|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
PAPG:
Racial Heritage
The blood of a non-human ancestor f lows 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.
"any effects"? "and so on"?
Erm, this needs to be REALLY tightened up before players are building "humans" with Deepsight *and* Waraxe proficiency *and* about twelveteen other things that are awesome in dwarves but even more awesome if you can get them at the cost of one feat and without being saddle with a dwarf's penalties.
-- It doesn't matter than Waraxe is obviously permitted and Deepsight-access is probably not; what matters is that it's almost completely arbitrary as-written.
<FAQ button tapped once>
|
PAPG:Racial Heritage
The blood of a non-human ancestor f lows 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."any effects"? "and so on"?
Erm, this needs to be REALLY tightened up before players are building "humans" with Deepsight *and* Waraxe proficiency *and* about twelveteen other things that are awesome in dwarves but even more awesome if you can get them at the cost of one feat and without being saddle with a dwarf's penalties.
-- It doesn't matter than Waraxe is obviously permitted and Deepsight-access is probably not; what matters is that it's almost completely arbitrary as-written.
<FAQ button tapped once>
I don't think you would get waraxe, I thought it was just for access to feats/traits and being affected by spells like the old girdle of dwarvenkind.
Which shows how vague and confusing it is.
|
Darkvision and weapon familiarity aren't effects, they're racial traits.
As it says,effects applies to things like spells and magical items interacting with that character. So in their example a human taking the dwarf racial heritage trait could fully activate a Dwarven Thrower.
See the Half-Elf racial trait 'Elf Blood'. They count as elves and humans for effects related to race, but do not have all the racial traits of humans and elves.
PAPG:I agree this needs to be tightened up. For example: Does this mean that you are considered to beRacial Heritage
The blood of a non-human ancestor f lows 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."any effects"? "and so on"?
Erm, this needs to be REALLY tightened up before players are building "humans" with Deepsight *and* Waraxe proficiency *and* about twelveteen other things that are awesome in dwarves but even more awesome if you can get them at the cost of one feat and without being saddle with a dwarf's penalties.
-- It doesn't matter than Waraxe is obviously permitted and Deepsight-access is probably not; what matters is that it's almost completely arbitrary as-written.
<FAQ button tapped once>
Hardy: Dwarves receive a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison, spells, and spell-like abilities.
It says you get the benefits of that race for spells. If that's the case then this should be true. You should be considered "Hardy." To use logic then, if A is true B should be true also. If so, why then wouldn't you also be considered to have all the other dwarven racial traits as listed in the Core Rulebook? If you get the one, why not all the rest?
If you're Hardy, you should also be: Slow and Steady, have Darkvision, Defensive Training, Greed, etc. ad nauseum. That language definitely needs a clear and circumscribed set of "do's and do not's."
The wording is clear.
If any spell/feat/effect depends it's effect on the variable of being a dwarf, then you count for it.
Examples:
"this item can be only used by dwarves"
Feat prerequisite: dwarfYou do not gain dwarven racial traits, since nothing in the feat wording indicates so.
Here's why I'd disagree with you. The wording specifically says "how spells affect you." Does it not? In that case as a dwarf you get a +2 save against spells and spell like abilities. Half-elves are immune to sleep magic because they have elven blood. If you have dwarven blood, as the racial heritage says you do, you should then receive that +2 against spells and spell like abilities. Which would lead one to believe that you also get that +2 against poison, since it's in the same trait's language. The problem lies in the fact that if you get the bonuses against spells that a dwarf does, you should get this bonus. Just as a half-elf gets immunity to sleep magic. They are listed in the exact same place in the Core Rulebook. Essentially Racial Heritage is saying you are "half-dwarf" for the purposes of feats, traits, and "how spells affect you."
The wording is clear.
If any spell/feat/effect depends it's effect on the variable of being a dwarf, then you count for it.
Examples:
"this item can be only used by dwarves"
Feat prerequisite: dwarfYou do not gain dwarven racial traits, since nothing in the feat wording indicates so.
Heck, I read the feat description once and knew what it said. To me, that makes the wording perfectly clear.
+1, Gorbacz.
|
Here's why I'd disagree with you. The wording specifically says "how spells affect you." Does it not? In that case as a dwarf you get a +2 save against spells and spell like abilities. Half-elves are immune to sleep magic because they have elven blood. If you have dwarven blood, as the racial heritage says you do, you should then receive that +2 against spells and spell like abilities. Which would lead one to believe that you also get that +2 against poison, since it's in the same trait's language. The problem lies in the fact that if you get the bonuses against spells that a dwarf does, you should get this bonus. Just as a half-elf gets immunity to sleep magic. They are listed in the exact same place in the Core Rulebook. Essentially Racial Heritage is saying you are "half-dwarf" for the purposes of feats, traits, and "how spells affect you."The wording is clear.
