Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Undead

Charender's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,003 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,003 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Marthkus wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The other interpretations would essentially be hourse rules as a correct understanding of the rules does not allow it to function.

Not exactly.

Take druid's vestment. It gives you an additional use of wildshape. Well that additional use would be a use of whatever wildshape class feature you are emulating. You have 0 uses of wildshape. An additional use would give you 1, and that use would be of the class feature you emulated, since the item would be treating you as having that class feature.

Sash of the War Champion works differently. You have to emulate both bravery and armor training separately. The item then gives you benefit of those features as if you were 4 levels higher, which would give you the total bonus.

The druid one is a stretch, but acceptable if we are pusshing the limits of the rules. The Sash isn't. When you emulate the fighter, you don't have a fighter level. You are adding 4 to 0, so at best you would get the abilities of a level 4 fighter IMO.


There are also specific scenarios where the light weapon is an advantage. For example using a non-light in a tight corridor may impose a circumstance penalty to hit. I have seen more than a few situations like this pop up in various modules.


chaoseffect wrote:
Charender wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Why not bard? Archeologist with the trait to increase luck bonuses. And out of combat you have all those nice bard things like skills and spells
MAD issues. Zen Archer is already needing wisdom and dexterity with strength and constitution as a can't dump stats. Bard adds charisma to the mix.

I disagree with you here. As a dedicated archer you don't really need a lot of Constitution, and since you get to use Wisdom for attack rolls, Dex only really matters for AC and init, but hey most likely aren't going to be toe to toe with enemies.

Bard doesn't require a lot of Cha, just enough to be able to cast the spells. Lingering Performance + Extra Performance (eventually) gives you more rounds of Archaeologist Luck than you'll ever need.

Anyway, I see a lot of advice for going full caster, but that's something I'm ambivalent about. If you go that route you can either be an archer OR a mage in any given round, which is nice versatility, but lacks real synergy as you can't combine both features simultaneously to perform better than any non-gestalt ever could. With that in mind I'd second Inquisitor or Bard as their abilities mesh really well with what you're going to be doing.

Note I said that strength and constitution are "can't dump" stats. It isn't that you need a lot of them, but you can't afford to dump them down to a 7 either. They need to be in the solid 10-14 range. I would also say that you probably don't want to dump intelligence either. Dex needs to be a solid 14+ and wisdom needs to be as high as you can get it. That leaves Charisma as you only dump stat. If you take bard, then you will need to be a 16+ Charisma at some point, and you are going to want to use your headband on boosting wisdom first.

Since you can get all of your bardic performances that matter with full level 9 clerical casting on a wisdom based caster via the evangilist cleric, the bard is really a non-option.


Chris Kenney wrote:
CKorfmann wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
CKorfmann wrote:
I've never seen anything to suggest that. ***
There's actually a FAQ specifically saying they're not compatible archetypes, though it does recommend what you should do if you choose to houserule it
Interesting. I'd never even heard of there being a controversy about it prior to today. I don't see an issue with it. The recommended house rules are sort of obvious and make sense.

Basically, it's down to Wildblooded not functioning the way it really feels like it ought to. It's not a "separate" bloodline that's very similar to an existing one, it's actually the same as the base bloodline abilities with an archetype applied.

Once you understand that, all the logic falls into place really. Since it's an archetype, and functions as such, the abilities replaced are archetype abilities. Crossblooded replaces all bloodline-related abilities, including Arcana, while any Wildblooded selection will inevitably replace at least one of them. Hence, by RAW, they conflict.

It's just kind of silly and awkward.

Which is why a lot of people houserule around it....


For reference if Black Tentacles had something like "creates 2d8 tentacles", then maximize WOULD maximize the number of tentacles created.


CKorfmann wrote:
Charender wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Why not bard? Archeologist with the trait to increase luck bonuses. And out of combat you have all those nice bard things like skills and spells
MAD issues. Zen Archer is already needing wisdom and dexterity with strength and constitution as a can't dump stats. Bard adds charisma to the mix.
Yes, Inquisitor is the divine answer to the bard and works much better.

That said, the OP should really consider the evangilist cleric. Bardic performances, cleric buffs, and cleric casting progression, all in a nice wisdom based package.


SRD wrote:


Sorcerers and Bards: Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. Because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell's normal casting time is a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.) The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, which can be cast as normal using the feat.

Note the rules only refer to a metamagic spell vs a normal spell. There is no language about per metamagic applied, etc. The RAW is pretty clear that you only eat the increased cast time once no matter how many metamagics you add to the spell.


Umbranus wrote:
Why not bard? Archeologist with the trait to increase luck bonuses. And out of combat you have all those nice bard things like skills and spells

MAD issues. Zen Archer is already needing wisdom and dexterity with strength and constitution as a can't dump stats. Bard adds charisma to the mix.


Warhaven wrote:
So, if you cast Holy Sword on a Brilliant Energy weapon, does the blade disappear and all you're left with is a hilt? :)

Since the sword was a masterwork sword PRIOR to becomming a Brilliant Energy Weapon, it would revert to that, not a hilt.


Holy Sword is pretty clear that it overrides any other magic on the sword, thus Divine Bond followed by Holy Sword does not work. It is also clear that Holy Sword prevents other spells from modifying the sword, and Divine Bond is a Spell like ability, which means it counts as a spell in just about every way that matters, so trying to apply Divine Bond to a Holy Sword also will not work.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Really? That trap require a 17th level caster and plenty of money.

