Thinker's page

Is there any particular reason why your so opposed to selecting a fiendish lineage feat?

Slip sideways works with any of Grimspawn (NE daemons), Pitborn (CE demons), or Hellspawn (LE devils).

Without selecting one of these, your Nephilim doesn't have a clear distinction of being a "tiefling" it's a "planar scion" of indeterminate origin manifesting no real features/traits.

If anything, I think there's an argument to be made that you should get one of the lineage feats (for free) and be required to select one.

If things weren't written as they are, you could end up with Celestial nephilim taking something that was meant for evil descended characters.

Yes, there's a reason - maybe more than one - why I oppose this idea so much.

First and foremost, I dislike the tropes depicted in the lineages. A devil might be many other things besides a deceptive lawyer. A demon might be something other than a brute and so on. I like to create my characters own backstory based on what I think is the right fiendish ancestry for my Tiefling who can't even call himself that anymore.

My character has plenty of fiendish traits. Only they aren't based on sny lame lineage feat.

I think that you should be able to choose whether your ancestry is fiendish based or not without the need to spend your precious ancestry feat on something you don't like and previously could easily avoid.

Or to put it simply, the old feats and legacy content are not gone if it goes by another name. There's the Remastered "Slip Sideways" which has the Nephelim trait and requires a lineage feat. Then there's "Fiend's Door" which as the Tiefling trait. As your character is a Tiefling, you still would have the "Fiend's Door" feat. There is no conversion needed in this situation.

Thank you Baarogue and Ruzza for your answers. Both your answers are in line with my own judgement of the matter. However, what really bothers me is that there are no anonymous fiendish lineage feat (that gives you dark vision) that slso allows you to pick the Step Sideways feat... in case you don't use the Legacy version.

Also I know that Pathbuilder isn't the game but it IS still the most popular characterbuilder out there. And a Remastered solution should imo have been made available from the get go. And the lack of this bothers me since now you can't - easily - create a fiendish nephilim that may gain Side Step.

But this is just my humble 5 cents worth of opinion.

A few years ago I made a Tiefling character that now has the 13rd level Fiend's Door ancestry feat (Legacy).

But when the new Remastered rules came out we decided to transition to what everyone apparently calls 'a large update - not a new version' (I am of another opinion but whatever..)

I recently decided to convert my build in Pathbuilder to Remastered rules and became aware of a gatekeeping and imo unnecessary ruleschange. Fiend's Door - now renamed Slip Sideways - now has the prerequisite of any fiendish lineage feat being chosen at level 1.

Why? Tieflings (Fiendish Nephilim if you prefer) used to be vague in their lineage. You didn't have to choose a Hell lawyer type like Hellspawn or any other lineage just to be Fiendish. And Fiend's Door was still available to you. Now, just because Nephilim may origin from both the Pit and Heaven and anywhere in between, you now have to spend your 1st level ancestry in a particular way to qualify for Fiend's Door/Step Sideways?

How do I make my character 'Fiendish' other than by choosing a lineage feat - which I refuse to do?

My GM have no problem with me having the old Fiend's Door feat, but I want a more general solution that works with RAW/RAI.

Sorry for the rant.

Cool Tiefling wrote:

I know that this post is not a new one but I would like to ask you all for a further clarification, please.

What will happen after a 4th level character of 40 hp - who gets drained 2, resulting in a new total of 32/32 hp - takes a long rest?

In which order do I reinstate his regained hit points gained from his rest, and his decrease in the Drained condition level?

Does this happen simultaneously of one after the other?

in the long run it shouldnt make that much difference since even if you pur rested hp 1st and restore condition second (resulting in fewer than max hp) you can always spend 10mins patching those hp up while the rest of the party does their daily prep.

but imo, since there is already a rule for start/end of turn effects that happen simultaneously (that rule being that the player can decide the order of operations of stuff happenning simultaneously) I would simply extend that to the described situation.

effectively, allow the player to choose the order of operation for stuff happening in the same exact "instance".

Thanks for your time to write me a reply.

My concern isn't really whether it makes any difference or not. But regaining hp always does happen before the decreasing of the Drained condition when using Foundry to host our weekly game. And then a guy on Reddit asked this exact question which prompted me to ask in here.

As it poses no problem in my own game I am just after getting the RAW explanation just to ease my curiosity and to help that guy on Reddit.

Cheers

As with PF1e Barbarians and other temporary Constitution adjustments, it might help to look at these numbers from a different angle:

• a) Label your max HP as 'Maximum Damage I Can Take' and change this value when you are drained or your Constitution score otherwise changes.
• b) Instead of tracking your remaining HP, track the actual damage you have taken.
• As long as 'a' is larger than 'b', you are fine...

Thanks for your reply, but it doesn't really concern me that much. My sole question was in regards to healing hit points together with a decrease of the Drained condition.

But ty anyway ;-)

I know that this post is not a new one but I would like to ask you all for a further clarification, please.

What will happen after a 4th level character of 40 hp - who gets drained 2, resulting in a new total of 32/32 hp - takes a long rest?

