Half-Orc with Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Bizbag wrote:
Quote:
Bottom line: Racial Heritage gives you everything you need to qualify for Tail Terror

You keep saying that as though it were completely true, but that's what is being disputed. The blood of a non-human ancestor flows through your veins. You count as a kobold for feats. Neither says you grow a tail.

Tail terror lets you make an attack with your tail. Ordinarily, you have to be a kobold to take the feat, but you got in sideways. You don't have a tail, though. If you did, you'd have a tail slap. You never grew a tail, though.

Humans don't have tails. If you were an alternate race that has tails, more power, but you're just a human who took a feat. What if you took Racial Heritage at level 3? Do you suddenly sprout a tail? Do you sprout gills if you take the feat again at 5 and choose merfolk?

The whole thing about it coming online at a later level debunking it doesnt really hold up well, the idea that its infeasible for you to suddenly grow a tail or your eyes to go serpentine makes perfect sense in a world as completely over run with the supernatural as any setting that allows the kinds of classes in pathfinder. Case in point, at level X a raging barbarian grows claws and pounces and yadda yadda yadda, "what do you mean you suddenly grow claws?! humans dont have claws, where did they come from!"... its a game that often uses levels to represent age, especially if the concept of power comes from age or maturity. For Racial Heritage the idea that you don't manifest traits of your heritage makes perfect sense since your heritage doesn't "awaken" until you take the feat, the same way a bane weapon doesn't ping on you until then. Think X-Men, the gene activates later in life and BOOM!: eye beams.

Although, again, i agree the feat doesnt actually say you can in any way alter your appearance or reflect your changed nature. Which is why you should also be immune to Rangers. Its only fair since the feat doesnt say you look inhuman the Ranger has no way of telling you share the heritage they are so xenophobic about and never realizes they should turn their hate on you. ;)

Honestly, looking at the feat as long as you would if you were considering taking it leads to the realization that you need a lot of work with your GM before you take it. PFS or no, there is a lot to be interpreted from it. This thread has really opened my eyes to that.


Favored enemy is not hatred, just careful study. Favored enemy: human dosnt mean you're anti-social, just that you've got an exceptional understanding of humanity. I would very much give rangers their bonuses against the half-breed, even if the target isn't aware themselves. ("That half-Orc is moving a lot like a kobold...")


But by that logic they could get their bonuses against a mime or a good actor :P It could make for an interesting argument in game though, the Ranger constantly trying to convince someone they are part... weird... thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is quite simple: the tail terror feat does NOT require you to have a tail.. it is not in the prerequisites... so all 'humans don't have a tail' tail is irrelevant. You qualify, so go!


Stauffie wrote:
I think it is quite simple: the tail terror feat does NOT require you to have a tail.. it is not in the prerequisites... so all 'humans don't have a tail' tail is irrelevant. You qualify, so go!

Yes you can take the feat, nobody is disputing that.

Now what does the feat do. It lets you attack with your tail.

Do you have a tail..... no well no you don't so good luck attacking with it.

So yes , you can take it, but it is a waste of your time.


I just don't see where this "well no" is coming from. It doesn't say it lets you attack with any tail you happen to have handy, it says you attack with your tail. In exactly the same way Improved Initiative bestows the "quick reflexes" you use to react rapidly to danger. No Improved Initiative, no quick reflexes; Improved Initiative, quick reflexes. No Tail Terror, you don't use your tail to attack; Tail Terror, yay, you do. Just because Tail Terror doesn't bestow a tail on kobolds doesn't mean it doesn't on humans; it does what it does.

If you want to picky about flavor text:

Quote:


Improved Overrun (Combat)
You are skilled at running down your foes.
Prerequisite: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing an overrun combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to overrrun a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to overrun you. Targets of your overrun attempt may not chose to avoid you.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing an overrun combat maneuver.

Improved Overrun almost never works, since you are skilled at running down your foes, and you can't overrun during a run. However, you do get that +2 to CMD versus overruns. So, that's nice.


"Running down" is a verb phrase with its own meaning. It's often used in the context of horseback riding or cars, referring to deliberately chasing someone and attempting to knock them over. So your etymology is weak there.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Did you even read the post with other comparisons in the Core Rulebook, Fighters taking caster Feats and all that? Are you now saying that taking Bouncing Spell enables you to cast spells?

