Talk:Hushabi (5e Race)

Suggested Play-style

When I made this race I very much had an idea in mind for it, I didn't want to limit it to a specific playstyle or specific type of combat, and although the Hushabi is incapable of speaking common, which is an idea I'm fond of, only because of the creative value it adds when working with how you plan to interact with other PCs or NPCs, but I made the Hushabi to very much be a type of bruiser almost, again I tried my best to leave spellcasters, healers, or tanks in the picture, but I created the Hushabi with a few nudges towards being an animal more than anything else, at least aiming to target a more unarmed combat style, as I myself wouldn't see a creature like this wielding a greataxe or a longsword, but aimed not to discourage anybody from doing it, there are definitely a few things that the moderator and myself may have missed and that's the incapability to complete the verbal components of spells, but again, I worked this character up from an idea, as a much more roleplay oriented race while making sure it didn't fall off in fun, the viability of the race is definitely questionable but I've built it as a fun over function based race since, hell nobodies going to even remember that your punches do slashing unless it's very specifically required for a situation such as a party member asking you to cut through a piece of cloth for them, again the limitations are not on purpose but are an unfortunate side effect of aiming to encourage certain playstyles, which could be a mistake on my end but hell, I like it so I'll leave it up for others who may enjoy something like this. Also, message to the critic, don't recommend something like the Drow's sunlight sensitivity, that ruined the race and is why nobody likes to play Drows.

Substantial changes have been made based on the previous administration critiques advice, and I would like additional feedback on the state of the race, for example whether the tail attack should be 1d4 instead of 1d6 to compensate for the additional lightning damage. In addition, I struggle at figuring out the lines needed to add a description to a subrace as shown in the Alraune Featured race, although it may be obvious, I, unfortunately, haven't been able to figure it out on my own. The state of the natural weapons feature is questionable even to me, but putting them all in one feat tended to make it look cluttered and unprofessional, would like some advice on that as well.

1. Subrace descriptions would definetly be useful and can be added like so. here.
2. Monstrous Humanoid isn't a creature type. Instead say, "Your creature type is considered both humanoid and monstrosity."
3. Hiding in dark and dim light should be its own trait
4. "You have disadvantage when attempting to interact with any of those." is too vague and needs to be more specific for such a potentially huge downside.
5. Impaired Vision is largely vague and needs to reference what it actually means. echolocation is an actual monster trait that ties into blindsight, something that would be too strong for a race to have.
6. You should group the bite and claw nature weapons into one, both dealing 1d4 piercing and slashing respectively.
7. As you already have two natural weapons, writing the same thing out for the tail and everything else gets would be excessive. Instead, allowing for the race to use a bonus action to strike a creature and deal lightning damage when it successfully uses its natural weapon is cleaner.
8. If they can't speak, how can any class that uses spell be expected to play this race. It's 5th edition philosophy to be able to pick whatever race with whatever class.
9. The Hushabi language also seems largely redundant, instead giving the player to pick Common and another a first party language so they can actually communicate with their allies without needing a translator would be better. If you still want to have such a thing, you can write something like "You can speak, read and write two languages of your choice."
10. The subraces racial traits are both essentially 4 traits in one, break these up into two or three.

An overall improvement to the wording of the traits would also be good as the traits are quiet vague in places. Once that is sorted the balance issues can be ironed out. —ConcealedLight (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2018 (MST)