Catfolk racial HD???

[SliceandDiceKid]

So I was to play a cat folk in an upcoming gestalt campaign, but I'm confused by RAW in races of the wild... Centaurs and gnolls have racial levels, where are car folk stats? I found the dex/cha and LA+1, but how do I roll the character for that first level? No skills and a d8??? No BAB?

[EisenKreutzer]

I think they advance by character class, like elves and dwarves and the other Players Handbook races do.

[Jormengand]

how do I roll the character for that first level?

You don't. You can't use level adjusted races if your character starts at first level.

[SliceandDiceKid]

So RAW it's an unplayable race??? How does that even make sense.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

For races with level adjustment, you either use a racial progression of there is one or simply take a penalty to all checks equal to your LA until reach an ECL of your LA plus your RHD plus one for your one class level.

[Graypairofsocks]

So RAW it's an unplayable race??? How does that even make sense.

If a creature has no racial Hit dice, then they use a character class instead of a hit dice at the first level(something like this).

A race with no hit dice and +1 level adjustment is playable in a group of level 2 Pcs.


See Urpriest's (the forum user, not the prestige class) monster guide for a better explanation: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207928

[Blackhawk748]

If you are in a Gestalt Campaign LA gets a bit weird, my group simply put LA on one "track" of the character and then put a class on the other "track" so that way you can play a LA race at lvl 1

[Chronos]

If you're starting play at first level, then you can't be a catfolk (absent some houseruled workaround like ThriceDeadCat posted). If you're starting play at higher level, then you can be a catfolk (for instance, you could have a catfolk rogue 1 in the same party as a human fighter 2 and an elf wizard 2).

[Blackhawk748]

Am I the only one that noticed he is in a Gestalt Campaign? Because i think that messes with things quite a bit

[Vhaidara]

First, find out how your GM is handling LA in gestalt.I've seen a few ways
1. LA is applied to both sides (so at level 2 you would be LA1/Class X 1//LA1/Class Y 1)
2. LA is applied to one side (at level 1, you have Class X 1//LA 1)

There is also a rule from Player's Guide to Faerun. You can choose to take a -1 penalty to Skill checks, ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, level checks, anything you have that involves a save DC, any racial bonus to AC, and LA. So you would have all the penalties but your LA would be 0. When you level up, you can choose to buyoff those penalties instead of leveling up, which also increases your LA to +1. So if you chose to do that instead of going to level 2, your LA becomes +1, and the penalties go away.

[Sian]

If you're starting play at first level, then you can't be a catfolk (absent some houseruled workaround like ThriceDeadCat posted).

Actually wrong ... While I only remember seeing it in Players Guide to Faerûn (preempting the 'lesser' races), it suggests (for races without Racial HD at least) giving the character (say, Catfolk Rogue 1) a number of Negative levels equal to the LA.

[XionUnborn01]

Actually wrong ... While I only remember seeing it in Players Guide to Faerûn (preempting the 'lesser' races), it suggests (for races without Racial HD at least) giving the character (say, Catfolk Rogue 1) a number of Negative levels equal to the LA.

I'm assuming you mean equivalent negative levels, because a Catfolk Rogue 1 with a negative level is dead.

[Urpriest]

So RAW it's an unplayable race??? How does that even make sense.

Very few games start at first level.

[Reshy]

Very few games start at first level.

Now I'm curious, what level do games usually start at?

[Vhaidara]

3-5, in my experience.

Level 1 is just too few hit points for a lot of people (me included). Think about it. A first level human barbarian who takes toughness twice (awful build) and runs an 18 Con will have 30 HP when raging.
The MM standard Orc (CR 1/2) deals 2d4+4 with its falchion (which also means 18-20 crit range). That means 6-12 damage. So the tankiest character at level 1 can absorb 5 minimum damage hits.
Now let's instead consider a first level half orc barbarian with a greataxe (a pretty simple CR 1, buildable from PH). 18 Str, 22 when raging means he deals 1d12+9 when raging. That is 10-21. That's 2 or 3 hits against someone optimized for first level health. And a 5% chance of an instagib (minimum crit damage = 30). Now say he attacks the rogue, who only grabbed a 12 Con and no toughness. That guy has 7 HP. He dies simply from being hit.