In which order do I reinstate his regained hit points gained from his rest, and his decrease in the Drained condition level?

Does this happen simultaneously of one after the other?

Thank you all for your input. I think that we may call this a wrap since my GM has listened and reconsidered.

Cheers :-D

You guys are cracking me up... RFLMAO :-D

I still believe that the phrasing of the rules regarding composite bows could be better and more precise.

But I also realize that nothing more can be said as of now.

Thanks to you all for taking your time to try to help. And pardon me for sometimes writing in a way that may seem "not cool" or offending. No offence was ever meant.

You won't get an "official ruling" because the rule is clear. Composite shortbows are shortbows unless something says EXPLICITLY that they aren't.

Rogue DOES NOT explicitly exclude composite shortbows, therefore they are included.

Your parsing of the word "ability" and "proficiency" aren't supported by the book as written.

You can disagree as to the interpretation of the words, but that is what the words on the page say.

Remember, it is RAW that if a reading of a rule doesn't make sense or results in a problematic situation, the rule should not be read that way.

As long as people like my GM reads the rules and interprets these rules in any way other than what you do, then the rules isn't clear at all.

I'd say that the thing written in the Composite Shortbow entry is pretty much RAW.

And I would say that it isn't. Please read my earlier posts to get my points.

Had the text regarding Composite bows been phrased like it was in 1st edition then there wouldn't have been any doubts, but that isn't the case.

'Abilities' is very vaguely defined. Some people in this thread seems to believe that anything written in CRB must be an ability. I strongly disagree. Whatever you possess in the way of proficiencies defines the limits of your weapon skills. Nothing else. And since Rougues are having no proficiency in Martial Weapons or Comp. Shortbow - and since some feats clearly lists normal war bows together with their composite counterparts then it seems clear to me that those weapons are meant to require separate proficiencies.

Unless we get an official ruling from somewhere else than the description of bows.

Cool Tiefling wrote:

I would LOVE to be able to apply common sense but we are playing RAW.

I love this sentence. If I have the choice between a sensible rule and an illogical one, I'll choose the illogical one as RAW is specifically designed to screw the gaming experience.

And then, I'll proudly tell everyone that I play RAW, as if others were playing something else (if you know where to find RANW, I'm interested).

Everyone plays RAW, otherwise they play another game.
And common sense has a lot to do with RAW. In general, the rules try to be sensible. That's why you roll a Fortitude save against poison and a Will save against mind affecting spells and not the other way around. Because illogical rules reduce the gaming experience.

So, the only question is: Would you enforce a reading screwing the gaming experience when you have far enough leeway to apply a sensible one?

Why don't you read my OP or alternately my last post completely?

I am NOT the GM! Get it? So my whole point of asking for help is to try to find unobjectionable rules that clarify the matter and which is not based on subjective interpretations.

I present you with the arguments that I'm facing. Not because I am against a sensible ruling but because my GM is playing by the rules as written.

Not everybody is playing with RAW. Somebody is playing with RAI - Rules as Intended. The RAW and RAI terms are very commonly used in this Forum so please - pretty please - stop patronizing me.

Cool Tiefling wrote:

He chooses to disregard my example of rules writing that goes against what he believes - and which were true in D&D 3.5/PF1 - but still tells me that I'm wrong when RAW is considered. That is a little hilarious in my view.

Maybe apply to his Common Sense?

A composite shortbow is, in essence, just a more high-tech version of a regular shortbow, its advanced technology allowing it to make use of an archer's greater strength. That is all. It still very much operates as any shortbow in its basic principle: Convert your muscle strength into kinetic energy to propel a projectile. The composite bow just does it better.

Look at this: https://tinyurl.com/uxy6zx55

It's a lance, and it was used in 1914. It is very much a very long, pointy stick, to be used by a mounted soldier to poke his enemies with. It's advantage over a medieval, wooden variant is that it might actually survive a few pokes without breaking off.

Now the question is: Would a medieval knight, proficient in the weapons of war and the joust also be able to wield this 1914 steel lance proficiently? If not, why not?

Same question applies to the composite shortbow really. Maybe that helps.

I would LOVE to be able to apply common sense but we are playing RAW.

But even if RAI should be used then what you're saying wouldn't apply.

1. A composite bow is a martial weapon and needs the wielder to be either proficient in martial weapons or in the specific type of bow. My GM argues that the Shortbow and Composite Shortbow - even while similar - requires two dfferent proficiencies. I disagree, btw., but I'm not the GM.

2. The game already requires you to possess proficiency in every other weapon that you wield - either by group (simple weapons, martial weapons, etc.) or by individual type (like Short Sword and Short Bow - not just any sword or bow).

So I need official clear ruling on this. Like an official generated character - a rogue preferably - that is equipped with a Composite Shortbow.

Cool Tiefling wrote:

First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:

You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.

What would be the point of listing all bow versions here if composite bows are treated as non-composite versions in the rules?

You might be onto something.

