|
I know there are several threads about Racial Heritage and I've tried to go through them, but they all typically devolve into arguments about tangents to the rules the additional question is asking about.
So I'm going to post my question and see if I can get some clarification. I'm only concerned about RAW, not how you would judge it at home.
A player at a table I was judging a few weeks back, was building a new human character. They wanted to build a fighter, but have him be raised by dwarves. He had some build questions for flavor, as well as for optimization. I answered most of his questions, but didn't have a response a RAW response for him for this one:
PLAYER: "If I take Racial Heritage Dwarf, that means I can take Dwarven Racial Feats correct?"
ME: "Yes, you can take Dwarven Racial Feats."
PLAYER: "Ok, I want to take Steel Soul. It's a Dwarven Feat."
ME: "Shouldn't be a problem, let me look it up real quick." *Pulls up the APG on my iPad, notice that Steel Soul has a the Hardy Racial Trait as a prereq.* "I'm not sure you can take it, you don't have hardy as a racial trait."
PLAYER: "Well the Feat Racial Heritage says I qualify for all Dwarven Racial Feats."
ME: "I know, but i think prereq. rules take precedence here."
PLAYER: "Well that sucks."
So I tell him to not take the feat for the moment and let me ask, since it's a first level character he's got time to rebuild. But he's coming up on level 2 and needs to make his decision quickly.
So can he take Racial Feats that have Racial Traits as prereqs?
|
P33J, you're correct. While Racial Heritage lets him qualify as a Dwarf for anything that lists "Dwarf" as a pre-requisite, it doesn't give him all the Dwarven racial traits (like Hardy).
Dylos, I don't think the intent of the line in the Additional Resources is to neuter the Racial Heritage feat. The purpose of the feat is to allow you to qualify for just those kinds of feats (assuming they don't have any other pre-requisites), nor do I think it's reasonable that the Additional Resources should have to spell out an exception for Racial Heritage. In this case, specific (Racial Heritage) trumps general (only characters of a given race can take the associated racial feats).
|
Racial Heritage isn't the only way to qualify for those feats without being the associated race, Aasimars can qualify for human feats through Scion of Humanity.
Should an Aasimar with Scion of Humanity alternate racial be able to pick up Racial Heritage (Elf) and take Aasimar, Human, and Elven feats presented in the Advanced Race Guide? Or even better, take Racial Heritage (Damphir, Goblin, Kitsune or some other boon race) I'm pretty certain that you're not supposed to be able to use Racial Heritage to acquire feats that normally require a boon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
[soapbox]Whenever there's a question about how something works, even something you know really well, go back and read it again. Here's why:
We humans like to remember things. But complicated and wordy things take a fair bit of effort to remember, while smaller and more conceptual ideas are far easier to remember. So when we learn something, we typically don't memorize its true details - instead we look for a "big idea" that pretty well sums it up, and we remember that instead.
For instance, most of us know what a pizza is, and could describe it pretty well from memory. But can most of us recite a recipe, right down to whether it's 1/4 or 1/8 teaspoons of garlic powder per 8oz of tomato paste? Of course not! Even if we once read a complete pizza recipe, most of us didn't memorize it; instead we just remember the general idea (crust, tomato sauce, cheese, toppings).
Well, we do the same thing with game rules, too. We read a feat or a spell or an item or whatever for the first time, and we look for the "big idea" and remember that instead. For instance, Racial Heritage lets you count as another race for the purposes of blah blah blah. Do we memorize what it says? No, we finish reading it and go "Oh, I get it, this opens up racial options from other races" and remember that.
And this is a good thing. When you know the general idea of a pizza, you can quickly and easily answer basic questions about it for someone who's not familiar with it. "Yes, you can put meat on it. No, you shouldn't eat it without baking it first."
Unfortunately, sometimes someone asks how much garlic should be in the sauce. It's right there in the recipe, but they didn't look at the recipe. They looked at what they filed away in their brain, which only told them that there was probably garlic in the sauce, but not how much. And for some reason, it didn't occur to them that their memory might be incomplete or different from the recipe.
More unfortunately, well-meaning pizza eaters try to answer the question, but they too forget that they didn't memorize the recipe. So you get answers like "The recipe doesn't specify how much garlic to use, so expect table variation."
