This actually sounds more like a reduction to absurdity. Comparisons should probably stick to feats that assignment how a character's body functions to better illustrate your point. Endurance or run work for everyone. The prehensile tongue or natural armor feats work with this feat. Not sure about any other feats since they tend to mention growing the required limb. Just my opinion though.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?
Reductio ad absurdum or a straw man argument? Showing RJGrady that his position is absurd and that other absurd things follow from it, such as automatic lethal bludgeoning weapons from taking a feat, is a perfectly acceptable argument.
The physical description of a race is not a mechanical 'effect', it is an inherent part of being that race.
In that case, there is no impediment. If having a tail is not a mechanical effect, then it is not a requirement to perform a tail attack.
In that case, there is no impediment. If having a tail is not a mechanical effect, then it is not a requirement to perform a tail attack.
The physical description of a race is not a mechanical 'effect', it is an inherent part of being that race.
which is the same bandwagon you jumped on the last time someone said the exact thing. It would like to remind you once again that its childish to keep a thread like this going to this point simply to wait for someone to agree with you and then going "so I was right", completely forgetting the point that going of the opinion of one other rings rather hollow if your clearly in the minority.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
RJGrady, your logical "trap" of effect/not effect falls apart when applied to many other racial examples.
For example:
Racial Heritage(kasatha)
Do I have 4 arms to hold weapons? Take Multiweapon Fighting? If having 4 arms is an "effect related to race" then by your logic I have them; if it's not, then by your logic everyone can have 4 arms just by saying so.
That is exactly your tail argument applied to another race. Just because something is not an "effect" doesn't mean everyone gets it for free if they want. Your logic creates a circle that can be applied to any racial ability or cosmetic detail ever printed. Down that road lies madness.
So having a tail is not an "effect related to race," but it also not something you can just decide for your character.
That is exactly your tail argument applied to another race.
That is not my argument at all. I don't quite understand how you would so thoroughly misunderstand it, but I will try again.
Racial Heritage allows you to take Tail Terror, because Tail Terror is an effect "related to race." If Tail Terror assumes anything whatsoever about your character because of race, Racial Heritage takes care of it. OF course, that only counts for "effects." If you argue that a tail is not an "effect," that it is cosmetic, inconsequential, and not an effect at all, then I simply observe that Tail Terror has no prerequisite of a tail, even a cosmetic one.
Multiweapon Fighting, on the other hand, is not effect related to race. It's a feat related to having four arms. Further, "having four arms" is a trait defined in the game. You can look at a monster's stat block and readily determine which monsters have four arms and which do not. There are even ways to get vestigial arms and grabbing arms which do not qualify you for Multiweapon Fighting. There is no similarity whatsoever between the two cases.
The argument against Racial Heritage qualifying you to take Tail Terror is to consider two picky readings of Tail Terror, choose the least generous one, consider the text in question to be meaningful as rules, and then assert that nonetheless having a tail is not a mechanical effect. So, the tail is an actual thing you have to have for Tail Terror based on being a kobold, but not an actual thing that Racial Heritage can grant, even though Racial Heritage says you count as being a kobold for the purposes of all actual things. This reading requires "having a tail attack" to not be an "effect," which is clearly wrong, or for counting as a kobold to mean that you can't take feats which assume you are a kobold, which is also clearly wrong. Or, lastly, to assert that "having a tail" is a real thing, but not an effect, and can only happen if granted by some trait, even though kobolds have no such trait stated.
In fact, I don't think there is any logical reason to disallow making tail attacks. I think a lot of people are just offended by the idea of a human growing a tail.
Racial Heritage says you count as a kobold for all effects. Tail terror says you have to be a kobold to take it and states you can make an attack with your tail. You can certainly take tail terror per the racial heritage feat however with no tail you cannot make a tail attack. Having a tail or not having a tail are physical characteristics of a race not effects which is where the distinction is.
Racial Heritage says you count as a kobold for all effects. Tail terror says you have to be a kobold to take it and states you can make an attack with your tail. You can certainly take tail terror per the racial heritage feat however with no tail you cannot make a tail attack. Having a tail or not having a tail are physical characteristics of a race not effects which is where the distinction is.
I consider this a weak argument, but at least it's a consistent one. It still requires that you refuse to allow characters to have whatever physical features seem appropriate to their heritage. And it requires you to read the sentence as "your tail" rather than "your tail." Since the feat is called Tail Terror, I think it's more natural to imagine there is a tail, but I acknowledge you can refuse to read it that way without contradicting the text. I don't know why you would prefer that reading, since it makes Racial Heritage apply to differently to Tail Terror than to almost all other similar feats granting special features, but if it helps you sleep at night, you can make that distinction.