The Hobgoblin Weapon Familiarity also lists separately shortbow and composite shortbow. Food for thought.

Thanks for putting in your thoughts here, Raven Black.

I was aware of the Hobgoblin rule as well. And exactly this together with the Elven Weapon Familiarity rule is the reason why I dare to believe that I'm right and Greystone (apparently together with many more) is wrong.

He chooses to disregard my example of rules writing that goes against what he believes - and which were true in D&D 3.5/PF1 - but still tells me that I'm wrong when RAW is considered. That is a little hilarious in my view.

Cool Tiefling wrote:

Third, we believe that the rules written for composite bows are meant to be applied to class features, like spells, champion and cleric weapons, etc.

Initial Proficiencies is listed under Class Features: as such, if you believe it applies to class features, you then believe it applies to weapon proficiencies...

"Initial Proficiencies
At 1st level, you gain a number of proficiencies that represent your basic training. These proficiencies are noted at the start of this class."

Cool Tiefling wrote:

Second, the following is listed for every character class:

INITIAL PROFICIENCIES
At 1st level, you gain the listed proficiency ranks in the following statistics. You are untrained in anything not listed unless you gain a better proficiency rank in some other way.

"Any time an ability is specifically restricted to a shortbow, it also applies to composite shortbows unless otherwise stated" would seem to quite clearly be a way to "gain a better proficiency rank in some other way" as Initial Proficiencies is an ability that "is specifically restricted to a shortbow".

Cool Tiefling wrote:

First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:

You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.

There are a LOT of places in the rules where you get things stated that don't have to be. It might just be redundancy or a different person writing it that wanted to spell it out or any number of other reasons. It's frustrating tht it happens but it happens.

Cool Tiefling wrote:

Fourth. A composite bow is listed as a martial weapon and therefore may be used by only those proficient in martial weapons or having gained the weapon skill from some other source.

Wouldn't "gain a better proficiency rank in some other way" as Initial Proficiencies is an ability that "is specifically restricted to a shortbow" mean gaining the proficiency?

Now if you and our DM wish to...

Sorry, but I absolutely think that you are mistanken.

I thank you all for clarifying my problem. The last link was just what I needed. Thank you very much. :-)

And then it turned out that this issue hasn't at all been resolved in any satisfactory manner.

After having consulted with my GM we are both in agreement that being trained in a short bow doesn't in any way makes you proficient with a composite shortbow.

This is based on several rules.

First, the Elven Weapon Familiarity ancestry Feat states:
You favor bows and other elegant weapons. You are trained with longbows, composite longbows, longswords, rapiers, shortbows, and composite shortbows.

What would be the point of listing all bow versions here if composite bows are treated as non-composite versions in the rules?

Second, the following is listed for every character class:
INITIAL PROFICIENCIES
At 1st level, you gain the listed proficiency ranks in the following statistics. You are untrained in anything not listed unless you gain a better proficiency rank in some other way.

Fourth. A composite bow is listed as a martial weapon and therefore may be used by only those proficient in martial weapons or having gained the weapon skill from some other source.

I thank you all for clarifying my problem. The last link was just what I needed. Thank you very much. :-)

Sure, click here. Since it specifies Shortbow for the Rogue functionality the Composite is also included since the rules fail to explicitly say that it should NOT work with the Composite version.

Thanks for the link. Although I agree that this should indeed make the Shortbow proficiency work with a composite shortbow, I just miss a better example to convince my GM that this is RAW (or not as is the case here, LOL)

This is actually covered by the Composite Long/Shortbow description that indicates that any ability that relates to these bows also applies to the Composite version. Training is just one such ability that this interacts with.

Could you give me directions to where this is written. Exactly, please?

I'm really sorry if this is an obvious thing, but I haven't been able to find the proper rules that governs this issue.

The thing is that I'm using the paid version of the Pathbuilder app to build my characters. My latest character is a rogue (Thief racket) that just found himself a Composite Shortbow, and when added to his weapon roster, the app gives him a 'Trained' when using the weapon.

Is this entirely correct? I am under the impression that individual Weapon Proficiencies attained from character classes like the Rogue are exactly that. Individual. And that no similar weapon may be used with any degree of skill except for 'Untrained'.

Thanks in advance

I would also like to see erratas concerning both the Advanced Player's Guide and the Bestiaries. (And whatever other book that will benefit from these)

For those who know Drows absolutely. For those who just have heard of strange looking subterranean elves who worship demons, critical failure on RK might make it real.

But which is the better option? To be mistaken for a demon worshipping elf or some kind of actual half-fiend? LOL

Or a Drow.

Not sure which would be worse.

No chance of that.

Drow Elves are much taller than humans (and my very much human-like boy), have black or dark grey skin and white(ish) hair?? (Or is that only D&D Drows?)

As you might see on my drawing (link to be found above), my Tiefling has dark/black hair and a very pale complexion. ;-) So no chance of him getting mistaken for a Drow.

Black eyes, pointy ears? At a glance I could imagine this character being mistaken for an Elf or Half Elf.