I can see one, as I mentioned before, making a mechanical tail to use with this feat as a part of his armor or such.

Another example. If you Bludgeoner and have no Bludgeoning weapons, you can't use that feat. (Flat of the blade don' count) The feat does not automatically give you a bludgeoning weapon.

Dark Archive

RJGrady wrote:
I just don't see where this "well no" is coming from. It doesn't say it lets you attack with any tail you happen to have handy, it says you attack with your tail.

If you can't see the other side of the coin at *ALL* by this point, I suspect it's pointless to keep trying, but one last go!

The Tail Terror feat says, "You can make a tail slap with your tail."

The Sickening Spell feat says, "You can modify a spell to sicken a creature damaged by the spell."

If you cannot cast spells, the Sickening Spell feat does not grant that ability, if you do not have a tail, the Tail Terror feat does not grant you one. In both cases you can take the feat, in neither case is it of any use unless you already posses a seperate ability to make use of it.

Does that at least make clear whereby RAW, people are coming from in regards to saying they believe your interpretation of the feat isn't correct?


I still think people are confused the same way i was at first, RAW Racial Heritage does not allow a character to look in anyway different from any other member of their race. I dont like it but thats how its written, no tail, no scales, no weird skin or hair colors. It makes the feat function oddly but as i said above, i do not believe the developers where thinking of feats like this when they first draft Racial Heritage. I would suggest it was the intent to allow combinations like this however.

Dark Archive

Absolutely I think you're very much right that its intended to work like that, and in a home game I'd be far more likely to allow it for pretty much anything my players wanted if they felt like making a character that used it.

It's just that in the rules forum we have to stick to the RAW rather than the intent (especially since there are occassions when PFS might be involved and we don't want to give someone advice which ends up ruining a character when a GM says, "No!"), at least until Paizo decide to faq something to be more inline with what we hope they intended! :)


Suthainn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
I just don't see where this "well no" is coming from. It doesn't say it lets you attack with any tail you happen to have handy, it says you attack with your tail.

If you can't see the other side of the coin at *ALL* by this point, I suspect it's pointless to keep trying, but one last go!

The Tail Terror feat says, "You can make a tail slap with your tail."

The Sickening Spell feat says, "You can modify a spell to sicken a creature damaged by the spell."

If you cannot cast spells, the Sickening Spell feat does not grant that ability, if you do not have a tail, the Tail Terror feat does not grant you one. In both cases you can take the feat, in neither case is it of any use unless you already posses a seperate ability to make use of it.

Does that at least make clear whereby RAW, people are coming from in regards to saying they believe your interpretation of the feat isn't correct?

That's a weak analogy. Having Sickening Spell but no spells does not mean that your Sickening Spell ability doesn't manifest; you actually have that ability. I think it would be more apt to say: having Sickening Spell but no spells is like having Tail Terror but no one to slap.

Notice that the feat says, "You can make a tail slap with your tail," not "You can't make a tail slap with your tail." Somehow, people keep arguing for an interpretation that supports the latter reading.


Quote:
That's a weak analogy. Having Sickening Spell but no spells does not mean that your Sickening Spell ability doesn't manifest; you actually have that ability. I think it would be more apt to say: having Sickening Spell but no spells is like having Tail Terror but no one to slap.

That isn't what any of us are saying. IF you cast a spell, it could Sicken someone, but if you can't cast spells, the feat doesn't grant any.

IF you have a tail, you could slap someone with it. If you lack a tail, the feat doesn't grant one.


Why doesn't the feat grant you one? Does it or does it not say you slap people with your tail?


RJGrady wrote:

Why doesn't the feat grant you one? Does it or does it not say you slap people with your tail?

Because full blooded kobolds (which the feat was actually written for) already have tails.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

RJGrady wrote:

Why doesn't the feat grant you one? Does it or does it not say you slap people with your tail?

It says you can attack with your tail.

You can attack with your tail.

But you don't have a tail.

Just like Measured Response says you can take average on damage.
You can take average on damage.
But if you do something that doesn't deal damage, you can't take average on nothing.


RJGrady wrote:
Why doesn't the feat grant you one? Does it or does it not say you slap people with your tail?

Why doesn't the feat grant you spells? Does it or does it not say that your spells sicken a creature damaged by them?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
RJGrady wrote:

Why doesn't the feat grant you one? Does it or does it not say you slap people with your tail?

