Okay, so, bear with me a moment, 'cause this is kinda hilarious.
You're a Human. Or a Half-Elf, Half-Orc, or Scion Of Humanity Aasimar.
You therefore qualify to take the feat, Racial Heritage.
Good so far.
You choose Kobold, because Kobold is a Humanoid racial type.
Odd, but legal.
You decided to take Tail Terror.
Wait, wut.
See, Tail Terror's Requirements are:
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Notice the distinct lack of "Tail" in the requirements.
So, since you PROBABLY don't have a tail as a human or half-human, would you guys call this kosher? Like, would you just allow the player that walks up to you with this to use their leg in a tail-like manner, or maybe get Clockwork Prosthetic Tail, or what?
I just think it's absolutely hilarious that the requirements for Tail Terror don't include the requirement of you, y'know... HAVING A TAIL.
I tried to search for this, but I never found anything - do you have a link?
you might not need a tail to take the feat, but you do need a tail to utilise it. Says right there in the rules text "with your tail".
edit: removed unnecessary comment, sorry
just say its a hipcheck and carry on.
Actually, Stephen, a tail is not in the prerequisites. Being a kobold is. Thus you can take the feat by RAW (though, since you've weighed in this is clearly not RAI). If you wish to make it more air-tight, please change the prerequisites.Yes, you can take the feat, but it does no good, unless you have a tail. If you are human (no tail) and take the feat, there are ways in which you could gain a tail (including GM fiat) get a tail, hence it is not part of the prerequisites.
As a matter of design principle, I'm not sympathetic to making rules always as air-tight as you suggest. While the game may not seem to act like it sometimes, the rule of Pathfinder are not a strict code. Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicate circumstance; a narrative, adjudicated and can be played with by a GM both to tell her tale and to create fun.
Logic will eventually have to suffice. If the feat allows you to do something with your tail, and you have no tail, the assumption that it grants you a tail is stretching. At the same time any home GM can easily come in and say that you have a tail, if it fits your character concept and her story.
As some of you have pointed out, PFS has to take a harder tact on this, and I agree. But I believe they have the tools to do so. If you are a human, who takes the Racial Heritage, you can take the feat, but it does not grant you anything if you don't have a tail. Humans do not have tails, ergo, your tail is nonexistent and can't be augment. In other words it is foolish to take the feat expecting it allows you to grow a tail. Neither feat says you grow a tail.
In other words, I have no idea how rules as written say you grow a tail. That seems purely outside the rules as written. The same could be said for a magic item of feat that augments darkvision. If it said your darkvision improves by 20 feet, but you don't have darkvision that does not mean that it grants you darkvision of 20 feet, because you cannot improve what you don't have. It could be possible (due to the prerequisites or the available item slot) to take the feat or wear the item. It is even possible with some of racial trait swaps to take an item designed to augment the core traits or morphology of the race, but since you have swapped out of that option, it is possible for you to take it, but for you it does nothing. It is also possible though some strange item, encounter, or monster, or GM fiat to lose a tail if you were a kobold, but that doesn't mean the act of having this feat would allow you to regrow such a tail.
In summary, when we write the rules, we do intend a level of reason and even common sense. We have to, because instead of making things "air-tight." Personally I believe, and have always believed, that one of the benefits of tabletop RPGs is to allow the mind and the imagination to breathe. Often we don't feel we need to codify such things in rules, because the logic is (we suppose) easily apprehended by the mind and the common sense of it is pleasing to the imagination.
I find it amusing that you post a quote from Stephen Radney-MacFarland when he's the person that's said such quotes are unofficial. I could be used for RAI I guess.
To chbgraphicarts: Even if you follow Stephen Radney-MacFarland's post, nothing says you can't start off having a tail. Aasimar comes right out and have a tail on their chart. Humans with Distant Heritages say "When humans manifest a trace of non-human blood, the results are never entirely predictable, but any given heritage is most often made apparent by one or two distinctive qualities, either physical." Physical ones include wings, hooves ect. Tails seem acceptable.
Also, real life humans can have tails as the result of a rare recessive gene. The key here is that the feat doesn't give you a tail so make sure your character has one (or can get one like alter self) if you plan to take the feat.
Also, real life humans can have tails as the result of a rare recessive gene. The key here is that the feat doesn't give you a tail so make sure your character has one (or can get one like alter self) if you plan to take the feat.