Imagine if Tail Terror and Racial Heritage were the only two feats in the entire game that listed a race as a prerequisite. Would that affect your reading?
Racial Heritage says you count as a kobold for all effects. Tail terror says you have to be a kobold to take it and states you can make an attack with your tail. You can certainly take tail terror per the racial heritage feat however with no tail you cannot make a tail attack. Having a tail or not having a tail are physical characteristics of a race not effects which is where the distinction is.I consider this a weak argument, but at least it's a consistent one. It still requires that you refuse to allow characters to have whatever physical features seem appropriate to their heritage. And it requires you to read the sentence as "your tail" rather than "your tail." Since the feat is called Tail Terror, I think it's more natural to imagine there is a tail, but I acknowledge you can refuse to read it that way without contradicting the text. I don't know why you would prefer that reading, since it makes Racial Heritage apply to differently to Tail Terror than to almost all other similar feats granting special features, but if it helps you sleep at night, you can make that distinction.
Imagine if Tail Terror and Racial Heritage were the only two feats in the entire game that listed a race as a prerequisite. Would that affect your reading?
You realize this is the rules forum, don't you? It's not which reading we prefer we are arguing. It's what the rules actually say that is being discussed. If you feel someone taking both feats should benefit from them, that is perfectly valid. However that is not the Rules As Written.
I've been following this thread for a while, and certainly agree with the crowd saying that this feat does not grant you a tail, only allows you to use a tail you already have to make a tail attack.
However, I was researching through racial feats trying to come up with some other examples where the feat specifically says it gives you the appendage, and came across this.
Fire Tamer
"Prerequisites: Goblin.
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on saves against spells with the fire descriptor. Additionally, your scars mark you as a talented fire tamer, granting you a +2 circumstance bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks when dealing with other goblins."
This doesn't specifically grant you scars, it just says "your scars" provide the bonus. If you don't have scars do you know get the benefit from this feat? Do you have to go maim yourself, possibly taking ability damage(CHA) or temporary hit point damage to gain the benefit of your feat? The rules don't say, but they clearly say your only gain the benefit from "your scars" and the feat doesn't provide any scars, or require you to have any before taking the feat.
Another one I found seems to lean the other way
Swift Kitsune Shapechanger
"Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +6, kitsune.
Benefit: You can assume human or kitsune form as a swift action. If you have the Fox Shape feat, you can assume fox form as a swift action as well."
The only meaningful prereq is kitsune. Could a Human Rogue with Racial heritage Kitsune take this feat, and than have the ability to assume a human or kitsune form as a swift action? I would think not.
If he could, than he could also take Vulpine Pounce afterwards to get a pounce ability. Pounce for 2(3 if counting racial heritage) feats seems pretty strong, especially considering the benefits the previous feats give.
To be clear, I don't think this should work, but if Tail terror gave a tail, following the same reasoning, this feat would give you the ability to shapechange as a swift action.
If you rule the Racial Heritage (kobold) makes the PC enough of a kobold to have a tail when his/her base race has no tail, then you can't pick and choose just the good parts... you have to take it all: Small, -2 Con, -4 Str, light-blindness, etc.
Start with Joe the Average Kobold: AMBARBARIAN comes along and chops off Joe's tail with a sword. Does taking Tail Terror mean Joe autoRAWly regrows a tail?
Suppose AMBARBARIAN gets his primary hand chopped off. Can AMBARBARIAN just take Two-Weapon Fighting or pick up a monk level for Flurry of Blows and autoRAWly regrow that missing hand?
Suppose AMMUNCHKIN is a human that takes Racial Heritage (orc). AMBARBARIAN chops off his head with a vorpal sword. Can AMMUNCHKIN take Biter and autoRAWly regrow that missing head?
---
If a PC whose base race lacks a functional tail takes Racial Heritage (kobold) and Tail Terror, he can twerk his butt at the enemy all he wants, but he doesn't grow a tail to make the attack.
"He doesn't grow a tail" is one thing that keeps popping up in this discussion that is not actually a rule.
To be clear, I don't think this should work, but if Tail terror gave a tail, following the same reasoning, this feat would give you the ability to shapechange as a swift action.
Actually, you wouldn't have the forms, so IMO it's more like taking a metamagic feat without having any spellcasting ability.
EDIT: And you could actually take the Fox Shape feat, and this feat would be functional.
For anyone who hasn't realized, RJGrady's entire argument can be summed up in one sentence.
No where in the book does it say you need a tail to make a tail attack.
This is the core of his argument, that no body has addressed and that's why he isn't happy yet.