Uh, The same reason the Feat Bludgeoner does not automatically give you a bludgeoning weapon?


It's all about implications of racial heritage. The feat definitely sounds like it would give you inhuman features to reflect the heritage but it doesn't actually have any wording to support that. So no tail to use the feat with.I'm bummed about it too. On the plus side since the feat doesn't support inhuman features I'd house rule a +20 to the dc to ID the heritage for a ranger's favored bonuses. As is it's a blank in the rules that needs to be addressed at the table.


blahpers wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Why doesn't the feat grant you one? Does it or does it not say you slap people with your tail?
Why doesn't the feat grant you spells? Does it or does it not say that your spells sicken a creature damaged by them?

Because Sickening Spell doesn't grant spellcasting power. Tail Terror does grant you the ability to attack with your tail... without requiring you possess a tail prior to taking the feat.


RJdrady you really seem like the kid with fingers in his ears going lalalalala. you don't grow extra appendages from a feat, ability or feature unless it specifically states it does. while this wasn't confirmed for this particular feat, it was for another. qualifying for the feat does not change this, it never has.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9n88

see the bit: unless you grow another mouth, you still qualify for the feat regardless, it just does nothing for you.

you should look up the entire post from which the ruling derives itself, it goes deeper into the subject. then just the ruling of this particular case


RJGrady wrote:
Tail Terror does grant you the ability to attack with your tail... without requiring you possess a tail

?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Tail Terror does grant you the ability to attack with your tail... without requiring you possess a tail
?

the requirement is "kobold" not tail, the discussion is about it giving you a tail, it doesn't, but some people really want it to.


The whole purpose is to qualify for a feat, any feat, you would normally have to be a kobold to qualify for. This feat is under that category. It has no prerequisites of having a tail. Therefore, you qualify. Therefore, you have a tail.

The example of getting two bites is not relevant, as both abilities grant you a single bite attack (once), not an additional bite attack. A clearer analogy would be to say someone with Racial Heritage (half-orc) doesn't qualify for Razortusk because humans don't have "powerful jaws and steely teeth." It says right there that you use your powerful jaws and steely teeth to gain a bite attack, so I guess if you don't have them, you don't gain the bite attack.

Quote:


You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race.

I say you qualify as a kobold for the purpose of having a tail. It says "any effects." Even if you don't actually have a tail, by a strict reading of the feat, you count as having one, so you can take the feat. And if you have the feat, you can attack with your tail, so therefore it must exist.

Sickening Spell has no language stating that even if you can't cast fireball, you count as being able to cast fireball.


Quote:
I say you qualify as a kobold for the purpose of having a tail. It says "any effects." Even if you don't actually have a tail, by a strict reading of the feat, you count as having one, so you can take the feat. And if you have the feat, you can attack with your tail, so therefore it must exist.

This is blatantly begging the question. Here's what you've told us:

1) You need a tail to use the feat.
2) You legally possess the feat
3) Because you possess the feat, you can use it
4) Because you can use the feat, you have all things required for its use.

The problem is that step 3 requires step 4 to be true, and vice versa. You can't use a feat unless you have all necessary tools to do so - and step 4 "granting" you the tools to do so (i.e. a tail) would require you to be legitimately able to perform the feat - which you can't yet because you haven't shown you have a tail yet.

Ultimately, your only conclusions that this feat combination grants a tail rely on itself to already be true to prove itself.

Long story short: you can't assume something's true and use that as evidence that it's true.


No, that is not what I told you.

1) You need to be able to be a kobold to use the feat.
2) You legally possess the feat.
3) Since you are a kobold for "all effects," you are considered to have a tail and can attack with it.

The fact that you must have the tail you are attacking with is merely self-evident; my argument, as such, ends with #3 as I listed.


RJGrady wrote:


Sickening Spell has no language stating that even if you can't cast fireball, you count as being able to cast fireball.

Tail Terror has no language stating that even if you have no tail, you count as being able to make tail attacks.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

RJGrady wrote:
3) Since you are a kobold for "all effects," you are considered to have a tail and can attack with it.

This is where you are wrong.

You do not have a tail with this feat.


You count as having a tail. Says so in Racial Heritage.


RJGrady wrote:
You count as having a tail. Says so in Racial Heritage.

