OK, so teeth or a beak.Google "birds".I don't know if I've ever seen a toothless creature with a bite attack. Care to link one?Well, even a toothless creature can bite.
It's the mouth that make it happen.
Or mandibles (spiders, insects).
First point. The racial heritage feat language is clear. It lets the character take 'tail slap'.
Second point. Does the feat 'racial heritage' give the character a tail? That's unclear. Being partly Kobold could give a little tail to the character. It might not. This part of the feat chain isn't clear.
Third point. Do you have to have a tail to take 'tail slap'. RAW the feat has the prerequisite "+! attack, be a kobold". The implicit having a tail requirement is assumed in the "be a kobold" part. Clearly you have to have a tail to be a Tail Terror.
The way I read it, the alternate racial heritage lets you take any ridiculous hybrid feat you want, and it makes you some kind of tail having orc mutant. It doesn't explicitly say you grow a tail for being part kobold.
1 Be an Orc = no tail (no question)
2 Be an Orc with Kobold blood = tail? I think it could, many of the cross blood traits talk about "having characteristics of the parent race"
3 Be a Kobold = Tail (no question)
Why wouldn't the heritage feat grant you a tail? You are part kobold. Koblolds have tails.
First point. The racial heritage feat language is clear. It lets the character take 'tail slap'.
Second point. Does the feat 'racial heritage' give the character a tail? That's unclear. Being partly Kobold could give a little tail to the character. It might not. This part of the feat chain isn't clear.
Third point. Do you have to have a tail to take 'tail slap'. RAW the feat has the prerequisite "+! attack, be a kobold". The implicit having a tail requirement is assumed in the "be a kobold" part. Clearly you have to have a tail to be a Tail Terror.
The way I read it, the alternate racial heritage lets you take any ridiculous hybrid feat you want, and it makes you some kind of tail having orc mutant. It doesn't explicitly say you grow a tail for being part kobold.
1 Be an Orc = no tail (no question)
2 Be an Orc with Kobold blood = tail? I think it could, many of the cross blood traits talk about "having characteristics of the parent race"
3 Be a Kobold = Tail (no question)Personally I think the combination of a Half Orc with Kobald blood interesting, personally though I would allow the tail for the same reasons Half-Orcs can have tusks, the mixed blood generates unusual features.
I don't feel a tail to be overpowering, especially since he is only going to get a 1d4 (or even 1d6) attack using 2 feats. After all he could get the Bite attack (which is better) for only 1 feat.
Heck, I would probably just reskin the bite as a tail slap if he wanted it that bad.
EDIT: Not even a feat to get the bite attack, as it's a racial trait option.
I think the half orc in question already have the bite. And most likely also claws ( pehaps from barbarian beast tootem) and now want natural attack nr 4.
But i am guessing here;)
I keep thinking of someone taking Racial Heritage in the middle of a campaign. Do they just grow a tail?
I would think clearly the strict RAW is no tail, no tail slap. Yes you can take the feat but without a tail it is moot. Similar to taking Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) and then not having a bastard sword.
As to RAI, who can say. I don't read anything in the feats to suggest you would gain a tail from this combo. Racial Heritage mentions blood of non-human ancestors flows in your veins but says nothing about taking on the physical appearance of the non-human in question. Tail Terror says you can make a tail slap with your tail. I don't see where you get the tail. Clearly some disagreement here.
At a table, I'd probably allow it. I tend to play a little fast and loose with the rules (home game, not PFS) and it doesn't seem overpowered. I know pileing on natural attacks can get pretty powerful but I don't have a problem with PCs being really good at something into which they have put a lot of resources.
So really did not add a lot (or anything). The safest bet is no, obviously. But talk to your GM (assuming home game or at least regular game), any reasonable GM should allow their players to break some rules! (Smiley Emoticon)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the case of racial heritage... can someone explain to me, how a species that procreates with eggs, could ever mingle with a species that bears live young.... if you GM allows you to take heritage kobold, then he might as well rule that you are born with a tail, because clearly, neither of you care about any of the realities of it.
On the subjects of orc's and teeth feats, there is something that might help.
It was rules that an orc, with a racial bite attack from traits, could take the feat that gave him a bite attack because he qualifies for it. however, unless he grew a second mouth somewhere, the feat would do nothing. the same logic applies here. Unless you grow a tail, a tail attack does nothing, even if you have it, even if you qualify for it.
