Amdillae's page

Originally posted this in the rule question section, but realise that I Iggy be better suited to here.

Do rogue talents that apply to sneak attack, like Distracing Attack(https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/pa izo-rogue-talents/distracting-attack-ex ) orUnchained Rogue’s debilitating injury(https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/ROGUE-unchained/# TOC-Debilitating-Injury-Ex- ) apply to the canrnivalist(https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes /paizo-rogue-archetypes/carnivalist/ ) familiar’s sneak attack?

The part that has be a bit confused that familiar “deal sneak attack damage as appropriate.” Appropriate seems a bit ambiguous for comfort.

Most of the rogue talents and debilitating injury have the opening text “ A rogue with this talent” and debilitating injury has “ whenever a rogue deals sneak attack ”. But does the as appropriate mean these apply to the familiar?

I think the answer is no RAW but I am not sure for RAI as it would have significant increase in possibilities for the archetype. Since this is generally thought he be a weak archetype overall would it be game breaking to allow the familiar to benefit from these abilities?

Thanks avr, I might need to cross post this to general discussion to see if allowing the abilities to apply would break anything.

Do rogue talents that apply to sneak attack, like Distracing Attack(https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/pa izo-rogue-talents/distracting-attack-ex ) orUnchained Rogue’s debilitating injury(https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/ROGUE-unchained/# TOC-Debilitating-Injury-Ex- ) apply to the canrnivalist(https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes /paizo-rogue-archetypes/carnivalist/ ) familiar’s sneak attack?

The part that has be a bit confused that familiar “deal sneak attack damage as appropriate.” Appropriate seems a bit ambiguous for comfort.

Most of the rogue talents and debilitating injury have the opening text “ A rogue with this talent” and debilitating injury has “ whenever a rogue deals sneak attack ”. But does the as appropriate mean these apply to the familiar?

I think the answer is no RAW for the following reasons but I am not sure for RAI as it would have significant increase in possibilities for the archetype.

Amdillae wrote:

I am more thank happy to defer to the person who wrote the book on kitsune, thanks.

I wrote a bunch of articles and a PDF, but I didn't write the Fox Shape feat. Mine is as much an opinion as anyone else's in this thread. ;-)

True, but you do have a very good knowledge of underlying kitsune physiology, which it one of the biggest factors to answering this question.

1) You don't lose the template.

2) The template isn't applied to the fox, its applied to you. So you use the standard statistics for a fox. (Being Tiny and all.) This does mean that by default, the rules state that a Child kitsune and an Adult kitsune using Fox Shape would end up the same size as a fox.

We can read this in a few different ways.
2a) The fox you change into roughly has your specific appearance and liveliness (remember, you still have your ability score modifiers for being young), but kitsune in general don't have as much control over the form they take as a fox.

2b) Because foxes age so much more rapidly than kitsune do (it takes a fox roughly a year to grow from infancy to biological adulthood, compared to 14–15 years for a kitsune), the form itself is agnostic of the kitsune's age.

2c) A Child kitsune's fox form *is* smaller and younger-looking than an Adult kitsune's fox form, but the size different isn't substantial enough to actually have the fox be a different size category.

Ultimately, you should pick the one that works best for your character and your GM's world, but as written Fox Shape would override the size change from the young creature template unless your GM specifically allowed your Fox Shape to transform you into a fox who also had the young creature template.

PS. Glad to see so many people are enjoying Blood of the Beast!

I am more thank happy to defer to the person who wrote the book on kitsune, thanks.

Thanks for the advise all, it looks like the general consensus is that as the rules are written the young template would not carry to the alternative forms. However in practice having naturally occurring alternative forms matching the age of the base form should be a reasonable assumption.

First post so please let me know if this needs to be moved. How would a kitsune with the young template (decrease the creatures size by one) appear using either the change shape racial trait or the fox shape feat.

The section that is a bit confusing is this part of the change shape ability:

A kitsune can assume the appearance of a specific single human form of the same sex. The kitsune always takes this specific form when she uses this ability.

The question is if in this case the traits of the template might also carry over to the alternative form since it is specific to this particular kitsune, bypassing the normal polymorphing restrictions.

It would seem rather strange thematically for the naturally occurring alternative form of a kitsune that appears to be a child and small size to morph into a 20 something adult human of medium size.

The fox shape feat cause further issue:

You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. .... This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.

There appears to be 4 possible ways to interpret this ability for a child kitsune:

a) The template does not carry across for Fox Shape, change into an adult fox as described
b) Turn into a fox of diminutive size but only obtain the ability modifiers outlined in Beast Shape II for a tiny creature
c)Turn into a fox of diminutive size and obtain the ability modifiers outlined in Beast Shape III for a diminutive creature, overriding the restriction in the feat
d)The template should carry across to the fox shape but can not work because Beast Shape II does not allow for transformation into diminutive creatures

I would lean towards a) or b) being correct but can also see justification for c).

I don't have a particular campaign I am working with so I can't consult the GM and wanted some advice.