"Garlic is a pretty weak seasoning; you should use about half a cup."
"Are you crazy? That would make the taste of garlic totally overpowered. Maybe the recipe-as-written says half a cup, but the clear intent is 1/16 teaspoon."
"I started eating pizza when it first came out over 30 years ago, and it's always used 1/4 teaspoon of garlic powder."
"Yeah, but the pizza was a different size back then, and catered to a different audience with a different expectation of flavor. The current recipe deliberately changes it to 1/8 teaspoon, and IMO it's a change for the better."
"The recipe doesn't actually say, and that's intentional. If we tried to spell out exactly how much of each ingredient to put in a pizza, we'd end up with a recipe that's 100 pages long."
And the debate goes on, with no one actually reading the recipe.
The really weird thing? People can get touchy about how much garlic goes in pizza sauce. If you tell someone that they've remembered incorrectly, you can get all kinds of nasty reactions, like:
"Don't talk to me like I've never made a pizza before. That may be what the recipe says, but some of us want some actual FLAVOR in our pizzas. That's the whole reason we have a cook instead of a pre-programmed factory line. If I wanted it to taste like cardboard, I'd just pop a frozen pizza in the microwave. All this 'by the recipe' nonsense that the microwave generation is bringing to the kitchen is the reason pizza's gone so far downhill compared to decades past." It's like if you advocate reading the recipe, you're somehow accusing everyone else of being terrible cooks.
Anyway, the point is that if you're interested in making a pizza, read the recipe, even if you've made pizzas before. If you're interested in finding out how a Pathfinder rule works, read the rule, even if you've played/GM'd Pathfinder before. Reading is not a sign of inadequacy.
[/soapbox]
Who microwaves their frozen pizzas?
XD
|
ME: The Additional Resources says that for the ARG Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial Heritage does not allow you to overcome this rule.
You really should let folks now what book you are quoting the Additional Resources restriction from.
This restriction is only placed on the Advanced Race Guide. Not on any other book that has legal options that are race specific.
|
|
In Response to the Tangent:
I'm not a pizza maker, I'm an advertising writer.
Now I love pizza, and I enjoy it every so often. Usually when I'm out with friends or over watching the game with my buddies. And I've got some friends who make really good pizza. They know everything about pizza. They love making pizza.
Occasionally, though, they just want to eat pizza and since I am their friend and I take advantage of their hospitality and eat their pizza when they make it, I sometimes feel obligated to have them over for pizza too.
But the problem is, I'm not a pizza maker. I'm an advertising writer.
So what do I do, do I spend hours trying to learn how to make pizza so my expert pizza maker friends can take a break from making pizza for the day? Or do I hope online and order a pizza from the local pizzeria?
Which one is a more efficient use of my time?
Now, granted I'm looking to others to help me with my pizza problem, but the great thing is, there are all kinds of pizza experts online who know everything about pizza and are happy to chime in with a response about who I should order the pizza from, how I should serve it to ensure the easiest dining experience and even can give me some quick tips if I got nuts and try to make pizza myself.
So I ask the question, I get a response. I tell them thank you and I go out and host the pizza party. Which helps spread the love of pizza in my community and keeps people involved in the act of eating pizza. And it keeps the pizza makers in business.
So I'm not going to feel guilty for asking a few simple questions every once in a while about the pIzza recipe that is in the book, when there are expert pizza makers happy to give me a hand.
BTW, thank you all for your responses.
|
|
I find it mildly irritating sometimes when someone asks how a rule works, but they don’t quote the rule with their question, and then refer back to the rule with the specifics of the question.
Like:
“Hey guys, I got a question about rule X, and here’s what rule X is (quote it) and my question is how does Y intereact with X as the rule seems a bit unclear to me on the relationship of X and Y.”
Because you know what happens? I have to go look up the rule anyways to answer your question. So basically you are asking me to do the work for you.
To get back to the metaphor, you are asking your pizza making friends to come over to your house to make pizza for you in an oven they are unfamiliar with.
And to boot, what would be really nice, is if folks when asking questions like this, actually looked up all the resources, such as additional resources, and quoted what it writes about rule X from there.
