Clearing Up Dueling Racial Heritage FAQs

[Cheapy]

Hey all,

A few months ago, a second FAQ on Racial Heritage was posted that seems to conflict with a previous one. Or maybe there was third. Jason at one point said they'd clear them up and decide which is canonical, but after a number of weeks and many new FAQs, it may have slipped through the cracks. Anyways, let's clear this up.

APG FAQ wrote:

Half-Elf or Half-Orc: Can a character of either of these races select human racial favored class options?

No. While half-elves and half-orcs do count as humans "for any effect related to race", racial favored class options do not count as an "effect."

—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10

APG FAQ wrote:

Racial Heritage: Can a human with this feat take levels in an archetype that requires you to be of a specific race?

Yes, the Racial Heritage feat allows you to qualify for archetypes that have the chosen race as a requirement, assuming you still meet all of the other requirements to take levels in the archetype.

—Jason Bulmahn, 07/27/12

CRB FAQ wrote:

Half-Elf or Half-Orc: Can a character of either of these races select human racial archetypes (such as from Advanced Race Guide?

No. While half-elves and half-orcs do count as humans "for any effect related to race", racial class archetypes do not count as an "effect."

—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/15/13

Racial Heritage wrote:

Racial Heritage

The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.

Prerequisite: Human.

Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

Quote:

Elf Blood: Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race.

Quote:

Orc Blood: Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.

Keep the vitriol to a minimum please, and please hit the shiny FAQ button.

[Cheapy]

Well, I certainly didn't expect that low a level of vitriol.

[Talonhawke]

FAQ'd and I must have missed the new rules saying humans can't have nice things I mean they are already the fighter of races.

Edited to provide vitriol.

[Jiggy]

ASININE ROLLPLAY WRONGHEADED OBTUSE STRAWMAN BADWRONGFUN STORMWIND MMO GOALPOST-MOVING RAW GRANULAR INTENT 1,000-PAGE-RULEBOOK 4E FALLACY

Feel better? ;)

[mplindustries]

I think the answer is:

1) Racial Heritage is a feat, so it gives you more than being a half-race does.

2) A half-race counts as both parent races only for categories of stuff that has no specific entry for the half-race itself.

Example:
There are feats specifically for half-elves, so half elves can't take human or elf feats. However, there is no Favored Enemy: Half-Elf, so they count as both Humans and Elves for Favored Enemy.

They just haven't found a good way to word rules to match this general feel that they're going for.

[shroudb]

@mplindustries

i would assume a feat (a resource that you have plenty) should give you way, way less benefit than an actual race (a resource that you only pick one)

[Kazaan]

There are two main problems. First, both "Elf-Blood" and "Orc-Blood" use the same pertinent wording as "Racial Heritage":

Racial Heritage: <You> count as both <human> and <that race> for any effects related to race.

Elf/Orc Blood: <Half-elves> count as both <elves> and <humans> for any effect related to race.

Note that other than the pertinent variable terms for subject and object, the sentences are identical. Based on this, the two should function identically; anything allowed by one should be allowed by the other and anything disallowed by one should be disallowed by the other. This is a matter of parity and consistency; if they're not supposed to function the same, they need to be worded differently.

The second problem is the matter of Racial Subtypes. The ARG states the following:

ARG wrote:

Humanoid races have few or no supernatural or spell-like abilities, but most can speak and have well-developed societies. Humanoids are usually Small or Medium, unless they have the giant subtype, in which case they are Large. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu. If you are making a new humanoid race, you should either find an existing subtype to match or make a new one by using the name of the race as the subtype. If you are making a half-breed race, it should have the racial type of both parent races. For example, a half-elf has both the human and the elf subtypes. Subtypes are often important to qualify for other racial abilities and feats. If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites. A humanoid race has the following features.

This section does not reference the vague term "effects" but rather a more significant term, "prerequisites". Moreover, if you look at race builder, you'll see that "Elf-Blood" and "Orc-Blood" aren't even on the list of Racial Traits to pick from when building a custom race. They aren't even present in the Example Core Race builds that show how the core races would be put together with the race builder with relevant RP costs. The only thing the Half-Orc and Half-Elf entries have to reflect this ability is Humanoid(Orc/Elf, Human). So "Elf-Blood" and "Orc-Blood" are "plain English" stand-in terms for describing how the Humanoid type with multiple sub-types functions mechanically. If qualifying for prerequisites were limited to the specific named race (ie. qualifying for a Elf feat, race trait, or racial archetype required the specific Elf core race), then it severely hampers people making custom races with the race builder because, even though they might design a race with the type Humanoid(Elf), it wouldn't qualify as Elf for applicable prerequisites if Humanoid(Elf, Human) doesn't qualify for them. In that case, what's the purpose? What practical function does being a hybrid race serve? And why even bother with having a racial subtype if it is meaningless in qualifying for appropriate racial prerequisites?