If any spell/feat/effect depends it's effect on the variable of being a dwarf, then you count for it.
Examples:
"this item can be only used by dwarves"
Feat prerequisite: dwarfYou do not gain dwarven racial traits, since nothing in the feat wording indicates so.
I guess, the discussion is pointless then, at least regarding your character, since it clearly says "you", directly adressing the reader/player. I guess the saving throw boon against poison might become handy if you travel to, lets say Australia.
Frankly, I think you need to try really hard to misunderstand the wording of "racial heritage" to come to the conclusion that you get any of the racial traits of the race in question.
|
Here's why I'd disagree with you. The wording specifically says "how spells affect you." Does it not? In that case as a dwarf you get a +2 save against spells and spell like abilities. Half-elves are immune to sleep magic because they have elven blood. If you have dwarven blood, as the racial heritage says you do, you should then receive that +2 against spells and spell like abilities. Which would lead one to believe that you also get that +2 against poison, since it's in the same trait's language. The problem lies in the fact that if you get the bonuses against spells that a dwarf does, you should get this bonus. Just as a half-elf gets immunity to sleep magic. They are listed in the exact same place in the Core Rulebook. Essentially Racial Heritage is saying you are "half-dwarf" for the purposes of feats, traits, and "how spells affect you."The wording is clear.
If any spell/feat/effect depends it's effect on the variable of being a dwarf, then you count for it.
Examples:
"this item can be only used by dwarves"
Feat prerequisite: dwarfYou do not gain dwarven racial traits, since nothing in the feat wording indicates so.
You're over-reading this.
OT: I really love the thread title. If this is a 55-gallon can of worms, I guess how the OP qualifies a Fighter v. Wizard debates ;)
You count as both human and that race for any affects related to race.
This sentence clarifies it perfectly. A racial ability is not an effect. You cannot gain any abilities from this feat - it does not grant any abilities, talents, feats, or special magical half-breedness. You only count as both when an effect would be different for one race or the other.
I will refrain from being impolite.
Okay, thanks for the politeness, and @feytharn thanks for the apology. Just so I'm clear on this. If I took Racial Heritage, and chose Elven as my racial bloodline, would I, or would I not be immune to sleep magic?
Okay, thanks for the politeness, and @feytharn thanks for the apology. Just so I'm clear on this. If I took Racial Heritage, and chose Elven as my racial bloodline, would I, or would I not be immune to sleep magic?
You would not be immune. Racial Heritage does not grant racial abilities.
This came up not too many weeks ago and IIRC James Jacobs discussed it a bit. What is meant by racial traits would be any traits listed in the APG that require you to belong to that race to take them; it is not meant to permit a player to cherry-pick a racial ability (e.g. stonecunning) from another race. That's in addition to things mentioned above about meeting feat prerequisites and getting whacked by rangers with particular favored enemies. It's just unfortunate that some of the terminology (traits) is used in several places to mean different things.
|
|
This came up not too many weeks ago and IIRC James Jacobs discussed it a bit. What is meant by racial traits would be any traits listed in the APG that require you to belong to that race to take them; it is not meant to permit a player to cherry-pick a racial ability (e.g. stonecunning) from another race. That's in addition to things mentioned above about meeting feat prerequisites and getting whacked by rangers with particular favored enemies. It's just unfortunate that some of the terminology (traits) is used in several places to mean different things.
But hey, that's nothing new in D&D. Character level, spell level, caster level, class level, dungeon level, anyone? :)
As someone suggested above, think of it as similar to the "elf-blood" ability that half elves have. It doesn't turn you into that other race or grant you abilities of that race, it just means that when you run into race specific feats, items and abilities, like bane weapons, foes with favored enemy, or a dwarven artifact, that you meet the race qualification for whatever race you chose.
In the case of Deepsight, you still don't have darkvision, so you can't take the feat, but if you took dwarf, gnome, or elf, and managed to live to be 100 yrs old, you could take Breadth of Experience. Likewise, if you chose dwarf and had a Con of at least 13, you could take Ironguts or Ironhide. Or if you took elf, you would meet the one prerequisite to take Elven Accuracy, but you would not gain the automatic proficiency with the bow.
one thing I was curious about. is a few of the apt feats male one of the racial bits better. +4 to the same stuff as dwarf stone cunning. the text says it replaces stone cunning. but having stone cunning isn't a prereq.
