Talk:Ooze-Kin (5e Race)

I'll give it to you straight: This specific race has been given as an example of why people hate this wiki so much... five times. Just this page. That doesn't even count how many times the other goop-races have been given as examples for what is wrong with this wiki- that would be well over 15 instances with every example combined. This is the one that keeps coming up though. That said, I'm going to be as impartial as I can be, and sincerely try to make this page as good as it can be, without violating its spirit.

First off, physical description. Please elaborate to what extent this ability can be used. Do they have a "neutral" state, or natural form they can revert to? Do they imitate other creatures, or can they look however they want? To what extent may they invent entirely new cosmetic features?

The drunken wizard. Again. He is far too prolific while drunk. Perhaps you could come up with something a little more serious, or a little less specific, so this doesn't immediately come off as a joke race to people?

In society you mention the elders distrust people. Maybe add into history why that is.

The "we just use other peoples' naming conventions" thing is getting to grate on me. I'm not tollerating it any more. People need to have more imagination and put a little more effort and care into their work. Why even include a section for naming in the preload if everyone's just going to handwave it? I'm updating the 5e Race Design Guide to reflect this as well.

Total +4 ASA. That's a little high, but justifiable if they're sacrificing something from their other racial traits.

Hm. A specific height. Guess they can't intentionally stretch themselves out to get taller, or squash down to get shorter.

Wow. Squishy is an immense racial trait. That basically guarantees you a win in one fight per rest, as long as it's a fair fight. Drop it to long rests only. Consider making it so they have to choose one of the three mundane damage types, rather than getting all three at once. This would make the trait more complex and tactically interesting, as it offers the player options, rather than static power.

Wow. Immunity to acid damage. That's intense. It makes sense, but that's a seriously powerful racial trait. Maybe drop it to resistance; a lot of acid-based attacks and spells are more than just being sprayed with a corrosive agent, so they could potentially harm you a bit anyways. Also, at this point, I will remind you that the ASA is +4. If you want to keep these features, even if you nerf them following my guidelines here, you must drop the ASA by 1-2 points. These features already make this race extremely combat-advantaged.

Excess is aptly named. It is excessive. Alongside the other racial traits, it is OP. Drop it, or drop something else to keep it.

Vibrations is also OP on top of the rest of this. Again, drop it or drop something else.

Amorphous is a great exploration feature! If you could just rebalance all those combat advantages, you should absolutely keep this trait! However, it needs a little more detail. Why can they squish through a large keyhole, but they can't shapechange at will like a doppleganger?

After reading all of this, I have these additional recommendations:

Drop walking speed to 25ft as a rebalancing penalty for all their advantages.

Drop the +2 to charisma, they're a pile of green jell-o, and an incredibly powerful one at that.

Replace acid splash and acidic form with a new feature which:

• Gives them resistance to acid damage
• Makes their unarmed strikes deal acid damage
• Prevents them from wearing clothing or holding tools made of soft organic material, such as cloth, leather, or wood, as their body corrodes these materials

--Kydo (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2016 (MDT)

I'm going to be entirely honest here: I had no clue my race was this bad. I mean, if people were talking about how terrible it is, it would have been nice to be informed previously... but that's besides my main point. I made this back when I had no idea what I was doing, and looking back... I've started to hate it for what it is. I'm considering just scrapping it, seeing as how I know I can do far, far better. Although that's also doubtful. Making changes to the race soon, but... I may drop it eventually, and just delete the page. ...also, I still have no idea how this forum works, in the slightest. Edits have been made, hopefully it's somewhat more... not-terrible, now.

LordPsychosis (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2016 (CST)

Well, actually, it isn't that bad at all! It's just a little busy is all. I'd like to point out that, of the races, the number one group that people complain about are slimes. I have no idea why. Sometimes hobbyists just do not make sense. Yours just happens to be the one people point out most often! In any case, I didn't know people were even talking about this wiki as much as they are until a few months ago. I knew we had a reputation with some folks, but I had no idea the scope of this wiki's impact on the hobby! Every time someone posts something on this site, they are effectively reaching out to thousands of silent readers. That's pretty amazing.

