Here We Go Again Edit

Creatures with only 0, 1, or 2 Int don't make very good PCs--can't take feats, class levels, etc. --Ghostwheel 21:48, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one might make it a fiendish/celestial red fox. Or advance it by Animal HD until it hits 4th and gets the ability increase. (Does that work for racial HD?) I'm not sure why someone would want to play a "stupid little animal" in the first place, but that's just me. I mean really, forget conventional weapons and armour, unless you'll be making heavy use of polymorph/shapechange effects. -- Techpriest88 22:33, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
Whether that works for racial hd or not (and I'm actually not sure), an animal can't actually have an intelligence of 3. It stops being an animal at that point. - TarkisFlux 22:47, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
Magical beat ftw.--Tavis McCricket 22:50, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
The cachalot whale has plenty of feats, and only 2 intelligence. --Foxwarrior 23:26, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
From natural HD, not class levels. --Ghostwheel 23:36, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
Blah blah blah.
The separate table for Intelligence ensures that no PC ends up with an Intelligence score lower than 3. This is important, because creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters. Creatures with any ability score lower than 1 are also not playable.
Creature's As Races
-- 23:37, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ghost, that has nothing to do with it. They can get feats as normal for all non-mindless creatures and can get skill ranks as normal for all non-mindless creatures. The lack of class levels and ability to communicate with people on any regular basis makes them worthless as player characters, but your assertion about feats is outright wrong. --Quantumboost 23:39, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
*shrug* If you say so. At any rate, what TK said. --Ghostwheel 23:47, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering where it says that creatures with 2 or less Intelligence can't get class levels. Also, there is no fundamental reason why a creature with a Strength score of 0 should not be playable. --Foxwarrior 00:23, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Thar ya go. Also the bit under it. That said, a creature with 0 str could still be playable, if it were incorporeal or something similar (such as an incorporeal, since it still has the ability to reason and such. The rules make no mention on physical stats at 0 impeding a creature from being played as a PC, but with mental scores it's a bit trickier, and even a creature with 1-2 intelligence can't make use of a language and has to be interacted with either via Handle Animal or Wild Empathy. --Ghostwheel 00:31, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
That page doesn't technically define "intelligent creature", and "Creatures with any ability score lower than 1 are also not playable" outright bans a creature with 0 Strength from being played as much as it bans a creature with an Intelligence score of 0. The Red Fox also makes Handle Animal into a more useful skill, because it allows you to communicate with your fellow party member by way of a limited number of tricks. --Foxwarrior 00:40, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Speaking form the experience of playing a friends animal companion, while I like the idea I know that animals are not the best player characters. Who ever gets duped into playing this will be cut out of just about all shares of treasure and will become a pit of no return for trail rations that, come winter time in the frozen wastes, will be seen as any other animal. It is not fun being on the end of a "he's just a fox and we are starving" debate.--Teh Storm 01:12, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely a good idea to invest in magic that permits communication, or get the Protective Beast feat so you have someone to vouch for you. --Foxwarrior 01:38, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Balance Edit

Almost every build of Red Fox is likely to end up needing something to compensate for its major flaws. Would anyone object if I gave them a bonus feat so that Humans wouldn't feel so lonely? --Foxwarrior 20:02, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I object to the race on Int < 3 principle, so I don't think a bonus feat is going to make me object any more. I don't think a bonus feat will actually fix them though, but then I also don't think they're viable past any point where you need equipment to keep playing the game (VoP not withstanding). - TarkisFlux 20:13, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
They can use plenty of equipment just fine. Even tricky things like scrolls and things with little buttons could be managed with sufficient patience. I'm not sure I should rely solely on your opinion in this matter though, so I'll wait a bit longer. --Foxwarrior 20:29, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
If you need a second opinion, I'll add mine to Tarkis's. A PC race doesn't work very well with 2 int (my cat can't even figure out how to disentangle his lead from the table when he gets it wrapped up). Though IMO, I think if one person says something that's right, you don't need more people to tell you the same thing before it makes it right. --Ghostwheel 20:35, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Your cat might have 1 int, you know. Also, that wasn't the question. We're talking about a bonus feat in this topic (at least, that was the intent). Discussions of whether this race makes any sense should really go in the other topic. --Foxwarrior 20:39, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Cat's have int 2, duh. -- 20:53, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry that I seem to have stared a derail Fox. I actually don't think they can use scrolls because of their Stupid ability, since written language is still language and they don't know it, but whatever.
Anyway, if I put aside my base objections to the race for a minute, they're only any good as Cha or Wis casters, and maybe as Rogues (though I have my doubts given their lack of duel wielding and limited access to items and thus UMD) (sorry, no iterative natural attacks, can't pull off rogue). Since they get size and racial bonuses to hide and move silently, and have hide and move silently as always class skills that they get bonus points for based on their Cha, they could very easily just boost those and then use their tiny size to hide behind a chair or party member or whatever. Which is a pretty substantial boost for a spellcaster, and since that's the only group of classes that I could even see this working for I'd say you don't need the bonus feat. - TarkisFlux 21:38, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully this should fix the Rogue problem, more or less. Cha or Wis casters are still likely to have a problem with communication and/or with somatic and verbal components, so a bonus feat to help them along isn't very likely to bring them over the top.
Of course written language is still a language, but that's why read magic and comprehend languages were invented. --Foxwarrior 22:29, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, your suggestion that they can use plenty of equipment 'just fine' placed me under the mistaken impression that you were handwaving V and S components anyway. Then sure, give them a bonus feat. I don't know of a bonus feat that will make them viable spellcasters with those sorts of limitations though, so you should write that one up too. And then probably just offer the choice of one of those instead of any available bonus feat. - TarkisFlux 22:54, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.