies, man, smilies.