Most of the spells that block teleportation are high level and/or cover a minimum area and/or work for people sharing a specific alignment and/or require to be a member of a specific spellcasting class. Generally they fall under several of those requirements.

Teleport is a 5th level spell that can be easily brought in scroll form, scrying is a 4th level spell.

So we have a huge dichotomy between who can use scry and fry tactics (essentially 7th level characters with a good equipment) and who can protect against them (most monster can't do that, even monster that are considered appropriate opponents for high level characters, members of several classes, even spellcasting classes can't do that).

There is one non magical defense:
"Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked."
but it raise some question:
1) It is directional or you must live in a cube of lead?
2) What happen when you open a door? (no windows, leaded glass isn't lead sheeting. Maybe if the leaded glass is tick enough it will stop the magical sensor, but we have no data)
3) It is applicable to a dungeon or a castle but if the target leave them it is instantly vulnerable.
4) It require access to the raw materials and manufacturing capacity. Again something that is not granted for monster and can be a problem even for humanoid enemies.

1 and 2. Draw a straight line between you and the target. If it passes through a sheet of lead, the spell fails. That is holding to a pretty strict RAW interpretation of "thin sheet of lead blocks scrying". I have no problem ruling that small cracks are not enough to let the censor in, because you would have to have exactly the right line. I also have no problem saying that enough twists and turns will also block the censor, because you could not get a line of effect to the target that didn't pass through a lead sheet.

3 is my point. The whole high level cat and mouse game is about creating situations that require your target to leave their safe sone.

4. There is plenty RAI that a thick amount of stone can also block divinations, so deep caves and the like become options.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Or the "common" trap involving disjunction and 20 enervations rays that is always in the same location of the BEEG.

I suppose even his latrine is trapped that way.

That is about the only way a good scry and fry could actually work. You have to do something to lure the BBEG out of his safe zone, then you have a chance. At that point, you are playing an interesting game of cat and mouse in which the goal isn't to Scry and Fry, but to create conditions where Scry and Fry becomes an option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

Pretty much. If the villain is smart, they will ward their lair with Disjunction traps, contingent on unauthorized teleporters. Throw in 20+ traps of enervation, contingent on the disjuction trap going off (and the PCs just got their death wards dispelled, so...)

And of course, there are an awful lot of abjurations that prevent scrying that any smart villain can get hold of. Even if they can't cast spells themselves, magic items exist for a reason.
Scry and Die doesn't work in most games. Not because of a rule against it, as it is clearly built into the rules, but because it is really, really easy to counter. Somewhat ironically, it is easier for the villains to counter it than the PCs, since
a)the villain's base-of-operation can be warded more heavily than the mobile party
b)The BBEG(s) is usually a higher level than the PCs, and can overcome their abjurations (e.g., nondetection) more easily than they can overcome the BBEG's abjurations. At least until the PCs are high enough to have mind blank continuously, which isn't until high levels. And of course, the BBEG gets there first.

Or use a moving fortress(as mentioned before)

Or live in a pocket dimension(not on the material plane)
Spoiler:

Divination

Divination spells enable you to learn secrets long forgotten, predict the future, find hidden things, and foil deceptive spells.

Many divination spells have cone-shaped areas. These move with you and extend in the direction you choose. The cone defines the area that you can sweep each round. If you study the same area for multiple rounds, you can often gain additional information, as noted in the descriptive text for the spell.

Subschools

Scrying: a scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. The sensor, however, is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus functions normally even if you have been blinded or deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.

A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.

Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.


Or make good use of lead so that your fortress(or at least the parts you care about) is immune to scrying

There are plenty of ways within the current rules to prevent scry and fry.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Hell, tectonic plates are constantly moving. Try to teleport from North America to Europe and that 0.2 cm/year spreading rate is really going to screw up your chances.

I think any reasonable person could see that that amount of movement isn't enough to cause problems, but the rules specifically call out that ship movements speeds ARE enough to cause problems, thus it isn't a stretch that being on a ship could cause problems with teleports to the shore.

Personally, I think all teleport locations are relative to the planet's frame of reference, not the caster, thus hitting any object that is moving relative to the planet is a problem, but going from a moving object to one that is stationary relative to the planet would not be a problem.


seebs wrote:

Interplanetary teleport only exists because of a new claim that "planes" are "other planets", as I recall. Prior to that, yes, it was completely obvious that greater teleport could go anywhere within the material plane. No range limit does not mean "range limit of 1AU or so".

Diego: I think you have a really interesting point there about the frames of reference, but I am not sure it is entirely correct. Imagine, if you will, an object in a geosynchronous orbit around a planet. It's stationary within the planet's frame of reference...

Furthermore, imagine if you will two identical ships, facing the same way, close enough to each other that they have matching vectors and are affected the same way by wind and currents. If we accept the "frame of reference" model, then you should be able to teleport back and forth between these freely, delay or no delay, because their relative locations aren't changing. If you use the one you're on as your frame of reference, the other isn't moving.

Actually, it is worse than that. If you are on any kind of moving vehicle, ship, carriage, etc. then you are moving relative to the rest of the planet. That means that the 6 second limit appilies to any and all attempt teleport from a ship to shore, because the ship is moving relative to the frame of reference of the shore.