He might be mistaken for a short Half Elf but most probably not an Elf as they are very tall.

Besides, his pale skin probably looks sickly - especially for an Elf.

What fancy abilities would you ascribe to (to use a character I whipped up for funsies) a Shackleborn Tiefling whose cosmetic quirks were paper-white skin, a faint tracery of scars she was born with, and yellow irises?

She wouldn't strike me as looking particularly fiendish at a glance. Closer scrutiny might reveal a completely different picture as those scars might actually be a written statement in Daemonic detailing a horrid curse, or that chalk like skin might contract after a while making her look like a skeleton. :-D

But I wouldn't ascribe certail abilities to her based on your description. Not at first. My Ancestry feat selection would most probably be based on that Shackleborn heritage, though.

How about a guy with a faint aroma of brimstone that intensifies with his emotions, black teeth, fingernails and toenails, and a weird white birthmark on his otherwise brown skin?

Another cool concept that doesn't scream "4TH EDITION TIEFLING!!!" ;-)

However, I would probably not be selecting any specific Tiefling heritage for this guy but leave it a mystery.

I would say just roll looks you like, and any cool powers the character picks up via later feat selection are a function of them coming to better understand their extraplanar heritage.

Back when I first ran into them in Planescape, Tieflings were not exactly a "species" the way dwarves or elves or humans were- they were oddball mutations, a bit of lower planar influence resulting in clear modifications upon a baseline humanoid. Even in the days of 2nd Edition, alternate Tiefling powers and resistances were one of the most commonly houseruled things I encountered.

(It's why I loathed what 4E did with them so categorically- because a uniform appearance/identity flew in the face of what Tieflings had always been presented as)

I fully agree and as I initially wrote in this thread, I based my own character on the varied appearances of 2nd ed. AD&D Planescape, 3.0/3.5 D&D, and the 1st ed. Pathfinder versions of Tieflings.

I think our views are closer than we might imagine, it's simply an issue of adeptly communicating our ideas.

I don't think I ever said you character would always be recognizable, but rather that your character would be recognizable as a tiefling as much as any ancestry/heritage/race is recognizable (and I stand by that).

How exactly that works is going to depend on a GM and how they run identifying the basic "race" of a character. Without using deception to disguise yourself I think the answer is going to basically be "everyone knows you're a tiefling". But doing things like keeping your distance and wearing a cloak are a (very) basic disguise. A better disguise might keep others from identifying you at closer distances.

If I were the GM in question, I would say that there is no check necessary to identify the "race" of a character (short of a rare race). And thus, without an effort to disguise yourself (in the form of a deception check), people would recognize your character as a tiefling.

There will always be a risk of any written message in a forum like this to be misunderstood or simply not adequate to convey the true intent of the writer. But I do believe that we have mostly agreed upon and settled this matter. ;-)

To keep things simple I would most propably be running encounters the same way as you propose above; to let all character races be automatically identified (except for when it stands to reason that an exception should be made).

I have read all of the above and to summarize it a bit:

No check needed to recognize:
- Common ancestries like:
- Humans including common versatile heritages like half-orc and half-elf
- Elves
- Dwarves
- Gnomes
- Halflings
etc.. (all the common player character races)
- Common heritages from one's own ancestry

A simple DC check to identify:
- Common heritages like Rock Dwarf, from common ancestries that you don't belong to
- Uncommon heritages from one's own ancestry (but not information about lineage, bloodlines, etc.); eg., you're a human a recognizes a human Tiefling as such.
- Uncommon ancestries (but not their heritages)

But I wonder at what difficulty??

A simple DC based chack at increased difficulty to identyfy:
- Uncommon heritages from common ancestries that you don't belong to (but not information about lineage, bloodline, etc.); eg.; you're a human and recognizes a dwarfish Tiefling.

A level based DC to recognize:
- More specific information on rare ancestries, heritages or histories about specific individuals.

But again I'm not sure about these rules, so what exactly is a Level based DC?

It's really a problem only because tieflings are ostracized within the setting of Pathfinder. If you're making a character of a heritage that is ostracized, then I would expect that you would expect to deal with being ostracized. And I'm not suggesting that you can't hide it, but also saying narrative description alone doesn't do the job. Make a deception check and cover yourself with a cloak. At a distance people wont be able to make you out as anything besides humanoid. Up close, your deception might fool them.

Or be loud and proud about being a tiefling and fight for tiefling rights.

Or your GM doesn't have to keep the ostracized tiefling thing as part of the setting.

But I just think making a character that is a member of an ostracized heritage that just writes away all their problems misses the point a bit.

Ultimately though, it's all up to the GM and how the handle it.

I actually agrees with everything that you wrote here :-)

I never intended for my Tiefling character to not face ostracism. In fact I play him as proud of being what he is. However he is also a hunted man - wanted for a crime he hasn't commited. So for that reason he wants to be able to pass as a normal human being if the need arises.
And it kind of triggered me when you said that he was always gonna be recognisable even when in fact this isn't the case.
But aside from that, I never intended to write up a human character who had all the benefits of being a Tiefling but none of the drawbacks. That would indeed be missing the point.