Any meaningful resolution needs to address both of these issues.

[Cheapy]

I'm not so sure that the wording of an optional subsystem that's not really used by many should be what ends up deciding a ruling. That doesn't sound...sound. It can always be modified to reflect the intended rules, if those rules differ.

[blackbloodtroll]

I am not a fan of the Race Builder rules always being quoted in this discussion.

Those are optional rules, and really shouldn't have a place in discussions involving the core rules.

It is to me, much like quoting the Piecemeal Armor Rules, when discussing issues involving AC.

I don't find them relevant, and I feel as if others are making them relevant, only because it supports their position.

[Kazaan]

Piecemeal armor rules are an entirely optional subset of rules that don't step on any toes of existing rules, so to speak. There are no contradictions here. Race builder, however refers back to elements already in the core game; things like racial type and subtypes. It codifies a concept that, seemingly, applies to the game in general; not just when the race builder system is in use. Hell, it's important enough to be put in the PRD; it's not like we're dealing with a random splat book. I'm not basing this based on something taken from Inner Sea Guide. Even if the stated line were entirely irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that the two relevant FAQs are at odds and cannot both be correct without breaking laws of logic.

[blackbloodtroll]

Let's ignore the optional Race Builder rules for a moment.

Now, a simple changing in the wording of the Racial Heritage feat solves everything.

Of course, such a simple solution does not sit well with some, but it works quite well.

[Talonhawke]

Felt this might need to resurface a bit.

[blackbloodtroll]

Really, the dang Race Builder rules just screwed this.

Reword Racial Heritage, and be done with it.

Now, we have this garbage.

[Torger Miltenberger]

Jiggy wrote:

ASININE ROLLPLAY WRONGHEADED OBTUSE STRAWMAN BADWRONGFUN STORMWIND MMO GOALPOST-MOVING RAW GRANULAR INTENT 1,000-PAGE-RULEBOOK 4E FALLACY

Feel better? ;)

I caught all of that except granular intent. what does that mean?

- Torger

[Derek Vande Brake]

Kazaan wrote:

If qualifying for prerequisites were limited to the specific named race (ie. qualifying for a Elf feat, race trait, or racial archetype required the specific Elf core race), then it severely hampers people making custom races with the race builder because, even though they might design a race with the type Humanoid(Elf), it wouldn't qualify as Elf for applicable prerequisites if Humanoid(Elf, Human) doesn't qualify for them.

One imagines that if you are creating a custom race, you can also create custom feats and such for that race, so it isn't such a huge deal.

[Kazaan]

Derek Vande Brake wrote:

One imagines that if you are creating a custom race, you can also create custom feats and such for that race, so it isn't such a huge deal.

Yes, and "you can houserule anything" so what's the point of any rules question? It doesn't change the fact that there are a pair of contradictory FAQs on official record and does nothing to clarify the issue; just to obfuscate it.

[blackbloodtroll]

I treat the Race Builder rules like I treat the Custom Magic Item rules.

Guidelines.

Something that you don't reference for rules, unless for what they are being used for.

[Gauss]

With the other thread on this topic closed I am also FAQing this thread.

I think the problem is pretty simple. Both racial abilities and the feat state the same thing (with the plural missing from one) but the FAQs have different results. Thus, one of the FAQs must be in error or the wording needs to change for either the racial ability or the feat.

- Gauss

[Starbuck_II]

Kazaan wrote:

There are two main problems. First, both "Elf-Blood" and "Orc-Blood" use the same pertinent wording as "Racial Heritage":

Racial Heritage: <You> count as both <human> and <that race> for any effects related to race.

Elf/Orc Blood: <Half-elves> count as both <elves> and <humans> for any effect related to race.

I'm going to stop this here:

Racial Heritage says Effects.
Blood says Effect.

Now some people say Effects and Effect are the same word, but I say the plural matters.

[Jiggy]

Starbuck_II wrote:

I'm going to stop this here:

Racial Heritage says Effects.
Blood says Effect.

Now some people say Effects and Effect are the same word, but I say the plural matters.

Precedent to the contrary.

[Havoq]

Cheapy wrote:

Half-Elf or Half-Orc: Can a character of either of these races select human racial favored class options?
Half-Elf or Half-Orc: Can a character of either of these races select human racial archetypes (such as from Advanced Race Guide?
No and No.