There is another point of consideration:
Racial Heritage (Mythic) is required to gain actual racial traits from your 'other half', such as darkvision.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I fall in the camp of "it's entirely possible to qualify for feats that don't do you any good." A barbarian can take Quicken Spell (no prereqs) but she's just wasted a feat slot.
Using that precedent, using Racial Heritage to meet the prerequisites for another feat doesn't guarantee that said feat has any utlity.
So I come down on the side of no tail=no tail slap.
A GM who wanted to be mean could allow the tail, but then rule that since "half-orc with tail" is so rare, no normal found armor will fit you and all your armor has to be custom made using the price increases for "odd shape." Have fun waiting 6 months for that smith to make your full plate.
First point. The racial heritage feat language is clear. It lets the character take 'tail slap'.
Second point. Does the feat 'racial heritage' give the character a tail? That's unclear. Being partly Kobold could give a little tail to the character. It might not. This part of the feat chain isn't clear.
Third point. Do you have to have a tail to take 'tail slap'. RAW the feat has the prerequisite "+! attack, be a kobold". The implicit having a tail requirement is assumed in the "be a kobold" part. Clearly you have to have a tail to be a Tail Terror.
The way I read it, the alternate racial heritage lets you take any ridiculous hybrid feat you want, and it makes you some kind of tail having orc mutant. It doesn't explicitly say you grow a tail for being part kobold.
1 Be an Orc = no tail (no question)
2 Be an Orc with Kobold blood = tail? I think it could, many of the cross blood traits talk about "having characteristics of the parent race"
3 Be a Kobold = Tail (no question)Personally I think the combination of a Half Orc with Kobald blood interesting, personally though I would allow the tail for the same reasons Half-Orcs can have tusks, the mixed blood generates unusual features.
I don't feel a tail to be overpowering, especially since he is only going to get a 1d4 (or even 1d6) attack using 2 feats. After all he could get the Bite attack (which is better) for only 1 feat.
Heck, I would probably just reskin the bite as a tail slap if he wanted it that bad.
EDIT: Not even a feat to get the bite attack, as it's a racial trait option.
Very much this ^. My thoughts exactly as i was reading. If you have a tail from kobold blood, which i feel due to lack of text for initial kobold blood feat, would be on your or DM. However, if you do NOT have a tail... you can not slap with it.
|
Just to muddy the waters, some humans in the real world are born with tails : Tail Wikipedia
Don't know about half-orcs though!
The thing is, kobold's don't "have" a "tail" in the sense of anything that grants a slapping ability. Tail Terror grants that. Tail Terror doesn't have anything under Special that says, "Must already have tail," it grants the ability to slap with your tail.
I don't think you can take Tail Terror and claim not to have a tail. But if you take the feat, you have a tail. I would not allow you to grow a tail mid campaign without some kind of magical effect occurring. But if you wanted to start with this feat, or you started with the kobold heritage feat and said you had a tail, all is good.
The thing is, kobold's don't "have" a "tail" in the sense of anything that grants a slapping ability. Tail Terror grants that. Tail Terror doesn't have anything under Special that says, "Must already have tail," it grants the ability to slap with your tail.
I don't think you can take Tail Terror and claim not to have a tail. But if you take the feat, you have a tail. I would not allow you to grow a tail mid campaign without some kind of magical effect occurring. But if you wanted to start with this feat, or you started with the kobold heritage feat and said you had a tail, all is good.
Martial Weapon Proficiency (longsword) doesn't have anything under "Special" that says, "Must already have a hand", but I'm confident that taking it doesn't make someone sprout a hand.
Note that feats and abilities that grant bite attacks require you to have sufficient heads to make such attacks per repeated developer clarification. Ditto claws and limbs.
The idea that your Racial Heritage (kobold) character lacks a tail is not a rule. If a character has Racial Heritage (kobold) and Tail Terror, obviously they do have a tail.
What you are saying is like saying someone with Dex 8 can't take Improved Initiative because they don't already have "quick reflexes."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rakshasa
The idea that your Racial Heritage (kobold) character lacks a tail is not a rule.