No. You count as being a kobold. The two are not synonymous.


RJGrady wrote:
blahpers wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Why doesn't the feat grant you one? Does it or does it not say you slap people with your tail?
Why doesn't the feat grant you spells? Does it or does it not say that your spells sicken a creature damaged by them?
Because Sickening Spell doesn't grant spellcasting power. Tail Terror does grant you the ability to attack with your tail... without requiring you possess a tail prior to taking the feat.

Sickening Spell does grant you the ability to sicken creatures with your spells... without requiring you possess spells prior to taking the feat.


RJGrady wrote:
You count as having a tail. Says so in Racial Heritage.

It says no such thing. It says you count as a kobold for certain effects. It doesn't make you actually a kobold in any way. You are still mechanically a human in every way. The only difference is blood, which apparently has kobold in it. You do not gain any racial features of a kobold, including short stature, stat bonuses or penalties, or even physical features like scaled skin.

The rules for racial feats are written with the assumption that you are a member of the actual race. Just because you slide in on a technicality does not grant you things that you are nowhere granted explicitly.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed a post. Please be civil to each other.


Bizbag wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
You count as having a tail. Says so in Racial Heritage.
It says no such thing. It says you count as a kobold for certain effects. It doesn't make you actually a kobold in any way. You are still mechanically a human in every way.

No, it says you are a kobold for "all effects." Not certain effects. All effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So do you become size Small as well?


David knott 242 wrote:

So do you become size Small as well?

No. Is that relevant to this discussion in some way?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
You count as having a tail. Says so in Racial Heritage.
It says no such thing. It says you count as a kobold for certain effects. It doesn't make you actually a kobold in any way. You are still mechanically a human in every way.
No, it says you are a kobold for "all effects." Not certain effects. All effects.

Enjoy your -4 Str and -2 Con. That's an effect of being considered a kobold.

The feat clearly doesn't actually grant that, nor does it grant a tail. It allows you to be considered as a Kobold for the effect of qualifying for feats and effects, that's all. It says nothing about allowing you anything more, such as required limbs you might lack to make use of said feats.


RJGrady wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

So do you become size Small as well?

No. Is that relevant to this discussion in some way?

Yes it is relevant. You say you have a tail because all kobolds have tails and you count as Kobold. Well, all kobolds are small. So why a tail but not small?


Suthainn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
You count as having a tail. Says so in Racial Heritage.
It says no such thing. It says you count as a kobold for certain effects. It doesn't make you actually a kobold in any way. You are still mechanically a human in every way.
No, it says you are a kobold for "all effects." Not certain effects. All effects.

Enjoy your -4 Str and -2 Con. That's an effect of being considered a kobold.

The feat clearly doesn't actually grant that, nor does it grant a tail. It allows you to be considered as a Kobold for the effect of qualifying for feats and effects, that's all. It says nothing about allowing you anything more, such as required limbs you might lack to make use of said feats.

It says you count as a kobold for "all effects." You don't become small, you don't have -4 Str and -2 Con, nor did I claim, imply, or make an argument that advances either of those assertions.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

So do you become size Small as well?

No. Is that relevant to this discussion in some way?
Yes it is relevant. You say you have a tail because all kobolds have tails and you count as Kobold. Well, all kobolds are small. So why a tail but not small?

I didn't claim Racial Heritage gives you a tail. Tail Terror has the prerequisite "kobold," not "has tail." If the assertion is that having a tail is a real trait that kobolds have, then you "count" (per Racial Heritage) as a kobold for the purposes of it. If having a tail is not an effect of any kind, then you don't need it for Tail Terror. You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

Dark Archive

Where does it say that an effect of taking the Tail Terror feat is that you grow a tail?

As a counterexample, showing that feats which grant you the needed additional body part say so.

Racial Heritage: Grippli

Feat: Agile Tongue

Quote:
You have a prehensile tongue with a range of 10 feet.

You. Have. The language of the feat specifically grants you a new, prehensile tongue.

As compared to Tail Terror which specifically says;

Quote:
You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

That is assumptive language in regards to 'your' tail, not a specific granting thereof. They presumed you would have a tail, if you manage to get the feat without one, tough, the language of the feat does not grant you one.


RJGrady wrote:


I didn't claim Racial Heritage gives you a tail.
RJGrady wrote:
You count as having a tail. Says so in Racial Heritage.