[Afgncaap5]

3-5, in my experience.

Level 1 is just too few hit points for a lot of people (me included). Think about it. A first level human barbarian who takes toughness twice (awful build) and runs an 18 Con will have 30 HP when raging.
The MM standard Orc (CR 1/2) deals 2d4+4 with its falchion (which also means 18-20 crit range). That means 6-12 damage. So the tankiest character at level 1 can absorb 5 minimum damage hits.
Now let's instead consider a first level half orc barbarian with a greataxe (a pretty simple CR 1, buildable from PH). 18 Str, 22 when raging means he deals 1d12+9 when raging. That is 10-21. That's 2 or 3 hits against someone optimized for first level health. And a 5% chance of an instagib (minimum crit damage = 30). Now say he attacks the rogue, who only grabbed a 12 Con and no toughness. That guy has 7 HP. He dies simply from being hit.

Sounds like the rogue should've chosen to hide, personally. Or possibly fast talked. Or... done something more like a rogue and less like a fighter or barbarian.

I can understand the appeal of starting at higher levels, but my group generally fights at level 1. I'm not sure how you'd test for what the most common starting level is, honestly, so many games are undocumented.

[Vhaidara]

Maybe the rogue was trying. But you can't always avoid the fight. Maybe the rogue was sneaking, and stabbed the half orc barbarian, but rolled garbage on his sneak attack. Or just not well enough to kill it (the enemy would probably have an 18 Con while raging, so around 12-16 hp is reasonable). So then he turns around and smack the rogue in the face, knocking him to -3 in one hit on minimum damage. Because the rogue decided to try and help.

[Afgncaap5]

Yep. Sometimes characters roll poorly and die. It's sad, and I understand that some players want to avoid that. Some players take the risk, though.

[Vhaidara]

It's more the binary of "if you get hit once, you are dead".

And I said 3-5 based off of games I've been in and non-E6 games in the Recruiting section of these very forums. E6 doesn't count, since starting at level 3-5 means skipping about half of the game.

[Afgncaap5]

It's more the binary of "if you get hit once, you are dead".

And I said 3-5 based off of games I've been in and non-E6 games in the Recruiting section of these very forums. E6 doesn't count, since starting at level 3-5 means skipping about half of the game.

That's a good personal experience to work with, and it might well be a close approximation for, say, most of the people on this board (or most of the people on most boards that have a good amount of optimizers on them.) I'm just not sure how to measure that. My personal experience involves starting at level 1 most of the time. It's possible that I'm in the minority, but given the lack of documentation for most casual games that get played it's hard to say.

(I'm just setting myself up to be shown an exhaustive, scientifically documented survey of thousands of gamers from all walks of life that was published within the last couple of weeks that I'm grossly unaware of, aren't I?)

And you're not that far from the truth in my experience: I love rogues and I have a guilty pleasure of rushing in to use tactics, surprise, and quick getaways to strike and avoid retribution. That's not always possible, though, and the first time I ever played in the Pathfinder Society I pushed my luck one too many times and died in the process when I stepped through a doorway and got double-stabbed by people flanking the door. It was unfortunate, but it was also fun (and managed to go into my top five favorite deaths list). The party was able to revive me, fortunately.

[Talya]

You don't. You can't use level adjusted races if your character starts at first level.


That's not true. You can play level adjusted races (within reason) at level 1. You just don't level for a much longer period of time.

If you're a catfolk warblade, you're hitting level 2 when all the humans are hitting level 3.

[Jormengand]

That's not true. You can play level adjusted races (within reason) at level 1. You just don't level for a much longer period of time.

If you're a catfolk warblade, you're hitting level 2 when all the humans are hitting level 3.

That's how Neverwinter Nights II ran it, but in real D&D, because LA adds to your ECL, a catfolk at first level is ECL 2, and therefore can't be played in a game starting at level 1 (Unless for some reason your DM means actual levels rather than ECL, which would let you play a half-dragon rakshasa at first level, utterly wrecking the entire game with your crazy amounts of sorcerer casting and divine-level stat array. Even with the within reason stipulation, because ECL is used to determine when you level up, weird things would start to happen).