As for the whole, you scry a person, not a location. Yes, Scry is on a person, but you can also see everything within 10 feet of the person you are scrying. You you can see the area immediately around the person. You can watch them for 1 minute per level, and the censor follows the target around. That means you could easily have observed a significant amount of the location, even though the spell is cast on a person.


Malwing wrote:
Charender wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Malwing wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Because a 7-10 feat investment shouldn't be better than a 1-3?
Well, if I make it non one-handed that would be weapon finesse, weapon focus with a finessable weapon, and new Dex to damage feat. Three feats on top of the three plus two feats. I think that makes it sufficiently weakened, although it would be more meaningful if there was a more undesirable feat tax. weapon focus may be too synergistic to be a tax.
2 weapon, imp 2 weap, grt 2 weapon, sup 2 weap, weapon focus, weapon finesse, dex feat. that's 7 and thats if you don't pick up double slice (which would kill your damage if you didn't), two weapon rend, and tow weapon defence. Those would make it 10 feats.

First, I think your list is a lot bigger than what a min/maxer would use. Strictly speaking, TWF and Double Slice are the only feats required for a serious TWFer. Improved and greater TWF are nice to have, but most of your off hand damage comes from the first attack, so you don't HAVE to get those. Weapon Finesse, + dex to damage feat on top of that.

Second, Looking at damage is the wrong way to go. Look at the other benefits. We are talking about 4 feats. What do you get for those 4 feats? You get to put a 10 in strength, and dump all your boosts into dexterity. The net result is that a Dex based TWF will have +5 AC(and touch AC), +5 reflex saves, and +5 initiative or more over the strength based Two-hand fighter. There are no feat that the two hand fighter gets that can close that gap. So you end up with a strong damage dealer that also has a high AC, regularly goes first, and regularly makes their reflex saves.

On top of this, certain damage boosts, like bard performance, sneak attack, and paladin's smite evil, work a lot better for TWFers.

That may just be worth three feats, but I guess the question is can a Two-handed Weapon user be as effective with the 7 extra feats.

Improved initiative +4 init

Lightning reflexes +2 reflex
Dodge +1 AC(and touch AC)
So with those 3 feats you can close the gap to +1 init, +3 reflex, +4 AC, but that is it. Also, depend on where the Dex fighter puts their strength, they may end up with +2-4 con over the two-hander(24 STR, 14 DEX, 12 Con vs 12 STR, 24 DEX, 14 con).


christos gurd wrote:
Malwing wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Because a 7-10 feat investment shouldn't be better than a 1-3?
Well, if I make it non one-handed that would be weapon finesse, weapon focus with a finessable weapon, and new Dex to damage feat. Three feats on top of the three plus two feats. I think that makes it sufficiently weakened, although it would be more meaningful if there was a more undesirable feat tax. weapon focus may be too synergistic to be a tax.
2 weapon, imp 2 weap, grt 2 weapon, sup 2 weap, weapon focus, weapon finesse, dex feat. that's 7 and thats if you don't pick up double slice (which would kill your damage if you didn't), two weapon rend, and tow weapon defence. Those would make it 10 feats.

First, I think your list is a lot bigger than what a min/maxer would use. Strictly speaking, TWF and Double Slice are the only feats required for a serious TWFer. Improved and greater TWF are nice to have, but most of your off hand damage comes from the first attack, so you don't HAVE to get those. Weapon Finesse, + dex to damage feat on top of that.

Second, Looking at damage is the wrong way to go. Look at the other benefits. We are talking about 4 feats. What do you get for those 4 feats? You get to put a 10 in strength, and dump all your boosts into dexterity. The net result is that a Dex based TWF will have +5 AC(and touch AC), +5 reflex saves, and +5 initiative or more over the strength based Two-hand fighter. There are no feat that the two hand fighter gets that can close that gap. So you end up with a strong damage dealer that also has a high AC, regularly goes first, and regularly makes their reflex saves.

On top of this, certain damage boosts, like bard performance, sneak attack, and paladin's smite evil, work a lot better for TWFers.

If that works for your game, go for it, I just wanted to make you aware that in the hands of a good min/maxer, dex to damage can be very strong.

PS: I play with weapon finesse as a free feat, so in my games, the difference is only 3 feats.

TLDR: The Dex to damage problem is that you are spending 4 feats for +5 AC, +5 initiative, and +5 reflex saves.


Malwing wrote:

Ive been thinking of how to house rule in a dervish dance-like feat that allows you to do damage with dex. I think that it is too powerful to just be after weapon finesse but not powerful enough to dismiss it.

The solution that's in my house rules draft is to tax it with weapon focus and 5 ranks in acrobatics.

Any thoughts?

The catch comes down to two weapon fighting.

Dex to Damage + Two Weapon fighting is very strong, possibly too strong depending on how well you min max it. My solution was to make a feat that let you add half your dex bonus to damage. With half dex to damage, you will never get the same damage as a strength wielder, but you will not fall completely behind either.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Charander wrote:


Even though I ultimately disagree with him, he does have a point, and is not distorting things nearly to the degree you imply.
Yes. He is.

She can pass for human without using the Disguise skill.

Clearly, objectively, an unequivocally says its changing your appearance.

and by strict RAW, a level 15 human draconic sorcerer also automatically passes any disguise check to appear human despite possessing dragon claws and wings.

el cuervo wrote:
EDIT: Charender, did you just, very subtly, apply Godwin's Law? :D

I have no idea what you are talking about... :P


BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


Doesn't seem to say a thing about appearance, or that it differs from any other Aasimar.