Suthainn wrote:

They presumed you would have a tail, if you manage to get the feat without one, tough, the language of the feat does not grant you one.

Fortunately, you count as having one. Seriously, is anyone going to acknowledge that that language exists in Racial Heritage? Someone has claimed Racial Heritage grants "certain" effects, which is wrong. Is no one going to mount the argument that having a tail is not an effect? If you cannot, you have no argument.


13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, i am new to the FAQing rules but here are my questions all listed out nice and neat to be FAQ'd.

1) Is the intent of the feat Racial Heritage to allow characters to manifest their heritage outwardly with cosmetic changes from their species normal appearance, i.e. abnormal eyes, vestigial tail or wings, Digitigrade feet, etc?

2) If a character is intended to have these features, would they be within the intent of the feat to spend feats towards making the changes mechanically useful, i.e. Racial Heritage (Kobold) followed by the Kobold only feat Tail Terror?

Ever curious,
Torbyne


Torbyne wrote:

Ok, i am new to the FAQing rules but here are my questions all listed out nice and neat to be FAQ'd.

1) Is the intent of the feat Racial Heritage to allow characters to manifest their heritage outwardly with cosmetic changes from their species normal appearance, i.e. abnormal eyes, vestigial tail or wings, Digitigrade feet, etc?

2) If a character is intended to have these features, would they be within the intent of the feat to spend feats towards making the changes mechanically useful, i.e. Racial Heritage (Kobold) followed by the Kobold only feat Tail Terror?

Ever curious,
Torbyne

It does not appear to me that the feat was intended to convey any particular "cosmetic" considerations. It is a purely mechanical feat. Therefore, I would say the cosmetics would be subject to reasonable interpretation.

The idea that this feat can grant you a sticky, 10' tongue but not a tail is stubbornly senseless.


The racial heritage feat is vague in some areas.

You qualify, technically, for tail terror.

Racial heritage represents you having a non-human (in this case, kobold).

Due to the above points, I conclude that it's the DM's choice if racial heritage kobold could give you a tail, as it doesn't break RAW either way. If you have kobold genes, then maybe it gave you a vestigial tail that tail terror strengthens. IRL, you can have a vestigial terror.

In short, due to ambiguous RAW, the DM should decide because it's perfectly reasonable for someone to have a tail but it's not specifically specified.

Of course, an FAQ would help greatly.

Have fun arguing everyone.

Dark Archive

RJGrady wrote:


The idea that this feat can grant you a sticky, 10' tongue but not a tail is stubbornly senseless.

You are absolutely right. But this is the Rules forum, rules as written, not rules as we would prefer they be and would make more a lot more sense.

The Racial Heritage feat specifically and only means you count as race [X] for effects that specify that race.

Quote:
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.

That is all. In this case it simply adds the descriptor [Kobold] to your race, mechanically that is the only thing the feat says it does. Tail Terror very specifically calls out the use of a limb you still don't have. Having the word [Kobold] in the race section of your stat box does nothing to alleviate this. You are NOT a Kobold, you do not have a Kobolds stat modifiers, its vision modes, its toe claws, its scales, its eye colour. You have the descriptor text and the only physical change even mentioned in the fluff of the feat is 'blood'.

The physical description of a race is not a mechanical 'effect', it is an inherent part of being that race. We can argue this day and night, you clearly refuse to consider that you might be wrong, a significant number of us have said we'd like you to be right but RAW we believe you're not and you just keep saying the same thing so I will bow out from this point, it's clearly not adding anything.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

He also seems to be ignoring me completely. I guess he has nothing to counter the Feat of Bludgeoner not automatically giving one a Bludgeoning weapon.

Anyone else believe that Bludgeoner would give a character a free Bludgeoning weapon?


thaX wrote:

He also seems to be ignoring me completely. I guess he has nothing to counter the Feat of Bludgeoner not automatically giving one a Bludgeoning weapon.

Anyone else believe that Bludgeoner would give a character a free Bludgeoning weapon?

One, every character has a Bludgeoning weapon, unarmed strike. Two, the game gives out extra free Bludgeoning weapons (see club). As such, I don't see your point. Since every character can have a free weapon to use with the feat you ask about, you seem to agree that you should get a tail with tail terror.

101 to 150 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Half-Orc with Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.