[Urpriest]

That's not true. You can play level adjusted races (within reason) at level 1. You just don't level for a much longer period of time.

If you're a catfolk warblade, you're hitting level 2 when all the humans are hitting level 3.


That's how Neverwinter Nights II ran it, but in real D&D, because LA adds to your ECL, a catfolk at first level is ECL 2, and therefore can't be played in a game starting at level 1 (Unless for some reason your DM means actual levels rather than ECL, which would let you play a half-dragon rakshasa at first level, utterly wrecking the entire game with your crazy amounts of sorcerer casting and divine-level stat array. Even with the within reason stipulation, because ECL is used to determine when you level up, weird things would start to happen).

Talya's right, in that you can certainly play a catfolk warblade in a level 1 party. The thing is, you can also play a level 2 human warblade in a level 1 party. Mixed-level parties aren't impossible, they're just unfair, and as we occasionally see on this forum there are still people willing to play them.

[BWR]

3-5, in my experience.

In my experience all campaigns start at level 1.
Level one is fun. The danger, playing it smart, the luck of the dice determining whether you live or die, starting off as a nobody and making youself into a somebody...it makes the later levels feel worthwhile.

[Afgncaap5]

In my experience all campaigns start at level 1.
Level one is fun. The danger, playing it smart, the luck of the dice determining whether you live or die, starting off as a nobody and making youself into a somebody...it makes the later levels feel worthwhile.

I agree, though it's not for everybody. I like the sense that I could die at any moment, but some people like to be able to shrug off the first few blows of a fight and have a good chance of cutting down any given opponent. (In some ways, starting at level 3-5 is the player-side way of gaining the "visceral feel" that 4e tried to grant by making Minion-class enemies who always have just a single hit point.)

[Psyren]

The Pathfinder version (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/featuredRaces/catfolk.html#_catfolk) is LA 0, you can just use that.

[Boci]

The Pathfinder version (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/featuredRaces/catfolk.html#_catfolk) is LA 0, you can just use that.

Ever so slight balance issue, since PF races are generally slightly better than 3.5 ones. Best solved by having everyone use a PF race.

[Urpriest]

The Pathfinder version (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/featuredRaces/catfolk.html#_catfolk) is LA 0, you can just use that.

Eh, I don't really see the point. If someone's playing a Catfolk in 3.5, they're playing it for the mechanics. Cat-girl may be a trope in anime, but in D&D the lineup is diverse and complex enough that it comes up empty when taken on fluff alone.

Campaignwise, if I'm going to start at low level I do it at level 2, specifically because some people like to play LA +1 races. Otherwise, it depends on the scale of the plot. Remember, most games (I'm almost certain in your experience too) are one-shots, it's only sometimes when you get a solid enough group together for long enough to do a 1-20 game, and the rest of the time you have to make do. Most one-shot concepts don't cater well to starting at first level, so I would expect that most games don't start at first.

[squiggit]

For a gestalt game, using one half of your gestalt for the LA and the other half for your class seems to be the most reasonable option. So while a human might be a wizard 1 / rogue 1, the catfolk would just be a rogue 1. Then starting at level 2 you gestalt as normal.

regarding starting level: Most of my campaigns start at 3-5. I find level 1 doesn't feel more "Gritty" than level 3, merely more streaky, which I'm not a fan of and I've never run into a player who's a fan of dying on the first roll of the game.

[KillianHawkeye]

Very few games start at first level.


Remember, most games (I'm almost certain in your experience too) are one-shots

I feel the need to point out that both of these statements are highly dependent on each individual gaming group.

For example, both of them are unequivocably false in my experience. Lots of DMs I know prefer starting a new campaign at level 1, and in 15 years and two different groups of playing D&D I have played in just a handful of one-offs. The games that I am in right now have all been on-going for a couple of years or so.

Always remember that personal experience and anecdotal evidence are in most cases not solid enough to make any wide sweeping claims.

[Urpriest]

I feel the need to point out that both of these statements are highly dependent on each individual gaming group.