You are entitled to your own opinions in your quest for cheese, this is obviously, blatantly, baldly, disingenuously, and shamelessly making up your own facts.

Even though I ultimately disagree with him, he does have a point, and is not distorting things nearly to the degree you imply.

A human draconic bloodline sorcerer will have Claws and Wings, but they by RAW do not have to make a disguise check to pass themselves off as human because by RAW they are human. RAI and common sense say that they may have issues, but RAW says they are human.

On one side we have people who are almost hyper restrictive in what constitutes a "human" that I half expect them to say you have to be blond haired and blue eyed or you are not really a pure human. On the other hand, some of what in considered human by strict RAW can get pretty far out there.


thaX wrote:

What he (Stephen) said and clarified is that the feat does nothing for a human because a human doesn't have a tail and the feats in question are not enough to have said human sprout one.

As has been mentioned with various examples over and over again by me and other posters for those few that still believe tails should be given away like candy.

I am not sure why being a "stretch" is so easily discounted by you while going into houserules about character discriptions.

No tail. No tail slap. The character should prolly get a different feat or have some way to gain a tail.

Actually the line he clarified was my quote "A human either doesn't have a tail or the tail a human could have doesn't meet the requirements for the feat". He stated this is true, but never qualified which part(s) of the compound statement was true.

So either human's can't have tails, you need something functionally similar to a Kobold tail, or both. Since the RAW gives players pretty large leeway in character appearance, the whole "human's can't have tails" thing seems arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive, I am leaning toward an RAI that you have to have something similar to a kobold tail for tail terror to work.

TLDR: Not just any tail will work.


James Risner wrote:
Charender wrote:
insulting those who disagree with you as people who are trying to cheat or be dishonest is not charitable and really has no place on these forums.
No insult intended and I don't consider it cheating to have a liberal interpretation. I just don't agree that is how the rules should be read (the most liberal way possible.)

Likewise the most strict or literal reading of the rules causes more than a few problems as well. Both of the extremes are wrong, so we are left trying to decide if we are being too liberal or not liberal enough.

Saying that those who disagree with you are "wriggling" the rules implies they are intentionally try to subvert the rules(IE cheat or munchkin).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DanceSC wrote:

Strength checks can be made with the players Ability Score, and assisting a player in a strength check adds in the relevant ability modifier. (Example: 17 strength fighter and a 16 strength fighter: the 17 strength fighter attempts the strength check and the 16 str fighter assists by adding 3 from the ability modifier bringing the total up to 20) - Choosing to do this is considered taking that score on the die roll, just as one would take 10 on a check.

(Reasoning: it never did make sense to me that one could fail to break down a door by simply being 'not strong enough' and yet manage to do it 6 seconds later. Also if a wizard with 8 strength in the party assists, how much are they actually contributing?)

that reminded me of another house rule I use.

In any situations where the party is able to freely communicate, they may use aid another on skills checks. The way this works is that everyone able to make the check rolls. Take the highest result then add +2 for every other player whose roll beats a 10.
Good examples of where this works:
1. Knowledge checks, the players are pooling their knowledge on the subject.
2. Finding traps, the more sets of eyes looking, the better.
3. Strength checks, every player you can get against the door gets to participate.

Overall, it is a good rule to getting the entire group involved in activities that are usually one person jobs.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Charender wrote:
Redchigh wrote:
I would use common sense if things such as still and silent spell were used though...

One interpretation of RAW is that a still + silent spell with no material components(or eschew materials) would count as being invisible, and thus add +20 to all perception/spellcraft checks.

That's too rash. It depends on the spell, at the very least.

I'm pretty confident anyone can recognize a Stilled-silent-material-schewed Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier or Summon Monster VII->fiendish Tyrannosaurus Rex, for example :P

If you mean *before* the spell is cast, that comes to GM interpretation. Nowhere in the rules it says magic itself is invisible, I think. "glowing energy" such as the one you see in Dr Strange is just as valid interpretation as "nothing seen at all" as you see in a Jedi trick. It depends on your GM

Personally, I like the glowing stuff.

That is the extreme supported by RAW. A more reasonable middle ground would be adding a +5 circumstance modifier to the perception/spellcraft roll. I think there was a developer comment saying that adding to the difficulty of the roll was a reasonable judgement call to make.


Redchigh wrote:
I would use common sense if things such as still and silent spell were used though...

One interpretation of RAW is that a still + silent spell with no material components(or eschew materials) would count as being invisible, and thus add +20 to all perception/spellcraft checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

Wow, this is astonishing.

I had no idea Tail Terror inspired so much passion and enthusiasm.

No, it is just that is is a good example of the RAW vs RAW thing.

Where one version of RAW is "Rules as Wiggled" and the other is "Rules as Written".

The wiggle version interprets lines like "your tail" to grant you a tail and then augment it.

The "real" version requires a tail to be augmented and is sometimes decried as requiring "common sense" which apparently no one has.

The short summary is this happens with lots of other rules, not just this corner case.

No, it is the difference between the rules define what you can do vs the rules define what you can't do. Most of the rules arguments boil down to these two mindsets, and insulting those who disagree with you as people who are trying to cheat or be dishonest is not charitable and really has no place on these forums.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neonpeekaboo wrote:

Otherwise yeah, we're in complete agreement.