I don't hate this race. I don't hate any races. (Except Rick. Rick sucked.) This race, despite its balance issues, is functional, as in, you can actually use it in-play and it will still make sense. That's more than I can say for most races around here! It's overpowered, no doubt, but that can be fixed quite easily! As for the flavor issues, why don't you go check out the 5e Race Design Guide? It's incomplete, but a few people have already put in a ton of work to give people useful tools to make more better stuff faster. You say you're pretty practiced around here now? If you have any insights to share with others on how to make a great race, please do so! You can always learn something from anyone.

As for how the forum side of things works? Not very well, I'm afraid. There are some written rules, but it's mostly pretty informal. As long as you use your signature so people know who said what, and keep your thoughts segregated from everyone else's so the conversation stays in order, it's all good in my books yo. (Also, if you ever see the text "DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE" on a page, heed that warning. I learned the hard way.) The way this conversation is going works fine for now, with us using those crazy oversized boxy signatures to break up the page. It'd get ugly if we were saying very little, or if there were other people starting tangential conversations though.

--Kydo (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2016 (MDT)

It'll take a while for me to get back, but I essentially overhauled the racial abilities and some of the lore. I guess... mind checking it and criticising it again? Currently flailing helplessly at using this site on mobile. LordPsychosis (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2016 (CST)

The one thing that's stopping me putting this in the magazine are the subraces. I hate the one-subrace-for-each-ability-score idea. It's just seems to be there for the sake of it... it's like, how did this race know to diverge to match each ability score in a D&D game? I don't know what to do except maybe make a variant, with two subraces that have a stronger theme. Marasmusine (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2016 (MST)

Got it. I'll see what I can do. I'll probably move the color variants to the physical description, and add different subraces more around the theme of the Clear one, things that make them like specific types of ooze monsters. Carcabob (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2016 (MST)

Well, I've certainly made some fun and interesting subraces. I've tried to dilute (pun not intended) all the fun racial abilities based on oozes into four subraces. The Acidic subrace definitely still needs some work, but the others I think are pretty good. Thoughts? Carcabob (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2016 (MST)

It is going well. I will now apply my rating system. As always, the goal score is 4.5

Blindsight is powerful, it's like darkvision, but also lets you see invisible creatures, and you can't be blinded, and obscurement doesn't bother you. The range mitigates this slightly. (1.5)

Amorphous is a useful exploration trait, can bypass many areas that would normally be blocked. (1)

Slower than normal (-0.5)

Language (0.5)

Ability scores 1 less than expected (-0.5)

So the base traits score 2

Adhesive: Resistance to common damage type (1), no check needed on sub-use of skill (1). Total = 4.5

Corrosive: Resistance to common damage type (1), corrosive strikes + form (2, powerful to have at will, think of the monks), unstable form (0, already rated for poorer mobility & not related to beneficial traits) = 5

Psychic: Cantrip (0.5), limited-use strong attack (1) = 3.5

Gelatinous: Transparent - does your equipment become transparent as well? (1). Utility trait (0.5) = 3.5

Elastic: Stretchy (1), double height needs some clarification on what you can and can't do with it, resistance to common damage type (by heat you mean fire?) (1) = 4

These are more-or-less within bounds. I would put a limit on the corrosive strikes and form. Put a limit on amorphous and you could even have a standard +2 / +1 ability score bonus. Marasmusine (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2016 (MST)

I like your system! I made some changes accordingly, but still have a LOT of concerns:

+2 Con instead of +1 like you suggested.

As for Amorphous, I limited it to the 1" thing to 1 minute for every 5 feet of travel. However, I created new options that make a lot of sense (take a look), but I think I may have created more problems.

Adhesive: No change.