But I suppose that would be too much to ask. /rant
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Second, not trying to make anyone feel guilty. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm trying to help. "Teach a man to fish" and all that. You're not a pizza cook? Cool. I don't expect you to be. I'll happily answer your questions. But I want to give you more than that. I want to give you a tip that'll help save you time and energy in the future, to make your life easier. Will that tip solve every problem? No. Will it make you a master cook overnight? No. Do I expect you to have no more questions ever? Of course not. I'm just trying to give you a tip, to make your life easier.
Which brings me to the part of my post about how people react to being shown the recipe. What made you think it was a "rant"? What made you think I wanted you to feel guilty? What is it about being told that the answer is already within your grasp that seems to make people think they're under attack?
I'm not looking down my nose at you for not having mastered the rules. I'm not gawking at a neanderthal or wondering what's wrong with you for having the audacity to ask a question. If I asked you a basic question about advertising, and you pointed me to a resource that could answer my question and many others, and told me how useful it would be for me to check it whenever I have a question, how should I react? Should I try to explain why it was okay for me to ask a question and how I'm not going to let you make me feel guilty for it? Of course not. You were just trying to help, not judging me or trying to shame me.
That's how to interpret what I wrote: just trying to help.
|
|
ME: The Additional Resources says that for the ARG Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial Heritage does not allow you to overcome this rule.You really should let folks now what book you are quoting the Additional Resources restriction from.
This restriction is only placed on the Advanced Race Guide. Not on any other book that has legal options that are race specific.
I did, i said ARG
Thought post was spot on P33J.
|
|
The ARG restrictions take precedence over the racial heritage feat. This ensures that the ARG content for non-core races (plus tengu, tiefling, and aasimar) remains special, usable only by those with boons for that content. See this thread for more info.
My bad, I was unaware of that clarification.
|
|
PLAYER: "Well the Feat Racial Heritage says I qualify for all Dwarven Racial Feats."ME: "No, it doesn't say that at all. Read it."
I want to respond without being petulant.
The implication, intended or not, was that neither of us had read the rules. We did, as written the rules state that you qualify for traits and feats of that race. He thought that meant he qualified for the dwarven racial traits, but I thought that was a misreading, so I asked for him to hold off and let me clarify with the forum community.
I want to thank you for responding, but had I responded like you did I would have unnecessarily discouraged a new player. I myself am new, I've only been playing RPGs for about 8 months and volunteered to judge that night to fill in on short notice for a VL.
Had you asked me about a question in advertising that I knew the answer to, I would have responded to you with the answer and then pointed you to the resource for more information. I wouldn't have just handed you "Hey Whipple Squeeze This!" And told you the answer was somewhere in its 200 pages.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
as written the rules state that you qualify for traits and feats of that race.
No, it doesn't say that at all. It says you count as a member of the race for certain purposes. It never says that you qualify for anything.
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.
See? It just says you count as that race (and human). There's nothing in there saying "you qualify for traits and feats of that race". Now, counting as another race will potentially have the consequence of letting you qualify for *some* of that race's feats or traits, but such qualification is not written in the feat. The idea that it lets you qualify for that race's feats is not what the rules say, it's what your mind's summary says. And it's a helpful summary; if you're making a PC whose concept has no inter-racial elements to it, you won't be wasting any time looking up (or even thinking about) Racial Heritage because your mental summary of its general function let you file it away neatly in your memory. That's a good thing.
It's just not a very precise thing, so now that you have a precise question, you need to look at the precise wording instead of relying on your memory of its general idea. As you can now see, your mental summary of Racial Heritage led you to believe that it says something it doesn't actually say.
And there's nothing wrong with that. That's how the human mind is *supposed* to work, and it's pretty damn efficient. I'm just trying to help you out by letting you know that sometimes you can get an answer faster by putting aside your memory and re-reading the rule in question than you can by asking on the messageboards. Not that any of us *mind* answering questions, I'm just trying to save you time.
had I responded like you did I would have unnecessarily discouraged a new player.
Only if you spoke in the dark monotone of Internet Text, instead of in an encouraging tone with a smile. The intent is to encourage him to be able to become self-reliant, in turn building his confidence and making him feel good about his growth in the hobby. Back when I judged Magic: the Gathering, I'd sometimes respond to a question by asking them to read the card to me, letting them realize the answer for themselves - they'd usually feel good about having come up with the answer without being told.
But I guess that method must not work as well via text as it does in person.