(And now hell freezes over)

The only real disagreement I had was with people taking a handful of vague rules and saying the RAW absolutely says X. We had a rule implying that a tail was necessary and another feat that used a vaguely defined "effects" as a catch all for something specific. To say the RAW was clear and indisputable was a gross overstatement.

I still think you can choose to play a human with a vestigial tail, but RAI has clarified that you need a something functionally similar to a kobold tail to use tail terror. Based on the developer's comments, even a kitsune's fox tail probably wouldn't work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cardinal Chunder wrote:

I'd love it if they locked this thread at 999 posts...

The rage...
EDIT Dammit!!! There were 994 when I wrote that *sigh*

*Nelson laugh* HA HA!


HectorVivis wrote:
Stuff..

Actually the problem is that you cannot be a medium sized kobold. That is what is really wanted. A way to get a tail attack as a medium sized character. -4 strength and small size of kobolds really hurt tham as martial characters.

If there was a Kobold option that let you be medium sized with +2 strength and -2 dexterity over a normal kobold, this whole thread would be unecessary.


Neonpeekaboo wrote:
I'm fairly certain the main topic has been settled. A Tail is cosmetic until modified by a feat. A Kobold/Aasimar has a tail (Because they look like Kobolds.. who have tails), and it's a purely cosmetic tail, until they qualify/take the feat that changes it.

Agreed, but without house rules(Like a Scion of Kobolddom trait), you still cannot get the combo to work.

For the Kobold/Aasimar to get Tail terror, they need to count as a Kobold. To do that, they have to take Scion of Humanity to quality for Racial Heritage. Scion of Humanity specifically says that you have the appearance of a Human. Specifically....

Scion of Sumanity wrote:


Scion of Humanity Some aasimars' heavenly ancestry is extremely distant. An aasimar with this racial trait counts as an outsider (native) and a humanoid (human) for any effect related to race, including feat prerequisites and spells that affect humanoids. She can pass for human without using the Disguise skill. This racial trait replaces the Celestial language and alters the native subtype.

That means that Scion of Humanity gives you the appearance of a Human. No kobold appearance means no tail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And to think I declared this thread dead over 100 posts ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

Wow, this is astonishing.

I had no idea Tail Terror inspired so much passion and enthusiasm.

If there was only some way we could harness this energy for something productive.

Noooooooooooooooooooo joke. This has been crazy-sauce.

Some of us couldn't give a kobold's backside about Tail Terror. This is just something to hold off boredom at work for me.


PatientWolf wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

This was my point exactly. Though again, I will say that per aasimar race rules, ONLY HUMANS are capable of producing "full-blooded" aasimar. Any other race that produces an aasimar produces essentially a HALF-aasimar (with stats the same as a full blooded "human" aasimar, other than Size adjustments). I can produce the relevant text if anyone needs me to.

This means that a Kobold-Aasimar is actually half kobold, appears as a kobold, has a tail, and does not even need any other feats to take Tail Terror. But again, I beg the question, if you want a Tail Slap attack and want Tail Terror, why not just play as a **** kobold instead of complicating things so unnecessarily?

That isn't correct. That is exactly why they say that differences are purely cosmetic. Precisely because taking a kobold-Aasimar does NOT qualify you for kobold only feats. Taking a halfling-Aasimar does NOT qualify you for halfling feats. That is like saying all races except human get a Scion of trait built in without giving up Celestial as a language. That is a rip off for human aasimars.

I disagree. The tail you get from being a Kobold-Aasimar would quality you for Tail Terror.

BUT...

Scion of Humanity would cause you to lose the tail. It is pretty clear that SoH causes you to look completely human, thus no tail.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The only valid interpretation is that of the dev team. So without a response from the dev team, that is merely your opinion.
I think you missed a couple of rather relevant posts...
No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers.
Fair enough, well regardless, at least the issue is settled now and we can all come together in the spirit of joy and find common ground to argue other finicky rules points over! ;)

The issue is not settled.

Stephen is a designer, and his opinion has a great deal of merit, but until we get an actual FAQ on the issue, or a hard ruling from Jason, the subject is still unclear.

The only thing that is unclear is the exact limits RAW/RAI places on choosing your appearance.

Aasimar with scion of humanity -> Can have a tail
Human -> cannot have a tail.

There are all sorts of things in between those two positions that are up in the air.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Charender wrote:
No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers combined with getting ninjaed.
Ninja'd no. But I am very sneaky for an anti-paladin. ;)

On a side note, there goes my shot at getting this thread to 1000 posts.

:(


Suthainn wrote:


Fair enough, well regardless, at least the issue is settled now and we can all come together in the spirit of joy and find common ground to argue other finicky rules points over! ;)

Yeah, I am fine with the RAI clarification. I just get annoyed when people claim RAW says something it does not. Both positions in the case were making pretty large extrapolations off of a very tiny amount of actual RAW.


Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The only valid interpretation is that of the dev team. So without a response from the dev team, that is merely your opinion.
I think you missed a couple of rather relevant posts...

No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers combined with getting ninjaed.


el cuervo wrote:

My goodness, you're a feisty one. Is a tail a characteristic of a human? No. Is a tail a characteristic of a kobold? Yes.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on. Tail Terror doesn't grant you a tail because you need to be a kobold to take Tail Terror. Racial Heritage means you can have kobold ancestry but it still doesn't grant you a tail.