So for your benefit I will share a picture of my character as he will look when he will (soon I hope) have his tail back.

An oldschool ink drawing of my Tiefling character

Actually, I do not think we can really mistake them for Fiends. Because those need Religion to identify IIRC, whereas I think Tieflings fall under Society.

I agree. Fiends are very otherworldly to behold whereas Tieflings only seems "weird" or abhorent. But not otherworldly. And I say this because Tieflings now have the human and humanoid trait. Gone are the "Native outsider" which were used in D&D 3.5 and PF1, and thus their "otherworldliness" as well.

But a half-fiend (also known as cambions) would definitely reek of otherworldliness.

There's actually a Tiefling feat for energy resistance. It is less powerful than its PF1 equivalent, but it has more flavor because it is tied to the specific fiend you descend from.

I am fully aware of all the tiefling heritage feats, Morgan. But a Tiefling in PF2 is but a shadow of its former D&D3.5/PF1 self, which was what I was trying to say.

And as I have been arguing for; when you don't get any fancy abilities then in what way will that affect your characters appearance?

I never intended this discussion to be about what are or aren't allowed when deciding on the appearance of Tieflings. It appears that PF2 has made it easier to create a very very slightly planetouched human being who may still call herself a Tiefling, but who in appearance doesn't differ from an Infernal powered sorcerer.

I miss the native outsider character with Bane, Darkness, Resistance to Fire, Cold and Acid, etc., etc. This was a cool kind of character to play, and i deeply lament its departure from the possibilities of Pathfinder character creation.

Another Tiefling character of mine was all this: A guy with goats horns, pointy ears, a nasty bite, greyish skin, glowing red demon eyes and a muscular prehensile barbed tail. He was a PF1 character but since we were playing in the Forgotten Realms setting, he originated from Thay, and was a trained Rogue/Fighter Knifemaster Assassin. A Neutral Evil piece of Mask venerating nastiness who didn't care whether you recognised him as a Tiefling or not.

So how do your Tiefling characters look like? And do they care?

The Shadowdancer Archetype from APG gain the Greater Darkvision ability when taking the Shadowdancer Dedication Feat (8th level at the earliest)

I strongly disagree. Not with the heritage bit, bad wording on my part I guess. But with the idea that you can descriptively rid yourself of your problems. Saying "I had to cut off my tail" isn't paying a price unless you had a tail which provided a benefit and cut if off, losing that benefit, to pass for human (or whatever base ancestry).

Passing for not a tiefling is a benefit that shouldn't be free, from a mechanical perspective. Saying "I filed off my horns or cut off my tail" doesn't represent a real expenditure from your mechanical options.

I agree that one should not be able to descriptively pay a price for gaining an ingame benefit. But what benefit are you refering to? PF2 Tieflings gain nothing baseline for being a Tiefling except for Low-light vision and a bad reputation.

You as a player have lots of indluence on how to describe the appearance of your character. Many obvious choices will make you stand out as a Tiefling. But other less obvious choices will definitely not. At least not unless you have personal interactions with other people.

And horns, tails, vestigial wings and whatever is not required as appearance traits. RAW never mentions this anywhere. In fact a Tiefling might appear a fully normal human but with displaced internal organs. This will make you stand out from a normal human - but not in any obvious way. And this is RAW, mind you.

Unless stopped and interrogated, my character would pass as a human or any other kind of humanoid without problem if he - say was wearing a hooded cloak. Orcs, Hobgoblins, Elves, etc. would be equally able to do that.

But if he was stopped then everybody would be alerted by his black eyes and pale skin. Maybe some kind of check would be necessary to identify him as a Tiefling but no check would necessary to identify him as something ELSE than a normal human.

If they created a tiefling feat called "Pass for Human (or whatever race)" then that would be fair. It'd probably need to restrict you from gaining any feats that would obviously mark you as not of your base ancestry, such as wings on a human.

I'm not saying tieflings have to stand out, but to the extent that people are able to identify what "race" a character is they will know you are tiefling. Otherwise, is my opinion, your getting a benefit at not cost.

Edit: That said, you could use the deception skills to hide/disguise your features to pass for human to make up for lacking a "pass for human" heritage feat.

Of course, that comes with the cost of investing a skill so again it balances itself.

In PF1 you gained a lot of perks for being a Tiefling. Of course you had to pay a price for gaining those. The Pass as Human "feat" was not transfered to PF2 because it wasn't necessary to do so. Mainly because you now don't get anything crucial for being a Tiefling. You will have to allocate you precious few Ancestry Feats on every Tiefling ability that gain. And many of those cannot be chosen at 1st level. And you can't change your mind on most of the decisions that you make in this regard.

But it should be obvious that the description of the Tiefling character should correspond to any Feat choice that you make or plan to make.