For example, both of them are unequivocably false in my experience. Lots of DMs I know prefer starting a new campaign at level 1, and in 15 years and two different groups of playing D&D I have played in just a handful of one-offs. The games that I am in right now have all been on-going for a couple of years or so.

Always remember that personal experience and anecdotal evidence are in most cases not solid enough to make any wide sweeping claims.

That's the thing...that statistic there means you've not only had groups that were solid enough to have long campaigns, it means you've either been living in the same place for a large fraction of those 15 years, or had a stable online group for a large fraction of that time. It doesn't take much observation of the PbP boards here to see how rare a stable online group is, and given that over 20% of americans have moved in the last five years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/the-united-states-is-still-one-of-the-most-mobile-countries-in-the-world/) (and that D&D players tend to be younger, and thus more prone to moving for college, grad school, and just the usual early-career flux), I think your experience may really be an uncommon one.

[KillianHawkeye]

That's the thing...that statistic there means you've not only had groups that were solid enough to have long campaigns, it means you've either been living in the same place for a large fraction of those 15 years, or had a stable online group for a large fraction of that time. It doesn't take much observation of the PbP boards here to see how rare a stable online group is, and given that over 20% of americans have moved in the last five years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/the-united-states-is-still-one-of-the-most-mobile-countries-in-the-world/) (and that D&D players tend to be younger, and thus more prone to moving for college, grad school, and just the usual early-career flux), I think your experience may really be an uncommon one.

Well for one thing, I don't play online at all. So whatever issues are common with PbP are irrelevent to me. I have played in two gaming groups; one in college, and another I found where I live now. You're right that I haven't moved. However, I'm not sure how statistics like "over 20%" of people moving during the last 5 years makes the person who hasn't moved the uncommon one. :smallconfused:

Regardless, my point was that you consider your own personal experiences to be normal, while I consider mine to be normal. But the truth is that everyone's personal experiences are their own and I simply stated that mine were different as an example of the fact that personal experience does not make a solid platform for claims such as "most people don't start games at level 1" or "most games are one-shots." That may be true for some people, but your own experience does not give grounds for saying that it is true for "most" people, because otherwise I could say the same things about my experiences which are opposite from yours, and we can't both be right.

EDIT: Anyway, I feel like I've been getting caught up in a lot of off-topic conversations lately, so I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this one. None of this even matters because what's important is the OP's situation, not either of ours.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Thanks for all the feedback. I assumed a higher percentage started at lvl 1, since it allows for so much growth. In my experience, few HP just equates to people playing cautiously and problem solving, rather than leeroy jenkinsing...

Thinking outside the box is what d&d is all about, anyway right? No one comes to the table hoping for transparent plot and easily bested tactics. BRING ON THE IMPOSSIBLE ODDS!

[Vhaidara]

My point was more that, even if you don't leeroy jenkins you can still get one hit. Human fighter with a 14 Con (entirely reasonable) = 12HP. In range for a no Str bonus greatsword or greataxe.

[Jormengand]

Talya's right, in that you can certainly play a catfolk warblade in a level 1 party. The thing is, you can also play a level 2 human warblade in a level 1 party. Mixed-level parties aren't impossible, they're just unfair, and as we occasionally see on this forum there are still people willing to play them.

If you're told to play a level 1 character it can't be a level 1 catfolk any more than a level 2 human. I mean sure, you can play as Achaekek in a first-level party if the DM lets you (in which case the DM has issues). This was with the stipulation that the character was first level.

This has, however, given me an idea for a one-vs-many arena game. Could be quite fun. :smalltongue:

[Urpriest]

Well for one thing, I don't play online at all. So whatever issues are common with PbP are irrelevent to me. I have played in two gaming groups; one in college, and another I found where I live now. You're right that I haven't moved. However, I'm not sure how statistics like "over 20%" of people moving during the last 5 years makes the person who hasn't moved the uncommon one. :smallconfused:

Regardless, my point was that you consider your own personal experiences to be normal, while I consider mine to be normal. But the truth is that everyone's personal experiences are their own and I simply stated that mine were different as an example of the fact that personal experience does not make a solid platform for claims such as "most people don't start games at level 1" or "most games are one-shots." That may be true for some people, but your own experience does not give grounds for saying that it is true for "most" people, because otherwise I could say the same things about my experiences which are opposite from yours, and we can't both be right.