I figure a person cannot take it with racial heritage but I thought I would see what others thought.
|
|
one thing I was curious about. is a few of the apt feats male one of the racial bits better. +4 to the same stuff as dwarf stone cunning. the text says it replaces stone cunning. but having stone cunning isn't a prereq.
I figure a person cannot take it with racial heritage but I thought I would see what others thought.
In this case, I think it is clear that "it replaces stonecunning" means that having stonecunning first is required. IMO that doesn't need to be spelled out seperatly.
Even the most expansive interpretations of this (with which I don't agree) do not seem unbalancing to me.
-Kle.
You don't think that the OP's original (and erroneous) interpretation is overpowered? So you're okay with a single feat granting Darkvision, three martial weapon proficiencies, and a boatload of conditional skill, attack and AC bonuses?
|
|
With the wording of the feat, who cares? Margarine becomes 98% as good as real butter."...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...."You do not gain dwarven racial traits, since nothing in the feat wording indicates so.
You don't think that the OP's original (and erroneous) interpretation is overpowered?
I am the OP, and since I did not offer any declarative interpretation, your insinuation I have done so in is error.
;-)
What matters is that the wording is ambiguous, and automatically guaranteed to generate widely divergent assumptions -- that the topic has generated this amount of posting activity in such a short amount of time is evidence of that assessment.
In thinking about this yesterday I realized my major problem with the language is the phrase "how spells affect you..." I can't think of any spell that specifically does more damage or works better against any certain race, based purely on its "racialness." The only time that race has a determining factor for spells and how they work is usually based on racial traits, like elves being immune to sleep magic, and half-elves being immune to sleep magic, etc. I understand that magic weapons sometimes have racial bane on them, and that makes sense, but I can't come up with one spell that specifically targets a race. Perhaps that particular language should be removed.
In thinking about this yesterday I realized my major problem with the language is the phrase "how spells affect you..." I can't think of any spell that specifically does more damage or works better against any certain race, based purely on its "racialness." The only time that race has a determining factor for spells and how they work is usually based on racial traits, like elves being immune to sleep magic, and half-elves being immune to sleep magic, etc. I understand that magic weapons sometimes have racial bane on them, and that makes sense, but I can't come up with one spell that specifically targets a race. Perhaps that particular language should be removed.
There are spells that have conditional triggers, however, and counting as a member of that race would make them set off a conditional modifier based on race.
In thinking about this yesterday I realized my major problem with the language is the phrase "how spells affect you..." I can't think of any spell that specifically does more damage or works better against any certain race, based purely on its "racialness." The only time that race has a determining factor for spells and how they work is usually based on racial traits, like elves being immune to sleep magic, and half-elves being immune to sleep magic, etc. I understand that magic weapons sometimes have racial bane on them, and that makes sense, but I can't come up with one spell that specifically targets a race. Perhaps that particular language should be removed.There are spells that have conditional triggers, however, and counting as a member of that race would make them set off a conditional modifier based on race.
Could you give me an example of that?
The symbol spells and passwall I believe can be set up to react to specific conditions, and I think there are a few others that I can't think of off the top of my head.
The symbol spells and passwall I believe can be set up to react to specific conditions, and I think there are a few others that I can't think of off the top of my head.
Passwall doesn't say anything about conditions. I checked the Symbol spells; they do have triggers, but not one of them talks about race. If anyone has any solid examples of spells that specifically are triggered by, or affect differently, a race, I'd love to see them. Otherwise I still think that part of the language should be removed.
|
|
The symbol spells and passwall I believe can be set up to react to specific conditions, and I think there are a few others that I can't think of off the top of my head.Passwall doesn't say anything about conditions. I checked the Symbol spells; they do have triggers, but not one of them talks about race. If anyone has any solid examples of spells that specifically are triggered by, or affect differently, a race, I'd love to see them. Otherwise I still think that part of the language should be removed.
Aaand then somebody will pull a spell from 3PP source with a racial trigger condition, or Paizo will write one themselves in a future book, and we would be right here nerdraging that there is unclear interaction between the feat and the spell :)
Aaand then somebody will pull a spell from 3PP source with a racial trigger condition, or Paizo will write one themselves in a future book, and we would be right here nerdraging that there is unclear interaction between the feat and the spell :)The symbol spells and passwall I believe can be set up to react to specific conditions, and I think there are a few others that I can't think of off the top of my head.Passwall doesn't say anything about conditions. I checked the Symbol spells; they do have triggers, but not one of them talks about race. If anyone has any solid examples of spells that specifically are triggered by, or affect differently, a race, I'd love to see them. Otherwise I still think that part of the language should be removed.