What you don't see to understand is that the "it doesn't work argument" relies on 3 things.

1. Tail Terror requires a tail to operate.
2. Humans don't have tails or the tail that a human has is insufficient.
3. Racial Heritage: Kobold does not allow you to have a tail.

If and only if all 3 of these statements are true, then a human cannot make use of Tail Terror. If any of these 3 statements is false, then the combo of RH: Kobold + Tail Terror will work by RAW.

Statement 1 relies on the implication that Tail Terror requires a tail even though tail is not listed in the feat requirements.
Statement 2 relies on interpreting the "tail" implication as a fully functional kobold tail, which is an extremely weak argument because the type of tail is never listed as a requirement, it is only implied.
Statement 3 relies on accepting your assertion that appearance is not an "effect related to race" which is absurd given what we know about inheritance and genetics.

#2 is your strongest statement, and it is still fairly uncompelling.


el cuervo wrote:
Charender wrote:
el cuervo wrote:


I'll make this simple and humour you, since you're hung up on a completely irrelevant argument and since you can't be right where it counts, you need to be right somewhere, apparently. If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that?

I'll direct you to the post I wrote in response to Tacticslion about conforming to the Description statistics, which cites that falling outside of the statistical norms for each of the races requires GM fiat, but you'll probably ignore it and counter with another pointless argument. I'm glad you don't play at my table, because you're being unnecessarily pedantic about this. Humans don't have tails.

Ok, 10^-2, got it. Great, so I can be left handed, but I can't have 6 fingers on my left hand(0.2% probability).

Now I will say this really carefully, because this is the part you keep missing....

"If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that? "

What page of my rule book is that on?

You didn't ask about your rule book or THE rule book, you asked me about my personal opinion on the matter, and since it's a ridiculous question with no relevance, I gave you an asinine answer. Please, let's get back on track: humans don't have tails and can't have tails.[Citation needed]

FTFY


el cuervo wrote:


You're forgetting the fourth possible interpretation:

4. Humans are not kobolds, are not intended to take this feat, do not have a tail, and thus cannot tail slap.

You're applying liberal interpretation of the rules; saying that appearance is an "effect of race" is an enormous stretch.

Comparing to existing feats is NOT speculation; there is the concept...

Charender wrote:


there are 3 possible interpretations that makes this combination work.

How does your #4 fit into the category I mentioned?


el cuervo wrote:


I'll make this simple and humour you, since you're hung up on a completely irrelevant argument and since you can't be right where it counts, you need to be right somewhere, apparently. If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that?

I'll direct you to the post I wrote in response to Tacticslion about conforming to the Description statistics, which cites that falling outside of the statistical norms for each of the races requires GM fiat, but you'll probably ignore it and counter with another pointless argument. I'm glad you don't play at my table, because you're being unnecessarily pedantic about this. Humans don't have tails.

Ok, 10^-2, got it. Great, so I can be left handed, but I can't have 6 fingers on my left hand(0.2% probability).

Now I will say this really carefully, because this is the part you keep missing....

"If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that? "

What page of my rule book is that on?


Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The language is also usually very clear when something like "Having a tail" is a requirement of the feat. Tail Terror does not list "Have a tail" as an explicit requirement. It is a badly written feat on both accounts.

Perhaps so, however let's stick to RAW not speculation, the requirements aren't even being argued here, you took Racial Heritage, you took Tail Terror, fact. However, as the language of the feat shows when compared to the other feats which grant additional attacks Tail Terror does not grant a tail, the feat is useless to you.

Comparing it to similar feats is also speculating. My point is that the feat doesn't use ANY of the language normally found in similar feats. As it stands, there are 3 possible interpretations that makes this combination work.

1. A tail is not listed in the requirements, thus "You make an attack with your tail." is really implying that you gain a tail as a benefit of the feat.
2. The feat requires a tail. Humans can have a tail. Done.
3. The feat requires a functional kobold tail which is part of the Kobold apprearance. Apprearance is an effect related to race, thus Racial Heritage: Kobold allows you to have a normal kobold tail.

Those are all valid interpretations of the RAW that allow this combo to work. Beyond that everything else is speculation about the intent of the developers. Either the feat combo was intended to grant a tail attack irregardless of anatomy, or tail terror was intended as a bonus only for natural born kobolds. Intent cannot be answered without a FAQ response from a developer.


Suthainn wrote:

Much as I dislike to repost, where the rules are unclear, we can certainly look at the precedent of similar feats to understand how it should work, as Paizo Devs have suggested a number of times.

Here are rule texts from various feats that grant the use of extra attacks and/or limbs (regardless of how much we may or may not like the feats or think they are 'silly').

Paizo wrote:


Aspect of the Beast - You grow a pair of claws

Draconic Glide - You grow a pair of wings

Angel Wings - You gain a pair of gleaming feathered wings

Agile Tongue - You have a prehensile tongue

Sharpclaw - You gain two claw attacks

The language is quite clear, 'you gain', 'you have' or 'you grow', these clearly indicate you possess the related body part, 'you can' indicates no such possession, basic English language. Nowhere in Tail Terror is such language present, RAW you do not grow or gain a tail, one must already be present.

For those in favour of Tail Terror granting you an actual tail, can you see the problem?