Finally, I would like to commend the new system, because now you are able to create a Tiefling character that might either be very monstrous to behold (and should be able to take any decired Tiefling Feat) or very humanlike with only a few marks to make him "non-human" (and with a correspondingly narrow choice of feats). Anything is possible - but should be worked out with your GM of course.

I never intended for my character to even have a tail. But I wanted him to have one after he had been in play for a pair of sessions. So I added the tail to his backstory, so he was able to eventually grow a new tail. A tail that doesn't confers any benefits but only flair and roleplaying opportunities.

Given that you need a society check to identify humanoids, I'm not even really sure it can be accurately claimed that ancestry is inherently obvious.

Like, there's probably a reasonable assumption that you could tell members with exaggerated features apart without a roll, but halflings and gnomes are sometimes described as looking similar to human children, and given that they share a size category, a short, stocky human may very well look like a dwarf.

To go on the versatile heritages, like, heterochromia exists in non changelings too, so someone with mismatching eye colors isn't a surefire sign (though it's 100% valid to say your setting/culture has superstitions about heterochromatic people). The blue skin of a duskwalker might also be misconstrued as either a tiefling or aasimar trait to someone who doesn't know much about either, azata (and by extension, azata aasimars) are frequently described as looking like fey (lyrakiens are explicitly mistaken for fey extremely frequently), agathion aasimar and rhakshasa tiefling both have animal features, etc.

Like, seems to me the assumption that ancestry is always easily identifiable is more of player and dm side assumption than anything lore wise

I agree 100% here.

Cool Tiefling wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Radovan looks like a perfect example of what the PF1 Pass for Human race trait is.

Also all versatile heritages are as identifiable as the half heritages. Aasimar and Teiflings are no different then a Changeling, Dhampir, or Duskwalker.

In fact unless there is a feat that says otherwise, or a GM rules otherwise, there is always a mark or sign of the strange heritage. It should be easy enough to see any of the strange features without using a disguise. Ex: Duskwalker's distinctive skin.

Changelings and Aasimars do have an easier time.

Remember that this isn't PF1. You only gain a human with Low Light vision and a strange past when selecting the Tiefling Heritage. Everything else you gain buy acquiring Ancestry Feats.

But I never said that my Tiefling wasn't identifiable as such. Only that you had to look him in his face to do so. Or be riding close by on a horse... in which case the horse would flung you off and start stomping my poor boy. :-D

My statement was a response to the first half were you said tieflings don't have to be recognizable because "pathfinder tieflings are dont have 'standardized looks'". But tieflings are not recognized because their look is standard, they are recognized because they look different from normal.

PF1 Golarion lore is still cannon unless stated otherwise. And tieflings in lore were very recognized because of their strange features. Pass for Humans, was a mechanical effect with in lore consequence, which PF2 does not replicate. Its a matter of GM and Players agreeing what is reasonable, for the lore/mechanics of that table.

If you look Variable Heritages do in fact change the appearance, because you are no longer "just a human" or "just an Gnome". Each one states how the appearance changes or may change. Changelings will have weird eyes, Duskwalkers and Dhampirs will have weird skins, Aasimars and Tieflings will have any number of different traits.

My statement was never about your character.

Then I don't think that we disagree at all.

Cool Tiefling wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Squeezing, defined in this way, is a very limited type of activity. It hardly seems worth anyone's while to take a skill feat in it.

I get it for free when taking the contortionist acrobat archetype feat. ;-)

And besides it matches my character concept like a snug glove.

You could even say it squeezed its way into your concept. :P

RFLMAO :-D

I did not mean that Tieflings are recognizable because they all look the same, but because they do look different.

TBH, I have no problem with the description of your character as a Tiefling. And I could see the additional disadvantage of being offensive to animals as worth being otherwise almost indistinguishable from a human.

I'm not unreasonable. While having a Tiefling with good looks I wouldn't miss out on some good roleplaying situations. And at some point he will definitely regain his lost tail. ;-)

Radovan looks like a perfect example of what the PF1 Pass for Human race trait is.

Also all versatile heritages are as identifiable as the half heritages. Aasimar and Teiflings are no different then a Changeling, Dhampir, or Duskwalker.

In fact unless there is a feat that says otherwise, or a GM rules otherwise, there is always a mark or sign of the strange heritage. It should be easy enough to see any of the strange features without using a disguise. Ex: Duskwalker's distinctive skin.

Changelings and Aasimars do have an easier time.

Remember that this isn't PF1. You only gain a human with Low Light vision and a strange past when selecting the Tiefling Heritage. Everything else you gain buy acquiring Ancestry Feats.

But I never said that my Tiefling wasn't identifiable as such. Only that you had to look him in his face to do so. Or be riding close by on a horse... in which case the horse would flung you off and start stomping my poor boy. :-D

Half-orcs and Half-elves are just as recognizable as Dwarves or Halflings. As are Tieflings.

Except for the Tiefling bit you are quite right in your assumption.