I wouldn't have just ... told you the answer was somewhere in its 200 pages.
Now, be fair. Asking you to re-read one or two sentences is a lot different than leaving you to try and dig through 200 pages.
|
|
Thanks SCPRedMage
@Jiggy,
I appreciate the conversation, but I want to point out a problem.
Lets assume I responded the way you said with: ME: "No, it doesn't say that at all. Read it."
Now, I don’t know how he responds, because I didn’t say that, I said, “Let me ask on the forums and get a better answer before you build an illegal character.
But we’re now in the world of hypothetical pizzas and alternative reality conversations.
Clearly the individual I’m talking to, doesn’t understand the intricacies of the rules, nor do I for that matter, but I’m starting to get an idea.
He responds to "No, it doesn't say that at all. Read it."
With: “Ok, well since I’m rereading it I see it says: "...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." So I take Hardy as a Racial Trait and Dark vision for that manner.”
Now, where in the ARG do I get an explanation that Racial Traits are not one of the “traits” he can take?
It’s not in there is it?
You know how I know it’s not in there? I read it and I read this thread which you just replied in a month ago. Which addresses a question about Traits in PFS and several people replied that you could only take two Racial Traits, which you had to correct. But you didn’t correct them by just telling them to read it, you had to explain why it didn’t work that way.
So now, with your response, I have to explain that he can’t use this feat to take a Racial Trait, but can use it to take a Race Trait. Except, I’ve got no RAW explanation in the Core Rule Book, the APG, the ARG, the Dwarves of Golarion, the Game Masters Guide, Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic that can prove that I’m right.
So on one level, you’re absolutely right, the comparison between what you said and what I said isn’t fair.
I would have only asked you to read 200 pages, you asked me to read close to 1000 pages from the various source books, search the additional resources (which wouldn’t have helped since Steel Soul is an APG feat and the ARG feats are the only ones restricted in this case) and search a forum with over 10,000 individual threads and upwards of probably 100,000 replies to hopefully find an a developer saying on record that Racial Traits can’t be taken via the Racial Heritage Feat and therefore you can’t get any Racial Feat (look even the wording here is inconsistent, I can take Racial Feats and Race Traits, but not Racial Traits, wha??????) that has a Racial Trait prerequisite.
Hence, why I started a thread that asked my original question.
;D
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
He responds to "No, it doesn't say that at all. Read it."
With: “Ok, well since I’m rereading it I see it says: "...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." So I take Hardy as a Racial Trait and Dark vision for that manner.”
Now, where in the ARG do I get an explanation that Racial Traits are not one of the “traits” he can take?
It’s not in there is it?
You know how I know it’s not in there? I read it and I read this thread which you just replied in a month ago. Which addresses a question about Traits in PFS and several people replied that you could only take two Racial Traits, which you had to correct. But you didn’t correct them by just telling them to read it, you had to explain why it didn’t work that way.
So now, with your response, I have to explain that he can’t use this feat to take a Racial Trait, but can use it to take a Race Trait. Except, I’ve got no RAW explanation in the Core Rule Book, the APG, the ARG, the Dwarves of Golarion, the Game Masters Guide, Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic that can prove that I’m right.
Different questions get different answers. When someone asks a question whose answer is right there in the text, I point them to it. When the answer is less clear (as in the follow-up issue you describe), I simply answer the question.
But you obviously know this, as you pointed out the difference yourself. You cited my answer in this thread, where I pointed out the rule; and you cited my answer in another thread where I explained the issue because it wasn't easily seen in the rules.
This makes me a little curious why you wrote a whole paragraph that seems to be devoted to showing me what a bad idea it would be to say "just read it" to every question. I get that you're upset by my original answer, but explaining how ludicrous it would be for me to always give that same answer, when you just demonstrated your awareness that I *don't* always give that answer, doesn't make sense.
|
|
@jiggy
I think the crux of everything is that I felt singled out by the fact that you decided to post your soapbox about reading in my question about a particularly sticky rule. It made me fell little and embarrassed that I had asked a question about a rule many have been confused with.
Especially when your soapbox is combined with your first answer, which I clearly didn't take offense at until you posted your soapbox in conjunction to it.
If that wasn't your intent, which you say it wasn't. Then I'm sorry I overreacted. But this wasn't the place for a soapbox rant about reading the rules, you could have posted an entirely new thread devoted to that subject.