By your reasoning, the idea that my human fighter lacks six arms is not a rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By your reasoning, the idea that my human fighter lacks six arms is not a rule.Rakshasa
The idea that your Racial Heritage (kobold) character lacks a tail is not a rule.
If you can find a feat with the prerequisite "human" that says, "You use your six arms to attack," and the feat is called You Attack People With the Six Arms You Have, then I have absolutely no problem with saying your human has six arms.
If you can find a feat with the prerequisite, "Have six arms," then your standard human wouldn't qualify.
If you can find a feat that has as a prerequisite, "Has a tail," then a normal human clearly cannot take it until they acquire a tail in some way.
But Tail Terror has no such prerequisite. Having the feat Tail Terror is synonymous with having a tail with which to attack.
Where do you draw the line? I think you draw it between the RAW on one side, and non-rules on the other. Racial Heritage says you qualify. Tail Terror says you gain a tail attack. The end. The prerequisite of having a tail trait in place is completely made up; Tail Terror says you attack people with your tail. So, you have one.
Racial Heritage (kobold) doesn't make you Small. But Tail Terror does give you a tail attack. That's the RAW. If you would prefer, as GM, not to have tailed half-orcs slapping people, that's your prerogative. But that's not the RAW.
RAW, it gives you a tail attack, but it does not give you a tail, just as a feat that gives you a bite attack does not give you a head--you must already have one. You have no support at all from RAW.
Why wouldn't the heritage feat grant you a tail? You are part kobold. Koblolds have tails.Same reason the Tusked trait doesn't grant you a mouth?
Difference being that every PC race has a mouth, but not every PC race has a tail.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where do you draw the line? I think you draw it between the RAW on one side, and non-rules on the other. Racial Heritage says you qualify. Tail Terror says you gain a tail attack. The end. The prerequisite of having a tail trait in place is completely made up; Tail Terror says you attack people with your tail. So, you have one.
Racial Heritage (kobold) doesn't make you Small. But Tail Terror does give you a tail attack. That's the RAW. If you would prefer, as GM, not to have tailed half-orcs slapping people, that's your prerogative. But that's not the RAW.
So by the same token, one would take the Gnome feat to change out his racial spells, even though he doesn't actually have any to begin with?
Unless your an Alchemist that grew a tail or something else like that, this feat for the Half Orc does not give you a tail to slap around with. If you had a tail and took the feat, you would, but you don't have a tail, so you don't.
Perhaps the Half Orc can get a mechanical tail made, one that is a part of the fancy armor he has. He would then be able to make use of the feat.
RAW, it gives you a tail attack, but it does not give you a tail, just as a feat that gives you a bite attack does not give you a head--you must already have one. You have no support at all from RAW.
So for you all they'd need is a hat of disguise right? Take a form with a tail and the feat would allow an attack? Or the character is a druid and changes into an animal with a tail? LOL Killer bunny with a fluffy puff ball tail of doom!
I think there was some one asking for a FAQ. About if you could get a tail by going that way or if the heritage feat wouldent give you a tail.
But if your GM is good with your half orc getting a tail then i think you should get a medium one. But by RAW you get a secondary natural attack doing 1d4.
To those saying it stays d4 no matter the size, would a druid changed into a Diminutive mouse would still have a tail slap of 1d4?
Myself, I'd say if you spent 2 feats to get the attack you shouldn't have to jump through any more hoops. Let the damage shift with size. RAW is iffy enough that it seems useless to try to argue it one way or the other.
A hat of disguise does not grant you additional appendages. It only makes you look like something else.
A greater hat of disguise...hmm. Alter self is a polymorph, and that allows use of the form's natural attacks, so I'd tentatively say yes.
It isn't about whether you "paid enough" in feats. It's simply what the rules provide for. It really doesn't matter to me from a balance perspective; I don't care much about that sort of thing.
|
|
I think there was some one asking for a FAQ. About if you could get a tail by going that way or if the heritage feat wouldent give you a tail.
But if your GM is good with your half orc getting a tail then i think you should get a medium one. But by RAW you get a secondary natural attack doing 1d4.To those saying it stays d4 no matter the size, would a druid changed into a Diminutive mouse would still have a tail slap of 1d4?
Myself, I'd say if you spent 2 feats to get the attack you shouldn't have to jump through any more hoops. Let the damage shift with size. RAW is iffy enough that it seems useless to try to argue it one way or the other.