Racial Heritage: Can a human with this feat take levels in an archetype that requires you to be of a specific race?
Yes.

Seems clear to me. Where's the confusion?

[Gauss]

I do not agree that the plural matters. This is not a situation where plurality is an issue. And, Jiggy's precedent is pretty compelling. :)

Unfortunately, this is not the only pair of FAQs that appear to contradict each other. It can and does happen and is certainly in need of resolution.

- Gauss

[Gauss]

Havoq, both use the same language but get different FAQ results. So, the language needs to be changed on one of them or the FAQ is incorrect on one of them.

- Gauss

[Havoq]

*shrugs* We could have endless FAQs if we wanted to try. I don't claim to be the smartest egg, but it seems clear enough to me.

How about - "Can an Oracle with misfortune use it on party memembers?", "Themselves?, do the have to see them?"

Or that guy on the Holy Champion OFFICIAL clarification....please?!? FAQ crusade. Like I said, endless.

I feel for Reynolds and Jacobs. The two deserve Sainthood.

[ciretose]

Cheapy wrote:

Well, I certainly didn't expect that low a level of vitriol.

You posted a well reasoned outline. What more is there to discuss pending an FAQ :)

[Xaratherus]

Havoq wrote:

*shrugs* We could have endless FAQs if we wanted to try. I don't claim to be the smartest egg, but it seems clear enough to me.

I agree that the answers are clear; I don't think anyone argues that.

The point is that the answers are contradictory. It's like saying something like this:

FAQ: What does 1+1 equal?
Answer: 2

FAQ: What does one plus one equal?
Answer: 3

Both of the answers are easily understood, but the fact that they functionally say the same thing but lead to different answers is an inconsistency.

[edit]
The only justification that I can see for this is that a human has to spend a feat in order to gain access - in which case if they're really wedded to the contradictory FAQs then they need to allow half-orcs and half-elves access to Racial Heritage through their human blood.

Otherwise, it's thematically silly that a human with very, very little orc blood can qualify for Scarred Witch Doctor, but a half-orc (who, by typical definition, has half of his blood from orcs) can't.

[Cheapy]

ciretose wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

Well, I certainly didn't expect that low a level of vitriol.

You posted a well reasoned outline. What more is there to discuss pending an FAQ :)

Never stopped us before!

And man, I need Sean to link to my FAQ-request threads more often. This thing just jumped.

[Umbranus]

Gauss wrote:

With the other thread on this topic closed I am also FAQing this thread.

I think the problem is pretty simple. Both racial abilities and the feat state the same thing (with the plural missing from one) but the FAQs have different results. Thus, one of the FAQs must be in error or the wording needs to change for either the racial ability or the feat.

- Gauss

+1

[Sah]

Havoq, what is the point of even having a FAQ system if we aren't going to use it? Especially when rules using the same language yield different results?

[Havoq]

Sah wrote:

Havoq, what is the point of even having a FAQ system if we aren't going to use it? Especially when rules using the same language yield different results?

No disrespect intended, especially in a thread with some of our brightest voices posting, but I disagree with them. I read the Racial Heritage Feat as allowing what otherwise wouldn’t be allowed – not as contradicting it.

[Gauss]

Havoq, could you explain to me how it makes sense for two rules to use the same language but have different results?

A game system cannot be built that way without a lot of confusion.

- Gauss

[Havoq]

Fair enough. I don't have an issue with it. Clearly, others do.
Look at the bright side - I am bumping for your cause. :P

[Cheapy]

While true...I think this one was at the top of the FAQ list before the flurry of activity the past few days...

[DrDeth]

Cheapy, I think I can determine the RAI here, but the RAW is fuzzy and you make reasoned points, so FAQed.

[Starbuck_II]

Xaratherus wrote:

Havoq wrote:

*shrugs* We could have endless FAQs if we wanted to try. I don't claim to be the smartest egg, but it seems clear enough to me.

I agree that the answers are clear; I don't think anyone argues that.

The point is that the answers are contradictory. It's like saying something like this:

FAQ: What does 1+1 equal?
Answer: 2

FAQ: What does one plus one equal?
Answer: 3

Both of the answers are easily understood, but the fact that they functionally say the same thing but lead to different answers is an inconsistency.

No, it was more like:

FAQ: What does 2+2 equal?
Answer: 4

FAQ: What does two plus two equal?
Answer: 5

How can these both be right Vector math!

[StreamOfTheSky]

Starbuck_II wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

There are two main problems. First, both "Elf-Blood" and "Orc-Blood" use the same pertinent wording as "Racial Heritage":

Racial Heritage: <You> count as both <human> and <that race> for any effects related to race.