EDIT* I removed the last bit, it felt like I was taking a dig at you, which in hindsight I probably was because I was on the defensive, that violates rule number 1, don't be a jerk, I apologize and thanks for understanding my perspective.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes there's something that'll be on my mind for a while, in a vague and abstract way. Sometimes I run into something (such as a forum thread) that successfully catalyzes my ability to finally articulate it and put it down onto paper/keyboard and finally out of my head. Sometimes the thing which precipitates me finally articulating my thoughts isn't even related to the thought in question. That's why I prefaced my spoiler with the bit about it not being directed at anyone in particular. Even so, I acknowledge that it can still feel like singling you out, seeing as you do not (to my knowledge) live inside my brain and know exactly how I got from replying to your post to writing up my aside. Sorry about that.
Thanks for sticking with the back-and-forth so we could get that straightened out. It's a flaw of mine that I do sometimes come across more harshly than I intend. I believe I've made progress over the years, but I've still got further to go. Your feedback helps with that. :)
Searching the Message Forums regarding Racial Heritage and so far this thread makes the most sense. (Plus less tangents.)
So here's the wrinkle:
Using the Human & Dwarf races as per the example, Racial Heritage means the PC qualifies as both Human AND Dwarf. Nothing gained in terms of Dwarven traits, feats etc. Effectively, Racial Heritage makes this character a "Half-Dwarf"...That's it. Full Stop. Let's make this the "given & understood".
Now if one were to also take Additional Traits (APG: gain two(2) character traits) does this now make the PC able to take two(2) Dwarven feats, traits etc. because of Racial Heritage?
IF YES: Then which ones? For Example: Can the PC take Darkvision (CRB: trait) and Brewmaster (ARG: Dwarven feat)? (For the sake of argument all PF books that have feats, traits etc. are valid for this train of thought.)
OK I think I typed that up correctly. My head hurts now...
Rom001
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For one thing, Additional Traits does not give you feats. It gives you traits. What was unclear about Additional Traits that made you think it would give you feats?
And no, you couldn't select Darkvision via Additional Traits (or as one of your two traits at character creation, for that matter). The Traits that you pick two of at character creation, and which Additional Traits gives you two more of, are the little menu options found HERE; things like Armor Expert, Reactionary, or Dangerously Curious. A dwarf's darkvision (despite the unfortunate term "racial trait") is not one of those traits and is not a valid selection for Additional Traits or any other method of gaining a Trait.
@Jiggy: DOH about the feat part! What I meant to type was another trait.
I think I get it now. One CANNOT choose a dwarf's "inherent trait" (for lack of a better phrase) I.E. darkvision, greed, hardy and all the other "inherent traits" as per Dwarf Traits CRB p21.
I knew that, according to Additional Traits, you "cannot chose from lists from which you have already selected a character trait" (APG p 150), but after reading the SRD I missed the part about the traits to choose from (dependent on GM approval of course) are from the Big Five:
Basic (which has four categories: Combat, Faith, Magic, Social)
Campaign
Race
Regional
Religious
So. For sake of arguments, given that prerequisites have been met and using the Human & Dwarf example:
1) the PC's human character chooses Racial Heritage (dwarf) which gains the dwarf subtype,
2) if made the given that: no traits are allowed during character creation, but the Additional Traits feat is taken (which is two traits and "cannot chose from lists from which you have already selected a character trait"),
3) the PC can choose for his human/dwarf character say...ONE(1) Basic: Combat Trait from Human OR Dwarf subtype (due to Racial Heritage) AND
4) for the second choice, which cannot be from the Basic list as per Additional Traits rules, ONE(1) from Campaign, Race, Regional OR Religion (again, meeting all prerequisites).
To head the potential tangent off at the pass: the argument for the Basic is that it has four categories = four different lists, (Let's leave that for another post...if we can ;p)
WHEW! Did I get it right this tiiiime???
Rom001
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
@Jiggy: DOH about the feat part! What I meant to type was another trait.
I think I get it now. One CANNOT choose a dwarf's "inherent trait" (for lack of a better phrase) I.E. darkvision, greed, hardy and all the other "inherent traits" as per Dwarf Traits CRB p21.