The language is also usually very clear when something like "Having a tail" is a requirement of the feat. Tail Terror does not list "Have a tail" as an explicit requirement. It is a badly written feat on both accounts.


el cuervo wrote:
Charender wrote:


And I will reiterate my counter argument. Being left handed isn't normal either. You only have about a 1 in 10 chance to be left handed. Exactly where do you draw the limit on your players? 1 in 500 odds deformities are allowed, but nothing with less probablity than that?

The normal humans only rule is a silly and stupid limitation that is not supported in the rules.

That some humans are left-handed is an accepted paradigm. It's not abnormal or weird to be left handed. Having a 10% chance to be left handed? Totally feasible. Roll 1d10 - did you get a 1? Congratulations, you're left handed.

Are you born with a tail? No, because the odds are astronomical. Quite literally, a 0.0000000002% chance of it. That is 11 orders of...

First, you didn't answer my question. What level of improbability do you find acceptable? 10^-1? 10^-5, Maybe even 10^-10(but not 10^-11, that is just too much)?

Second, Accepted paradigm by who? There are no rules delineating every single possible "accepted" variance in human appearance or behavior. You have created a line in the sand YOU are comfortable with, but that that line is complete arbitrary and not part of the RAW.


el cuervo wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

Look, here's an idea. If you want to play the "some humans are born with a tail in the real world so it should apply here" game, then let's do it.

How many people have been born with tail-like appendages reported to medical journals? According to Wikipedia, only 23 since 1884. Take into consideration that approximately 12 billion people were born in that time.

So you have, 23/12,000,000,000. Okay, now roll 1d12,000,000,000 and hope you get within 1.916666666666667e-9 percent to determine if you are a human born with a tail.

Problem solved, thread closed. Let's move on.

EDIT: fixed my math.

Hopefully real life citations are closed and done with, but that stuff was never relevant to the FAQ... so please dont give the PDT any ideas that we dont want a FAQ on Racial Heritage please ;)
Of course not; I just wanted to put to rest the idea that a human being born with a tail is a normal occurrence. Hopefully, realizing that it is a literal 1 in ~500 million chance is enough to sway that opinion. Of course, pointing out the odds of rolling it on a 1d12,000,000,000 was a bit hyperbolic but I believe it communicated my point rather well. :D

And I will reiterate my counter argument. Being left handed isn't normal either. You only have about a 1 in 10 chance to be left handed. Exactly where do you draw the limit on your players? 1 in 500 odds deformities are allowed, but nothing with less probablity than that?

The normal humans only rule is a silly and stupid limitation that is not supported in the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


Now, you can argue that a vestigial tail is not enough to functionally qualify for the benefits of tail terror, but the rules for tail terror do not specify that you need a functional tail to use tail terror. The rules may imply you need a functional kobold tail, but that is getting into RAI territory.

The rules may also imply you need a functional heart to live, but nowhere is this specifically stated, nor is it stated that you need functional limbs to move or attack, it is simply required that you possess arms and legs. And lo, the notquiteundeadbutsortofdead shall walk and munch on brains. Or perhaps more 'realistically' there are humans, in real life who fall from thousands of feet and survive, does this mean that since it is an actual event that happens to baseline humans human characters cannot be killed be fall damage? Normal humans, what we might call 'commoners', survive lightning bolts in real life, can we assume that also cannot kill human characters, after all real life human events and humans form the baseline!

Resorting to 'baseline' human comparisons as 100% true game fact in relation to a fantasy game which laughs at the laws of physics is foolish, trying to argue that your interpretation of the rules must be true based on such is beyond that.

Funny, earlier in the thread when people were claiming that you can't have a tail because, "Racial Heritage: Kobold does not give you a tail, and humans don't have tails". It seems awfully important.

The point is that RAW is very silent on exactly how much leeway a player has over character appearance. The rules literally say, "Choose your appearance" with very few limitations.

Quote:

As you state, we should not interpret RAI but stick to RAW, Racial Heritage & Tail Terror allow you to make a tail attack with your tail, please point out where in the RAW it specifically states 'if you lack a tail, you grow one', other such feats (regardless of whether we feel they are ridiculous or not) specifically have this language, Tail Terror does not.

Nice strawman there. What I am doing is being very careful to separate RAW from my personal opinion of RAI. We must be very careful to separate what the rules actually say(RAW) from our interpretations of those rules.

Quote:

A hypothetical person can happily watch hundreds of hours of martial arts and combat moves and then be told to punch someone as hard as they can, but if this person, despite all their knowledge on *how* to punch someone, for some terrible reason lacks hands it will not happen. Lacking the relevant wording we can only read it that if you do not possess a tail, you cannot make use of this ephemeral tail attack until you shapechange or use some other method to gain a tail with which to apply the feat to.

Again, that is your opinion of RAI. RAW is very simple.

1. Players are given lots of leeway in the rules to choose their appearance.
2. Kobold tail is in the description of a kobold's appearance, so it is definately an element of appearance.
2. If Kobold, take this feat, and get tail attack.
3. If you have racial heritage, you count as that race for all effects related to race.
4. Tail terror implies a tail is needed for the attack. It does not specifically say you gain a tail or that you need one.

RAI(Rules as Intended)
1. What are the reasonable limits on the appearance of a human? This is where the idea of human norms comes from.
2. Is appearance an effect related to race? To say no defies common sense and flies in the face of everything we know about genetics.
3. Can your appearance provide indirect mechanical benefits in the form of allowing you to use feats later? The red-scaled kobold traits seem to imply that the color of your scales(an appearance decision) can be used to control access to mechanical benefits, so yes.