Elf/Orc Blood: <Half-elves> count as both <elves> and <humans> for any effect related to race.

I'm going to stop this here:

Racial Heritage says Effects.
Blood says Effect.

Now some people say Effects and Effect are the same word, but I say the plural matters.

Any effect is a plural, or at least is potentially a plural. Otherwise, it could only ever cover one effect, or one effect at a time.

Your logic is poor.

[Kazaan]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Starbuck_II wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

There are two main problems. First, both "Elf-Blood" and "Orc-Blood" use the same pertinent wording as "Racial Heritage":

Racial Heritage: <You> count as both <human> and <that race> for any effects related to race.

Elf/Orc Blood: <Half-elves> count as both <elves> and <humans> for any effect related to race.

I'm going to stop this here:

Racial Heritage says Effects.
Blood says Effect.

Now some people say Effects and Effect are the same word, but I say the plural matters.

Any effect is a plural, or at least is potentially a plural. Otherwise, it could only ever cover one effect, or one effect at a time.

Your logic is poor.

Right. It could only work that way if, for example, as a Half-elf, you select on character creation a single effect to be subject to as both Human and Elf. Alternatively, the lack of pluralization is merely a stylistic choice by the writer and has no bearing on the discussion at hand. So we must either presume that it works in a completely counter-intuitive, "out-of-left-field" manner, or we presume that the simple lack of pluralization contributes as much to the passage as the developer's choice of after-dinner mint color. Occam's Razor FTW.

[Pathfinder Design Team]

Two FAQs updated: Core Rulebook FAQ on racial archetypes, Advanced Player's Guide FAQ on racial favored class options. Half-elves and half-orcs may select racial favored class options, archetypes, traits, and so on, as if they were a full member of both races (a half-elf can select elf and human rules elements, a half-orc can select human and orc rules elements).

This resolves a contradiction between Core Rulebook and Advanced Player's Guide FAQs that gave contradictory answers.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hurray! Thanks, PF Design Team.

[Quandary]

Well yay for that. I can handle FAQs that are stealth errata without saying so but when the exact same wording is inexplicably FAQd to mean different thing in different places that's when I get worried about whether 2+2=4 or not.

[Quandary]

So uh...
Who's picking up Paragon Surge as their next "Human" Favored Class Bonus Spell with their Half-Elf Sorceror?

[blahpers]

Good show, design team! Now we can get back to the IMPORTANT questions, like whether Druids can wild shape into tiny hippopotami.

: D

[Zark]

ciretose wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

Well, I certainly didn't expect that low a level of vitriol.

You posted a well reasoned outline. What more is there to discuss pending an FAQ :)

+1

Great OP Cheapy .

[glandis]

I hope it's not rude to point out that the FAQ does not say what the post says. Saying "may select [lots of stuff] and so on" and "as if they were a full member of both races" is very clear. Answering "yes" to "[can select] human racial favored class bonus" and "[can] select human racial archetypes" is not equivalent.

[Sean K Reynolds]

I'm going to update the FAQs to reflect the contents of the Pathfinder Design Team post above, just so it's clear.

[Kazaan]

glandis wrote:

I hope it's not rude to point out that the FAQ does not say what the post says. Saying "may select [lots of stuff] and so on" and "as if they were a full member of both races" is very clear. Answering "yes" to "[can select] human racial favored class bonus" and "[can] select human racial archetypes" is not equivalent.

The FAQ entries themselves are in regards to specific questions. The post describes the general design principal now in play from which the FAQ derives its reasoning and players can use as logic for other similar situations should they arise.

[Sean K Reynolds]

And, done. :)

[Mikaze]

WOO!!

Now humans, orcs, and elves can be a family again. :)

Thanks Jason and Sean!

[Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster]

Your a classy guy sean

[BigDTBone]

Starbuck_II wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

Havoq wrote:

*shrugs* We could have endless FAQs if we wanted to try. I don't claim to be the smartest egg, but it seems clear enough to me.

I agree that the answers are clear; I don't think anyone argues that.

The point is that the answers are contradictory. It's like saying something like this:

FAQ: What does 1+1 equal?
Answer: 2

FAQ: What does one plus one equal?
Answer: 3

Both of the answers are easily understood, but the fact that they functionally say the same thing but lead to different answers is an inconsistency.

No, it was more like:

FAQ: What does 2+2 equal?
Answer: 4

FAQ: What does two plus two equal?
Answer: 5

How can these both be right Vector math!

2+2=5, given extremely large values of 2.