I knew that, according to Additional Traits, you "cannot chose from lists from which you have already selected a character trait" (APG p 150), but after reading the SRD I missed the part about the traits to choose from (dependent on GM approval of course) are from the Big Five:
Basic (which has four categories: Combat, Faith, Magic, Social)
Campaign
Race
Regional
ReligiousSo. For sake of arguments, given that prerequisites have been met and using the Human & Dwarf example:
1) the PC's human character chooses Racial Heritage (dwarf) which gains the dwarf subtype,
2) if made the given that: no traits are allowed during character creation, but the Additional Traits feat is taken (which is two traits and "cannot chose from lists from which you have already selected a character trait"),
3) the PC can choose for his human/dwarf character say...ONE(1) Basic: Combat Trait from Human OR Dwarf subtype (due to Racial Heritage) AND
4) for the second choice, which cannot be from the Basic list as per Additional Traits rules, ONE(1) from Campaign, Race, Regional OR Religion (again, meeting all prerequisites).
To head the potential tangent off at the pass: the argument for the Basic is that it has four categories = four different lists, (Let's leave that for another post...if we can ;p)
WHEW! Did I get it right this tiiiime???
Rom001
Combat, Faith, Magic, and Social traits are all different categories... they're not lumped into one called "Basic". You can have one Combat trait and one Faith trait, and if you take Additional Traits you can have one Magic and one Social trait, and if you take Additional Traits again you can have one Race trait and one Regional trait, etc.
|
|
I think everyone has missed the very basic meaning of the feat, Racial Heritage.
First, the feat, Racial Heritage, (page 168 APG) states "The BLOOD of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins." Prerequisite: HUMAN. So we're talking about something as a genetic, inheritable nature in a Human's ancestry.
This feat is not about picking extra traits. It is about the inheritance of the traits of another race.
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.
What are Effects?
Effects are all the racial trait descriptors in the shaded boxes under each race in the CRB.
Ability adjustments, Darkvision, lowlight vision, immunities, senses, resistances, etc.
As we already know, half elves and half orcs are "premade" racial heritage combinations made as part of the 7 core racial choices. The Racial Heritage feat allows a player with a Human character to use a feat choice to create another type of racial heritage combination.
"race traits" on page 331 of the APG is NOT the intention of "Racial Heritage" feat."
See pg. 150 APG - A feat is a trick or ability acquired through training, luck, or AS A QUIRK OF HIS OR HER BIRTH. (heritage.)
Read the section on page 326 of the APG, "TRAITS." THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE STATES "Character traits are abilities that are NOT tied to your character's race or class. The Racial Heritage feat states "The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins." None of the traits from the Traits section of APG are "inherited" through the blood. They are acquired through EVENTS.
Traits are divided into five categories, Basic, campaign, race, regional, and religion. Basic traits are sub-divided into combat, faith, magic, and social.
Pg. 326, Restrictions on trait selection: "Remember also that traits are intended to model EVENTS that were formative in your character's development, either events from before he became an adventurer, or ... ones that happened while adventuring.
Example of why "Race Traits" pg 331 APG are not a form of RACIAL heritage. Elf Race Traits - Forlorn describes the event of living wild rather within the elven society, = +1 fortitude saving throw. (It was not inherited, it was learned/developed).
A +1 fortitude saving throw can also be taken as the combat feat, Resilient, page 328, which also describes the event of living in harsh environments.
The strategy here - since you CANNOT take two traits from the same category - is that a character can take the fortitude bonus as the elf racial trait, (the same as a combat trait Resilient) and the combat trait Reactionary. Or, vice versa, the elf racial trait "Warrior of Old" can be taken and the combat trait Resilient can be taken for the fortitude bonus. But because of the rule against taking two traits from one category, a character cannot take both of the Elf race traits from page 331.
Think about this in the inverted concept, a fictional feat called "Human Heritage." What would the elf gain by taking this fictional feat of "Human Heritage"?
They would gain +2 to one ability score, one additional skill rank each level, and a bonus feat.
So the human's +2 to an ability score could be used to cancel the elf's -2 to constitution. The elf already has quite a nice deal with low light vision, immunities, magic, keen senses, and weapon familiarity. Humans are "marketed" as being the most versatile with inherent potential for excelling in areas of study, so the bonus feat is their special extra.