Corrosive: Corroding cloth/leather/wood armor requires a bonus action. Corroding wooden weapon requires reaction. Added Acidic Step, making you easier to track if you're not wearing metal footwear (since any other kind gets destroyed).

Psychic: Added 1st level spell at 3rd level (catapult). By your scale, should bring it up to 4.5. Other spells might be a better fit, but I'm not sure.

Gelatinous: Transparent now lets you hide in plain sight even during combat, though this subclass is really only useful to classes that don't need to use weapons though. I expanded Engulf to let you pick up and drop off equipment from your body simply by moving. This helps complement the transparent, as there's really no good explanation for why gear you have inside you turn transparent as well.

Elastic: You now have 5 foot reach, but can make it 10 foot reach at will (more combat options with opportunity attacks, especially with reach weapons). This might add that last .5 to make it 4.5. Addressing your comment, doubling your height lets you reach vertically to grab things like ledges when high jumping. I can't really think of any other uses, but I think if players can, great.

Added Splitting subrace. I know you said you didn't want one subrace for each ability, but I don't want multiple subraces to have the same one, and I really think they can actually fit each ability. Like all the other subraces (except the stretchy part of elastic), this is based on actual ooze monsters. It brings up a ton of potential gameplay options, as well as issues and questions though, so if I can't resolve them all, it may be scrapped.

-- Carcabob (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2016 (MST)

Why is almost every mention of "ooze-kin" capitalised? Race names shouldn't be proper nouns. SirSprinkles (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2016 (MST)

When I started working on the page, that's how it was and I didn't question it. But now that you mention it, you're right. I'll go ahead and change it. Carcabob (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2016 (MST)

I've added yet one more subrace, Sturdy (tentative name) that grants unarmored defense based on constitution, so you don't have to be completely defenseless while using amorphous, transparent, or split if you aren't a monk or barbarian. Having 7 subraces is kind of ridiculous, but they're all so flavorful! Should we keep all of them, or thin the herd? --Carcabob (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2016 (MST)

For the purpose of the magazine, I'll be picking two. Leave them up so I can assess. Is this otherwise finished?

I'm a bit concerned about the ability of a corrosive monk to very quickly deprive some enemies of AC and attack power. A saving throw might help, but then that's an additional two or more rolls per turn. The other thing might be to limit its usage. Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2016 (MST)

Yes, it's essentially finished, mechanics wise. I'd like to refine the flavor text of whatever two subraces you pick.

I changed it since you last read it. Corroding armor uses a bonus action and corroding weapons uses a reaction. Monk's can't degrade enemies of AC or attack power any quicker than anybody else since you have to use your bonus action after you hit with a melee attack, which means monks have to give up one or two attacks (martial arts/flurry of blows). I also expanded it so you can use it after any melee attack, not just an unarmed strike (so like fighters and paladins could use it), but I can certainly revert that to be only unarmed strikes so if anyone who's not a 5th+ level monk is limited to 1d4 damage if they want to degrade someone's leather/hide armor. --Carcabob (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2016 (MST)

If you want to take my opinion in consideration for which subraces to include, I think Corrosive is the most logical choice, but still needs refining.

I would also definitely include Adhesive, as damage resistance and spider climb are very characteristic of oozes, and affect tactics in a variety of unique ways that other races don't. ::I would suggest including 3 subraces, to give a good variety without being excessive. After all, plenty of races like Elves, Gnomes, and Genasi have 3 or more subraces. I would probably eliminate the options of Elastic and Sturdy, as neither of those are very characteristic of oozes. Splitting would open the door for all sorts of great possibilities (being able to go to two places at once if the party splits up, keeping one half behind as a lookout, or to get help if things go south, etc). It's not actually that complicated, but it requires a VERY long, detailed explanation, so it's probably not an ideal candidate.

Gelatinous expresses the characteristics of the iconic gelatinous cube, making probably the best third choice. Engulf and transparent are unique, flavorful, and fun.

