
![]() ![]() ![]() |

Just an FYI, I talked to James Jacobs. Adopted is a social trait. Entymologist is considered a racial and a social trait both. Therefore, a player wouldn't be able to use Adopted trait to take Entymologist trait.
Just out of curiosity, what trait is this? I'm not sure whether you mean Etymologist, Entomologist, or if Entymologist is some other word I'm not familiar with. :P

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I understand the concept that you can’t take two traits from the same category. But disallowing a social trait because Adopted is a social trait seems counterintuitive when you can take a combat trait that changes your physical make-up like Toothy. I always thought that Adopted was a non-trait that just let you take a trait from somewhere you wouldn’t ordinarily get to take a feat, and it would seem that social traits from that other race would be the ones that would make the most sense.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I understand the concept that you can’t take two traits from the same category. But disallowing a social trait because Adopted is a social trait seems counterintuitive when you can take a combat trait that changes your physical make-up like Toothy. I always thought that Adopted was a non-trait that just let you take a trait from somewhere you wouldn’t ordinarily get to take a feat, and it would seem that social traits from that other race would be the ones that would make the most sense.
That is the word directly from James Jacobs.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Just so we are all aware..
Of all the Racial Traits.. I only know of 4 that are also Social, and they are all in the Gnome Book. So it is not like it cuts off a huge number of Racial Traits.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
That is the word directly from James Jacobs.
I Almost let this Slip... You went to James on a Rules question? James!?
;)

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
James developed the traits system so I figure it never hurts to go to the source ;-)
That is actually interesting information.

![]() ![]() |

Ages are based off race, not class. See page 168 of Core Rulebook.
Table 7-1 has random starting ages for all the core classes/races. For example, a human sorcerer can be at minimum 16 years old, but a human wizard has to be at minimum 18. [i]But[i], those are just random suggestions. I would lump new classes this way:
Oracle/Ninja/Summoner- 1st column, youngest.
Alchemist/Magus/Witch/Gunslinger/Inquisitor- 2nd column, middle.
Samurai/Cavalier- 3rd column, oldest.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

James Jacobs "answer" on this
His answer is, in this specific case, not legal for the purposes of Pathfinder Society. The FAQ has an entry on ages that lays out the guidelines for that.

![]() |

Michael Brock wrote:Ages are based off race, not class. See page 168 of Core Rulebook.So the minimum is just the listed "adulthood" age and ignore the +
example:
adulthood Wizard
Human 15 years +2d6So the minimum age is 15 for a human wizard and not 17?
I thought it was 17 in this case.
since this is would be a good place for this - as an idea of how to create a PFS-LEGAL child character:
I just created a minimum age halfling bard, with the child-like feat, so, due to her height, she passes socially as a human child of about 4 or 5. She is very intelligent and has maxed bluff - basically uses her innocence to put people off guard. She also has a "slave" to pass as a "governess," so she's not unaccompanied. She'll pick up a porter when she gets enough PA.
Her perform oratory? Nursery rhymes. Her perform sing? lullabies. Her spell chord of shards? Screaming.