What does this all mean? You can play an Assimar and get all the racial features, or you can play a Human and burn your extra feat to take Racial Heritage and be a Human/Aasimar. It seems like the human gets a huge gain, as if the Human is "broken" - but if this feat were reversed as "Human Heritage", all the Aasimar would get is a +2 to one ability score, an extra skill point, and the extra feat for humans.
|
(Stuff)
I really hope that this character isn't built around this misunderstanding of the racial heritage feat.
Also, I don't know the specifics of this character, but drow-related material is generally not included in Additional Resources and therefore not legal for play.
(Stuff)I really hope that this character isn't built around this misunderstanding of the racial heritage feat.
Also, I don't know the specifics of this character, but drow-related material is generally not included in Additional Resources and therefore not legal for play.
Couldn't he take Racial Heritage (Drow) just for cosmetic effects? It wouldnt give any mechanical or in game benefit.
|
|
Couldn't he take Racial Heritage (Drow) just for cosmetic effects? It wouldnt give any mechanical or in game benefit.(Stuff)I really hope that this character isn't built around this misunderstanding of the racial heritage feat.
Also, I don't know the specifics of this character, but drow-related material is generally not included in Additional Resources and therefore not legal for play.
Right, but it appears he took it for +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, and –2 Constitution, as I deconstructed his stats and they are certainly adjusted by Drow boosts.
|
Ah! I was doing the same thing, trying to deconstruct his stats, but using either one +2 or two +2s, and neither was working. Drow stats make more sense.
Seeing as he's only posted twice on the boards, and both posts were regarding Racial Heritage, I do hope he comes back (with an open mind) and sees the error of his ways. Hopefully he's not spreading this misinformation around his gaming community.
|
|
Fritz Lanhkmeier
Race Human
Classes/Levels Urban Ranger / 4
Gender M
Size 5'9"
Age 20
Special Abilities Human with racial heritage feat - Drow
Alignment LN
Languages Common, Undercommon
Occupation Brewer
Strength 10
Dexterity 18 (15+2 human +1 level 4)
Constitution 14
Intelligence 13
Wisdom 14
Charisma 10
STR 0 points
Dexterity 7 points
Constitution 5 points
Intelligence 3 points
Wisdom 5 points
Charisma 0 points.
20 points. That part looks perfectly Society legal.
"Not long afterwards, Fritz began to realize how to use his ability to create darkness to ease the pain of brightness, discovering he could make other things easy to see, highlighted by a dim "faerie fire" light, and the ability to see easily at night"
Looks like he's got Darkvision and a couple of spell like abilities...
|
|
Fritz Lanhkmeier
Race Human
Classes/Levels Urban Ranger / 4
Gender M
Size 5'9"
Age 20
Special Abilities Human with racial heritage feat - Drow
Alignment LN
Languages Common, Undercommon
Occupation Brewer
Strength 10
Dexterity 18 (15+2 human +1 level 4)
Constitution 14
Intelligence 13
Wisdom 14
Charisma 10STR 0 points
Dexterity 7 points
Constitution 5 points
Intelligence 3 points
Wisdom 5 points
Charisma 0 points.20 points. That part looks perfectly Society legal.
So it is, I deconstructed it this way.
Strength 10
Dexterity 18 (16+2 drow)
Constitution 14 (14-2 drow +2 human)
Intelligence 13 (12+1 level 4)
Wisdom 14
Charisma 10 (8+2 drow)
Str 0 points
Dex 10 points
Con 5 points
Int 2 points
Wis 5 points
Cha -2 points
Also as mentioned he lists having darkvision and mentions having spell-like abilities.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
A clarification.
Confusion goes when talking about "traits" and "race."
There are traits that are basic swap outs for the abilities inherant within the race (Darkvision, extra feat at 1st level, innate spell like abilities, etc...) write up that are in the Advanced Race Guide, though whether or not they are call "Race" traits or "Racial" traits gets confusing because of the following...
There are traits that one takes at character creation that are basically background "half-feats." Some, within companion books, are called "Race" or "Racial" traits, meaning to be taken only be that race. Each of these books uses one term or the other, but the terms are mixed up in a couple of the earlier books.
Just keep this in mind, if something is getting replaced, it can't be taken because of Feats that allow inter racial pickings.