But not in regard to Tieflings. Tieflings in PF2 is not a race with a standardized look. Had they had the "good" looks of the DnD 4e or 5e Tieflings then they would have been recognizable from quite a distance. But this doesn't hold true in the Pathfinder universe. Whether that being in novel fiction (Radovan is not immediately recognizable as a Tiefling) nor rulebooks (Blood of Fiends)

And I am talking about recognization from a distance. Not close up, were any Tiefling is likely to get identified as such within a very short timeframe unless they have been disguised. Tbh, I thought this were made clear from previous entries to this thread (and not only my own comments)

Bonus: I just altered my Avatar to another picture of a male Tiefling. He looks more like an elf than like a standard Tiefling, right? And this is an official depiction of a Tiefling!

Squeezing, defined in this way, is a very limited type of activity. It hardly seems worth anyone's while to take a skill feat in it.

I get it for free when taking the contortionist acrobat archetype feat. ;-)

If I were your GM I would tell you that your character can look like whatever you want (within reason) but everyone is still going to know what ancestry you are, to the extent that any ancestry is obvious.

If people can know a dwarf is a dwarf, a human is a human, and an elf is an elf then they know a tiefling when they see one without a check.

Otherwise you're getting a benefit of passing for human (or whatever base ancestry) without paying a price.

Sorry to correct you here, but Tiefling is now considered a Heritage - NOT an Ancestry. So my Tiefling character IS a human being who just happens to have a cursed bloodline. So within your own reasoning my character just passes for what he already is.

Crawling and squeezing are completely different activities. You can easily crawl with a load of gear on your back, and you don't have to do things like suck in your gut or move limbs in strange ways. Military personnel can easily crawl with their heavy combat gear but if you ask them to squeeze into a tight space they would have trouble doing so. Contortionists can squeeze into tight spaces by bending and dislocating their limbs, but most of their movement would still be with their legs, so if their arms were weak they wouldn't be able to crawl effectively.

I'm not sure why you think being good at one means you should automatically be good at the other.

In retrospect, I might want to agree with you on this one. But I did see these activities as quite similar until your example given above made me reconsider.

The reason why Tieflings are usually weirdly colored, have horns, and glowing eyes is mostly because of DnD. Those tieflings are most definitely portrayed with those characteristics, which also aligns with Pitborn (Demon-Spawn), Hellspawn (Devil-Spawn), Spitespawn (Div-Spawn), and Hungerseed (Oni-Spawn).

However, if you look at the other heritages found in PF1 you have: Faultspawn (Asura-Spawn) which tend to be androgynous or hermaphrodites, with weird faces: Grimspawn (Daemon-Spawn) which tend to look like corpses or extremely sick, think Smeagol but uglier: Foulspawn (Demodand-Spawn) which tend to look like ogre or ogrekins, with similar behaviors: Shackleborn (Kyton-Spawn) which tend to be born severely mutilated, but otherwise might appear like a regular person, also heavily favor tattoos and piercings: Motherless (Qlippoth-Spawn) tend to look like something straight out of lovecraftian lore: Finally, the Beastblood (Rakshasa-Spawn) tend to look like a human with animal features, think ThunderCats.

Blood of Fiends has an official list of alternate feature. List of alternate Tiefling appearance, the list is at the bottom of the page.

*****************************

Speaking of races that don't get the right art. Aasimars suffer the same fate. Most Aasimars are drawn as being angels of some kind.

However they have these: Idyllkin (Agathion-Blooded) which tend to look like humans with animal traits: Musetouched (Azata-Blooded) which tend to have almost impossible color eyes and hair, think anime character: Plumekith (Garuda-Blooded) which tend to have features of birds and eagles: And finally, Emberkin (Peri-Blooded) which to have flaming features. Heck Angelkin (Angel-Blooded) can look like the Silver Surfer or Doctor Manhattan.

here is the list of official alternate traits from Blood of Angels, again at the bottom of the page.

*****************************...

Blood of Fiends is one of my favourite supplements for Pathfinder. I do hope that it will be redeveloped for 2nd edition. Especially the artwork is noteworthy for its many varied takes on Tiefling appearances.

If i had rolled on the list of alternate features my rolls would be the following:

19: Ears: Pointed
25: Eyes: Other (Black orbs)
60: Skin: Other (Pale - slightly metallic)
62: Tail: Fiendish (Slim/barbed)
67: Teeth: Fanged
??: Aura: Animals gets tense or aggressive when within 10'

Thank you all for your advice and input into this matter.
I still believe that it isn't logical that a Legendary Acrobat squeezer can't crawl well unless he spends two more General Feats for that. A discount should have been in place.
I will have to convince my GM to make a houserule for that I guess.

I might agree with you if my first exposure had been mechanically represented similar to how P2E does it (i.e., you pick your race first (human, dwarf, gnome, lizardfolk, whichever), then use your 1st-level character feat on "Tiefling", which gives you some mutation that isn't necessarily the same as the mutation that someone else with "Tiefling" might have).

But it wasn't. I saw them as their own independent race, not cool mutations of other races, because they were presented as the former, not the latter. Having a uniform design gets rid of the only thing holding them back.