The problem is that once you cross the divide from RAW into RAI, we can also ask questions like.
1. Is this combination overpowering? No, not really.
2. Does it promote diversity and fun for the players? Yes, generally more options is better than fewer.

Ultimately, only the developers can tells us what the correct intended interpretation of the rules are.


Barry Armstrong wrote:


It's in the same non-existent paragraph that contains the rule that says a player must be granted a tail if he wishes to have one.

A "standard human", as you suggest, has a range of traits. NONE of them include a tail long enough or strong enough to qualify for a tail attack. Nor does any medical science report contain such.

Original Objection:

Tail Terror requires a tail. Nothing in Racial Heritage or Tail terror allows you to grow a tail thus Tail Terror will not work for a human with RH: Kobold.

Response:
That interpretation of Tail Terror relies on something that might be considered fluff text, but assuming that Tail Terror requires a tail.
A. RH: Kobold could allow you to have a tail as an effect related to race.
B. Humans can have a tail normally, and nothing in RAW says you cannot.

Counter response to A:
I disagree with your interpretation of "effects related to race".
Problem: we are at an impasse because the correct interpretation is a matter of RAI.

Counter response to B:
That isn't a functional tail.
Problem: Nothing in Tail Terror requires you to have a "functional tail". RAI may require it, but RAW does not.

So purely by RAW we are at an impasse. Which brings us too....

Quote:

You're trying to exploit a technicality to a common sense argument.

The RAW that must be proven is that the feat "Racial Heritage (Kobold)" gives you access to a tail. Since you're such a proponent of RAW instead of RAI, I ask you to tell me the RAW that allows it.

There is NO WRITTEN RULE that says this feat grants you a tail. In order to say it does, you must INTERPRET the rules, meaning you are also delving into RAI. A no-no in your logic train.

So, pure RAW, unless the feat has the text "grants you a tail" or "grants you the requisite body part to qualify for the feat" or some other such writing, it doesn't exist and it still remains firmly planted in the DM's hands for consideration and interpretation.

Since we are now talking about common sense interpretations and RAI....

Common sense says that using fluff descriptions of things as hard RAW rules is a dangerous path to go down. (Do all longsword have to look like the picture in the CRB?)
Common sense says that someone with "Racial Heritage: Kobold" could be born with a fully functional Kobold tail.
Common sense says that a human taking 2 feats to gain a weak tail attack is not game breaking.
Common sense says that requiring players to play statistically normal members of their race is silly.

Thus, if you want to talk common sense and RAI, then the case is even more firmly in favor of allowing this combination to work.


Forseti wrote:
Charender wrote:
There is a pretty big difference between "Showing emotions with your tail", as in "X swishes their tail back and forth in an annoyed manner", and doing "emotes", as in full articulate gestures like "X points to the door with their tail".

The main difference is that your "X points to the door with their tail" isn't emoting. That meaning of "emote" only applies to chat-based environments.

I meant "emote" in the traditional sense of the word, being "to convey emotion".

I figured, I just wanted to clarify, because in the less traditional sense, emote implies you can do a lot more than just express emotional states.


Neonpeekaboo wrote:

I might be wrong, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Charender wrote:


No, it isn't. If a DM tells a player they cannot be left handed, then the DM needs to give a reason why by RAW it isn't allowed, because in real life, some people are left handed. If you cannot provide RAW to back you up, then you need to admit that you are the one using DM perrogative(AKA Rule Zero) to disallow left handed player characters. You can't just say the RAW doesn't allow left handed characters when it clearly does no such thing

We're more or less on the same side here.

However, the DM doesn't HAVE to do anything, he doesn't HAVE to provide RAW for anything. The DM can say humans have tails and are all right handed. That's Rule 0, DM Perogative, not RAW.

The issue we're talking about is whether RAW, Racial Heritage/Tail Terror let's you GROW a tail that you didn't previously have.

That is exactly my point. If you are resorting to rule zero, then you are making a decision to change the rules. Thus the only reason to use rule zero is if you don't like RAW and want to change them. If RAW already agrees with you, then you don't need to use rule zero. This forum is about what RAW actually is, not what you can rule zero it into.


Barry Armstrong wrote:

Having a tail is not an "effect related to race".

Being vulnerable to "Elf-Slaying Arrows" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Elf).

Wielding an "Orc Double Axe" without taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency is an effect related to race if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Orc).

Taking the "Kobold Sorceror Bloodline" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Kobold).

Using the "Stone Lord" archetype is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Dwarf).

Unless pre-coordinated and approved at Character Creation with your DM, a "standard" Pathfinder human does not have a tail.

Just as a "standard" real-life human does not have a tail without a birth defect.

Where exactly do you find the rule that say "You must be a normal human with no statistical deviation from the accept normal for humans."?

A standard human is not left handed. A standard human does not have 6 fingers on their left hand. A standard human doesn't have red hair. A standard human doesn't grow up to be a hero. It has been show several times why the Standard Human test is not only unsupported by RAW, but is also a silly straight-jacket on character creation.

Second, that is your interpretation of "effect related to race", suffice to say, not everyone agrees with that interpretation, or this would have been a much shorter thread.

1 to 50 of 3,003 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.