EDIT: Anyway, I feel like I've been getting caught up in a lot of off-topic conversations lately, so I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this one. None of this even matters because what's important is the OP's situation, not either of ours.

Just to briefly crunch stats on the whole "people moving" thing:

The article says that 24% of americans have moved in the last five years. Let's say that that's evenly distributed. It isn't, but D&D players are disproportionately young so if anything the number is higher.

That means that each individual has a 76% chance of staying put over the course of five years. Which at first sounds like it means the majority of groups can pass the five-year mark. What you're neglecting, though, is that each group is five or so people.

If each of those five people have a 76% chance to stay put, then the chance that all of them stay put for five years is 0.76^5=0.25. So already, only a quarter of groups will manage to last five years.

I know you said two groups over 15 years, and I don't know what the breakdown on that is, but just for comparison, for a group to last 15 years we would have to cube the previous number, for less than a 2% chance that the group survives.

If you object to the implication that a group ends just because one member leaves, we can redo the analysis with two or three members leaving. The chances would be better, but I think if we took into account the age of typical D&D players long groups would still be in the minority. Feel free to run the numbers if you disagree.

By the way, in terms of the Catfolk, I should point out that there are some examples of "Monster Classes" for LA +1 races with no RHD. There's one for Half-Giants in Expanded Psionics Handbook for example. So if you wanted to do some homebrew you could use that as a template and make something similar, if you really wanted to be a first level Catfolk.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Just to briefly crunch stats on the whole "people moving" thing:

The article says that 24% of americans have moved in the last five years. Let's say that that's evenly distributed. It isn't, but D&D players are disproportionately young so if anything the number is higher.

That means that each individual has a 76% chance of staying put over the course of five years. Which at first sounds like it means the majority of groups can pass the five-year mark. What you're neglecting, though, is that each group is five or so people.

If each of those five people have a 76% chance to stay put, then the chance that all of them stay put for five years is 0.76^5=0.25. So already, only a quarter of groups will manage to last five years.

I know you said two groups over 15 years, and I don't know what the breakdown on that is, but just for comparison, for a group to last 15 years we would have to cube the previous number, for less than a 2% chance that the group survives.

If you object to the implication that a group ends just because one member leaves, we can redo the analysis with two or three members leaving. The chances would be better, but I think if we took into account the age of typical D&D players long groups would still be in the minority. Feel free to run the numbers if you disagree.

By the way, in terms of the Catfolk, I should point out that there are some examples of "Monster Classes" for LA +1 races with no RHD. There's one for Half-Giants in Expanded Psionics Handbook for example. So if you wanted to do some homebrew you could use that as a template and make something similar, if you really wanted to be a first level Catfolk.

Thanks! :)

[ericgrau]

Ask your DM for special permission to play one at level 1. You'll be stronger than the other players, but with about the same hp you won't be that much stronger. In fact at levels 2 and 3 you'll be a bit weaker from having such low hp. I would suggest that the DM not give you the LA until 3rd level (so you'd have 1 class level, 2 class levels, then 2 class levels still), so that you have a slight advantage levels 1-2, suffer a little level 3, and levels 4 and on should be more or less playable. I mean levels 4-6 still hurt a tiny bit, but it should be no big deal.

[Psyren]

If someone's playing a Catfolk in 3.5, they're playing it for the mechanics.

I highly doubt that is universally true of any race, not even humans or aasimar. If only stats mattered we wouldn't have fluff at all, we would merely do battle with variables and equations.

[Lans]

3-5, in my experience.

Level 1 is just too few hit points for a lot of people (me included). Think about it. A first level human barbarian who takes toughness twice (awful build) and runs an 18 Con will have 30 HP when raging.
The MM standard Orc (CR 1/2) deals 2d4+4 with its falchion (which also means 18-20 crit range). That means 6-12 damage. So the tankiest character at level 1 can absorb 5 minimum damage hits.


This isn't the tankiest character, incarnate can get 6/magic dr, and a binder can split his damage at level 1, and crusaders have a temp damage pool. Then theres the jaunting wizard