Parry and riposte. +1 Gorbacz, point well taken. I'll stop my nerdrage on this one. :)
Examples where it would matter if a Human had Racial Heritage (Elf).
1) Said human could take Arcane Archer, he counts as Elf.
2) Said human would take extra damage from Elfbane weapons.
3) Said human would take extra damage from Ranger Favored Enemy.
4) Said human sets off Symbol traps if the trap has been set to be 'Elf walks in range' (See quote below).
You can also set special triggering limitations of your own. These can be as simple or elaborate as you desire. Special conditions for triggering a symbol of death can be based on a creature's name, identity, or alignment, but otherwise must be based on observable actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, HD, and hit points don't qualify.
Race of creature could be a special triggering limitation, as it is not an intangible in the game. Said human would detect as both Elf and Human (similar to a Half-Elf).
First, just because the symbol spells don't mention race, it is a tangible feature that I would consider to be part of one's identity and could be used as a trigger. Not to mention that making a homebrew version of any of the spells in the book that includes conditional triggers is perfectly doable, and the plentitude of other sources for spells, and the line is needed.
It really isn't all that hard to figure out the feat; it is just gives humans an ability akin to elf-blood or orc-blood. The only change I would make would require that it be taken at first level or after a major event that could have awakened the latent bloodline somehow.
Glyph of Warding mentions creature type as one of the conditions you can set for the glyph going off.
The following spells can use a creature's race as a triggering condition:
Antipathy
Contingency
Locate Creature
The Symbol spells (yes, you can set them to trigger based on race since that is observable)
Sympathy
Blood Biography would get an unusual result (two races instead of one).
These are just the ones I can think of. I'm sure that someone out there can find more.
As for magic items:
Bane weapons would be more harmful
Dwarven Thrower
Slaying Arrows would be more harmful
Belt of Dwarvenkind
Intelligent Items with a purpose can have varied effects depending on the purpose
And of course there are certain feats and traits that you would qualify for.
You don't think that the OP's original (and erroneous) interpretation is overpowered? So you're okay with a single feat granting Darkvision, three martial weapon proficiencies, and a boatload of conditional skill, attack and AC bonuses?Even the most expansive interpretations of this (with which I don't agree) do not seem unbalancing to me.
-Kle.More or less, yeah.
It isn't all that much more powerful than just playing a Dwarf in the first place. There a also plenty of "half-something-weird" variant PC races that are just as powerful.After the first few levels, these little tweaks aren't all that noticeable any more.
Generally, I find that if someone really, really wants to play something cheesy they'll find a way, and it's best to just let them be happy. They can feel slightly more "uber" than everybody else (which seems to be what they want), and it isn't enough to make them overshadow the other players.
-Kle.
At first I disagreed, but thinking about it, I agree it isn't that much more powerful. Assuming that the feat gave you all the dwarven (or elven, or halfling, etc) racial abilities, you'd effectively be member of that race that got an extra skill point per level and had +2 to one stat instead of +2/+2/-2 to three stats. In exchange for that, you'd count as human when attacked by human-bane weapons. An advantage, and neither the RAW or RAI, but not broken.
|
|
It isn't all that much more powerful than just playing a Dwarf in the first place.
It's awesome if you decide to play a human bard or sorcerer and claim dwarven heritage: you get to enjoy the human's bonus feat and skill ranks, won't have a CHA penalty, get +10 move over dwarf, and get to enjoy slinging a waraxe as well as tucking away dwarven +2 bonuses versus spellcasting and stability bonuses for being knocked prone or bull-rushed, or if an illusion is cast over stonework (all of these are implied be feat wording, especially as regards to checks forced as the result of a spell) -- which is a big deal especially for those classes (since they're often targets of ranged-attack fort-save spells).
As written/implied, dwarves are "robbed" of a primary mechanical reason for playing one (the best racial defenses in the game).
[QUOTE} I guess, the discussion is pointless then, at least regarding your character, since it clearly says "you", directly adressing the reader/player. I guess the saving throw boon against poison might become handy if you travel to, lets say Australia.
Bah. I'm Australian. The whole 'everything is poisonous' Myth gets around but it's groundless.
Heck, I haven't been poisoned by anything in days now.
Batts.
PS: oh, the reading is pretty clear. You count as both your species and another species when checking for effects or prerequisites. you don't gain any of the other race's abilities.
That would be just silly.
I'm reminded of the Iron Heart Surge argument.
That is one of the worst written abilities ever.