Isn't that basically what Stephen Radney-MacFarland just said? If your race doesn't normally have a tail, then ask your GM if you want one naturally, or do something in game to gain one.
Isn't that basically what Stephen Radney-MacFarland just said? If your race doesn't normally have a tail, then ask your GM if you want one naturally, or do something in game to gain one.Also, real life humans can have tails as the result of a rare recessive gene. The key here is that the feat doesn't give you a tail so make sure your character has one (or can get one like alter self) if you plan to take the feat.
Not really, he's mostly saying no tails for you unless DM fiat. "If you are a human, who takes the Racial Heritage, you can take the feat, but it does not grant you anything if you don't have a tail. Humans do not have tails, ergo, your tail is nonexistent and can't be augment." He seems to be saying the opposite. "Humans don't have tails" is what he said and that isn't 100% true in real life.
Second, the Bastards of Golarion also seem to disagree as having a trace of non-human blood DOES allow for some non-human traits. He however thinks that having a non-human heritage doesn't allow it.
Racial Heritage: "The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins."
Isn't that basically what Stephen Radney-MacFarland just said? If your race doesn't normally have a tail, then ask your GM if you want one naturally, or do something in game to gain one.Also, real life humans can have tails as the result of a rare recessive gene. The key here is that the feat doesn't give you a tail so make sure your character has one (or can get one like alter self) if you plan to take the feat.
Not really, he's mostly saying no tails for you unless DM fiat. "If you are a human, who takes the Racial Heritage, you can take the feat, but it does not grant you anything if you don't have a tail. Humans do not have tails, ergo, your tail is nonexistent and can't be augment." He seems to be saying the opposite. "Humans don't have tails" is what he said and that isn't 100% true in real life.
Second, the Bastards of Golarion also seem to disagree as having a trace of non-human blood DOES allow for some non-human traits. He however thinks that having a non-human heritage doesn't allow it.
Racial Heritage: "The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins."
His post boils down to, "The feat doesn't give you a tail. If your GM wants to give you one in a home game, that's fine. RAW, you do not have one so the feat does nothing for you."
And I'm aware of the requirements for an "official response". I quoted this because it was the deciding Developer commentary in a 1,500 post thread about whether Tail Terror gives you a tail if your race doesn't already have one. What you bring up "humans can have tails sometimes" was discussed at length in that thread. This was the post addressing that, as well.
Greater Monkey Belt? So now that you have a tail, can you attack with it?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I find it amusing that you post a quote from Stephen Radney-MacFarland when he's the person that's said such quotes are unofficial.
He said that out of frustration, when he clarified something and the thread went into rage mode of ~ if you want it to be like that change the rules. ~ If the thread hadn't raged against the machine, he wouldn't have said ~ it is now all unofficial, happy? ~
The subject is the gamer equivalent of Kim Kardashian and her 'break the internet'.
Eh...the wording of it matches that of Vestigial Arms/Tentacles, which implies that you cannot make extra natural attacks with it even if you get them from other sources. I quite dislike that portion of the Vestigial Arm ruling.
It should work if you exchange one of your iterative unarmed strikes for the tail attack, though. But it's not really worth the effort.
The tail wouldn't grant the extra attack, the tail terror feat is what would grant it. The tail just gives you a way to access the tail attack it grants.
I find it amusing that you post a quote from Stephen Radney-MacFarland when he's the person that's said such quotes are unofficial.He said that out of frustration, when he clarified something and the thread went into rage mode of ~ if you want it to be like that change the rules. ~ If the thread hadn't raged against the machine, he wouldn't have said ~ it is now all unofficial, happy? ~
He made a VERY good point, that you shouldn't have to comb every post to dig up every DEV post to figure out the rules. THAT'S why FAQ/errata is what's official. That and you'd often end up with contradictory quotes with differing positions sometimes from the same DEV. It just makes sense to have only one source for official info instead of claiming it to be a ragequit out of frustration.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
He made a VERY good point, that you shouldn't have to comb every post
Except we both know they don't post nearly enough FAQ/Errata and most of the posters here are rigid in their stance of "it works this way." So in rules debates, it is good to know how the rules should be interpreted. You can solve rules debates with stray posts. But since he post that, we are back to he said/she said for days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to go on record as stating that, if a player approached me with this, with a Two-Weapon Fighter, and they said they wanted to wield two Katanas and a Razored Tail Attachment in their mouth, I would totally allow this.