Whatever makes you happy and floats your boat. ;-) Just know that I have been playing AD&D back when Planescape .. and thus Tieflings .. were first conceived. I fell in love instantly.

My favourite version of Tieflings is the one from D&D 3.0 Forgotten Realms were even godly avatars were producing offspring, Tieflings, and this offspring were not somebody with rams horns instead of hair. I really don't like those horns.. LOL.

So my take on Tieflings is to steal whatever I like from horror flicks and TV series and apply these ideas to my Tieflings. Even though I (truth be told) does like the appearance of 4E and 5E Tieflings, I just don't like them enough to want them as a uniform race. Sorry, but I really don't.

That would take away too many storytelling opportunities from me.

And now a comment that goes to everybody:
In regard to the 1000 traits post of Tieflings which there's a link to earlier in this tread, I just want to say that although it is a funny read, I will not be using it much since Tieflings with those mutations hail more from a Nurgle demon or other Warhammer Fantasy/40K demon than from a succubus/incubus demon or erineyes devil (old AD&D devil counterpart to a Succubus) or other fairly plausible netherworldly ancestor.

Gaulin wrote:

Part of the reason I love tieflings so much is because of how much freedom a player has in designing what they look like. My gnome teifling earth elemental sorcerer looks like a gargoyle, having earth constantly growing out of his skin, small tusks, wings, a tail, hooves and claws.

Yes, exactly the fun, getting to play around with the appearance so much more than if you were playing a human or dwarf.

And gosh, that Tiefling appearance quirks thread (and the Aasimar appearance quirks one) was fun. :)

The varied appearance of Tieflings together with their tendencies to come with a huge variety of background stories is what makes this "race" so appealing to me. I don't like how Tieflings suddenly only looked like a boiled lobster with ram's horns and cloven feat in most visual art because of DnD 4e. The 1000 different looks in PF and earlier DnD versions always were more my kind of thing.

The Tiefling Quirks post were indeed rather fun to read.

There's Quick Squeeze, for when you use the Squeeze action. Speed's measured per round so could be used in combat I'd say. The feat allows full speed at Legendary, though it doesn't seem to allow operating in actions rather than rounds (which is already a major bonus given it's an Exploration ability at its root).

You'd have to look at the wording of crawling too. If that's a distinct action (or requires using Stride), they won't work together anyway (though your GM could allow it).

I hadn't realized how tight a lockdown PF2 had on this type of movement. Maybe a fluke, or maybe because a party could really exploit this if built around such tactics (though it'd take some time for it to come to fruition).

Castilliano, thank you for your reply. I'm still a little confused, but not due to your answer.

Basically, I'm new to PF2 and are in the process of relearning from DnD and PF1.

So some kind of moving has a Speed per round but isn't allowed in combat? And another quite similar form of movement does work? But because you know one form doesn't mean that you know the other??

Hmm. Not logical at all, but I guess that it is down to balancing the game.

Oh.. I guess that I have been mistaken since squeezing has the exploration trait.

The very first PFRPG Adventure Path (Council of Thieves) HEAVILY leans into Tieflings and while it does speak about the ability for them to conceal their Tiefling-ness it has at least one section talking about how hiding this can be somewhat frustrating, time-consuming, and possibly even expensive to keep up appearances.

Given the backstory that you're working with, I think it is PERFECTLY reasonable to assume that you'll be able to take some minor pains to hide their Tiefling blood but I would suggest that perhaps you should make a habit of giving them a tad more "prep time" every morning to apply makeup, get dressed, maybe wear some shaded glasses and take some precautions against being easily recognized. Given that you're talking about the loss of your tail and choosing to not have horns or other super overt signs of their Heritage I believe that most any GM would be more than accommodating in allowing you to run with the idea but I don't think that you should expect this to just be simple or free, especially when it comes to whatever other Characters they have closer relationships with such as their adventuring party.

TLDR: I think you should be able to pull this off as long as you make sure to buy the right kind of clothes, use makeup and or a disguise kit regularly as part of a "beauty routine" and roleplay some modicum of conservative mannerisms which is TOTALLY and completely feasible.

Radovan is a favourite of mine.. :-)

Regarding disguise kits, etc. he doesn't care that what other people thinks. He is very far away from his troubled past (where he had to get rid of his tail) and have spent a few years learning to cope without it (although he misses it greatly). He now works as an acrobat (aerialist) performer and count on his audience not being able to see his scar and eyes. Plenty of people have pointy ears and pale skin, so he doesn't worry too much about that. Then remains his "oddness" which might get on some peoples nerves (and animals hate him - especially horses, lol). But he travels a lot at have a safe haven in the circus where everyone knows him.

Do the other tieflings make fun of him?

Nope. He works as an aerialist in a circus and doesn't care what other people think. He KNOWS that he is perceived as a freak, but so is nearly everyone else who lives and travels in his caravan.

Besides, he is not a bad guy. He treats other people in a decent manner unless they bully him. In that case they should be just a little bit afraid...