I believe the point was that a secondary attack by the Med creature would make the damage 1d4, but I could be wrong.
So by the same token, one would take the Gnome feat to change out his racial spells, even though he doesn't actually have any to begin with?
He could, although unless he had the exact same spells, it would be useless.
Tail Terror still works, though.
A hat of disguise does not grant you additional appendages. It only makes you look like something else.
A greater hat of disguise...hmm. Alter self is a polymorph, and that allows use of the form's natural attacks, so I'd tentatively say yes.
It isn't about whether you "paid enough" in feats. It's simply what the rules provide for. It really doesn't matter to me from a balance perspective; I don't care much about that sort of thing.
I'd meant the greater one.
Since it is FAR from clear cut what the RAW is, I went with "paid enough" to figure out what to do. I find it beyond silly that some could say that it's all about the tail being there before the feat is taken. As I pointed out, you end up with someone with a goat or bunny tail being able to use it even though it's only a few inches long. A creature growing a tail by taking the feat makes much more sense.
So if it's RAW, this is one of those 'ask your DM because it's not clear". If it's on that I'd do, I'd say sure, why not.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a fairly large spectrum between "has no visible evidence whatsoever" and "has an entire extra appendage like a tail." A character with Racial Heritage (kobold) could easily have reptilian eyes or slightly scaled skin or other such markings. If you ask where we draw the line, I think drawing the line before granting additional limbs is perfectly reasonable. Cosmetic changes yes, added appendages no.
Saying "either you have a tail or absolutely no evidence of kobold heritage" is a false dichotomy.
Just because you meet the prereqs for a feat does not mean the feat has utility for you. Examples abound in the Core Rulebook alone. Taking Extend Spell on your barbarian doesn't suddenly grant spellcasting. Nor does taking Combat Casting. A fighter who takes Defensive Combat Training derives no benefit. You can take Agile Maneuvers or Weapon Finesse when your Dex is lower than your Str. And so forth. This just makes them poor feat choices, like taking a feat that improves your tail when you don't have one.
If i am a Half-Orc with this feat combo at level 3 is my Tail Slap a D4 as per the RAW or is it D6 as i am a medium sized creature and the natural attack would size up with me? Likewise, if i continue dragoning it up with feats and i get Draconic Paragon does my fly speed or maneuverability change at all? i think its yes to the first and no to the second since its only base speed that is normally affected by size. Some one poke holes in my thinking?
FYI, its all for a Freebooter, Natural Combat style, Toothy, Horc Ranger concept. Descended from a long line of adventurous adventurers.
@ Torbyne -- I'm curious, why don't you ask your GM to let you make up a new race using the ARG?
You could make a medium-sized humanoid (reptilian) and specifically include bite, claws and a tail and call them Greater Kobolds. They could be a throwback, or perhaps just have more draconic blood in them, making them larger and more powerful.
Just a suggestion.
Cheers!
There's a fairly large spectrum between "has no visible evidence whatsoever" and "has an entire extra appendage like a tail." A character with Racial Heritage (kobold) could easily have reptilian eyes or slightly scaled skin or other such markings. If you ask where we draw the line, I think drawing the line before granting additional limbs is perfectly reasonable. Cosmetic changes yes, added appendages no.
That's a very reasonable idea, but it's not a rule.
Bottom line: Racial Heritage gives you everything you need to qualify for Tail Terror, and Tail Terror gives you everything you need to make an attack with your tail. Tail Terror only doesn't work if you lack a tail; that a human with Racial Heritage (kobold) and the feat Tail Terror lacks a tail is just a presumption on your part. Humans don't normally have tails, but guess what? They aren't normally part kobold, either. I see zero difference between cosmetic "yellow eyes" and a cosmetic tail. I see nothing about the combination of feats Racial Heritage and Tail Terror that suggests you don't have a functional tail. Probably most humans with Racial Heritage (kobold) don't have tails, but the ones with Tail Terror obviously do. The feat is not Martial Weapon Proficiency (tail). The feat itself grants you the tail attack. A human with Racial Heritage (kobold) who doesn't have a tail fails to qualify for Tail Terror in the exact same way that a kobold who lacks a tail (freak trapmaking accident!) fails to qualify; because the player has decided their character is tail-less.