Psychic is a good, balanced option, unique from the rest and still based on actual oozes, so it would make a good alternate 3rd choice, or even a good 4th subrace if you want to go that far, like the Genasi.

--19:48, 21 November 2016 (MST)

One more update: I created a temporary "Corrosive (Alternate)" subrace we can consider. It's definitely simpler and probably more balanced. --Carcabob (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2016 (MST)

Really good work everyone, I am in the process of editing this into the mag now. Marasmusine (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2016 (MST)

I'm not sure about Adhesive, I'm not fond of the total +3 to Con, and the choice of physical damage resistance is a bit contrived. Can we change it to Str (fits climbing) and bludgeoning resistance (fits.. falling!) Marasmusine (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2016 (MST)

Oh, yeah, we can change it to Str. I thought you originally liked the idea of being able to choose one of slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning, but I see your point. If we're removing the choice, it should probably be slashing, as that's what most oozes (meaning Black Pudding and Ochre Jelly) have immunity to. --Carcabob (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2016 (MST)

As much as I like elastic (mostly because I think it would be hilarious to play as someone with stretchy limbs), I think we'll get rid of it. I would like to have one of the races to have fire/cold/lightning damage resistance though. Would it be appropriate to give it to Psychic, replacing Catapult? Like "You've learned to use your psionic abilities to protect yourself from certain kinds of energy. Choose cold, fire, or lighting. You have resistance to damage of the chosen type." --Carcabob (talk)

Alright. I've updated Adhesive to address your concerns, and I've created Gray Ooze-Kin meant to eventually replace Psychic Ooze-Kin. It has a weaker focus, but a stronger theme, as it replaces mage hand and catapult with damage resistance and Stone Camouflage (like false appearance) in order to be more like Gray Oozes. --Carcabob (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2016 (MST)

Okay, I've chosen all but gray, splitting, sturdy. If I also decide to include an image, I will have to drop one. I will update the work-in-progress so you can see it. In. Marasmusine (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2016 (MST)

Oh. Word 2013 has decided to stop offering me "get a sharing link" under the Share menu. That will make the document harder to share. Marasmusine (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (MST)

I'm more of a Google Docs guy, so I'm not sure how to fix Word...sorry.

I, for one, am totally fine without using the image I added. I was just in an artistic mood...though if you do decide to include it (or another image), I'd probably remove elastic, as it has the least to do with actual oozes.

Speaking of elastic, in the case that you still include it, would it be okay to give them a choice between Strength and Dexterity? I was thinking since there's already Adhesive that gives +1 Strength and Gelatinous that give +1 Dexterity. In addition, given their societal background as it's currently written, it does make sense that some would develop athletic abilities, while others would gain more acrobatic abilities.

And lastly, mostly just out of curiosity, are you going to include the Composite Ooze-Kin (5e Feat) racial feat? --Carcabob (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2016 (MST)

What do you think about replacing Psychic ooze-kin's Catapult with a telepathic ability? "You can speak telepathically with any creature you can sense within 30 feet of you in a language you know."

Also, what's wrong with elastic ooze-kin with a whip having 15-foot reach? I'm fine with restricting heavy weapons, but making it only light weapons greatly restricts the character builds it can be used for. I guess we could also just say your reach is 10 feet. That way, even with reach weapons, your reach is 10 feet. --Carcabob (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2017 (MST)

Wow, this talk page is huge. Anyway, looks like we have a name for the quote, and we have some more names. I'd like to hear more about what "makes zero sense" and address that if possible --Carcabob (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Reading this page as it is right now, and lookeing at how it appearently was at the start, Ive gotta say, this is really good. Neat concept, there’s a picture, and it’s written well, from the perspective of a random new guy, I appreciate it a lot. I was actually thinking as i am brand new on here and you appear to be quite experienced if you have any tips on writing things like this? Thank you very much. --Randomperson1212 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)