That's not my argument.
Nor am I particularly unhappy.
|
That's not my argument.
Pretty much. I mean, you haven't shown any rules citations that support this hypothesis of yours that you grow a tale, or in fact don't even need one (which is even more preposterous in my opinion).
And unless you can come up with a rule that clearly supports why you grow a tale but receive no other benefits or drawbacks with being a Kobold (such as size small & stat mods), I really don't see how you will have a leg to stand on if you show at a PFS game or a Con and try to pull this off.
That's not my argument.Pretty much. I mean, you haven't shown any rules citations that support this hypothesis of yours that you grow a tale, or in fact don't even need one (which is even more preposterous in my opinion).
And unless you can come up with a rule that clearly supports why you grow a tale but receive no other benefits or drawbacks with being a Kobold (such as size small & stat mods), I really don't see how you will have a leg to stand on if you show at a PFS game or a Con and try to pull this off.
Racial Heritage (Human)
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows 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.
It's all right there. Whatever a kobold has for purposes of taking feats, you have it, too. Kobolds don't have tail attacks naturally, so you don't need a tail attack for Tail Terror, either. If someone says, "I guess you'd need a tail to make a tail attack," that doesn't say to me, "I guess this doesn't work," it means, "Then I guess you must have one."
You don't have to "grow" a tail, pretend to have one, be four feet tail, any of that. You just don't. I don't have any patience with intentionally reading Tail Terror, such that unlike virtually any other body part-based racial feat, the phrase "your tail" is read as a requirement rather than simply a possessive. It doesn't say "if you have a tail. It just says you have a tail, and you attack with it.
It's true, it doesn't say you GROW a tail. So if a player resolutely said, "Okay, I definitely did not have a tail 1st level, but now at 5th level I am taking Tail Terror and I just grew a tail," I'd be like, "Okay, that's a little weird. Can you not just pick one or the other? It would make more sense if you always had the tail and just learned to use it, or if you just took another feat."
But if the player replies, "Well, I am a Draconic Sorcerer. I figure I'd just grow one, as my heritage becomes more pronounced," I'd be like, "Okay, sure, whatever makes you happy."
If you don't weird stuff in your guy, try this: don't let humans be part kobold. How does that even work?
RAW you can absolutely take the feat but unless I have missed a relevant FAQ (entirely possible) it will have zero effect. The feat specifically says, "Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail." Racial heritage lets you be considered as a Kobold for "Requirement: Kobold", it never says anything about being granted additional limbs and the Tail Terror feat specifically calls out an increase in your ability to use your tail... which you don't have. The feat is thus worthless unless you gain a tail through other means.
For reference, compare this with the Draconic Glide feat which specifically calls out "You grow a pair of wings." and thus would work fine with Racial heritage.
No where that i can see in the racial descriptions say that any race has hands or feet.. by that interpretation of RAW you cannot wield weapons, wears rings, boots, or gauntlets and if you have claws they either float in the air or grow from your torso.. of which there is also no mention.. The tail slap loophole might be dumb but your trying to leverage racial description fluff into rules is equally asinine.
Can make a tail attack, implies existence of tail. Period.:)
Can make a tail attack, implies existence of tail. Period.:)
Pure assumption not backed by rules, Click FAQed and move on.
If you removed the prerequisite of being a kobold, what language in the feat states or implies you need to have a pre-existing tail to use this ability? It's not a tack I would normally take, but since this interpretation hinges on a very picky reading of one sentence, I think it's fair to ask.
If you removed the prerequisite of being a kobold, what language in the feat states or implies you need to have a pre-existing tail to use this ability? It's not a tack I would normally take, but since this interpretation hinges on a very picky reading of one sentence, I think it's fair to ask.
There is zero point in this line of discussion, you have made your point, You feel that the wording of the feat grants you the tail by the essence of being the wording of the feat, others disagree, only a FAQ will determine the truth
While I believe my interpretation is the better one, it is true that there is nothing preventing someone from reading the text the other way, if they choose. I don't know if a FAQ will determine the "truth" but it is the only thing that will settle the rule.
I've read through the Kobold entry a few times in the PFSRD, nowhere does it mention that THEY have tails. The picture doesn't show a tail. Why is it unreasonable to think that Tail Terror causes a tail to grow/thicken/appear? Kitsune have a feat that grows an extra tail as part of the fluff (Magical Tail). I understand the argument that humans don't have tails, but the discussion isn't about a human, it's about a human with alternate racial ancestry (which is confusing since it's retroactive to being born by virtue of taking a feat).
1 Human takes Racial Heritage feat (We all agree this does nothing)
Selects Kobolds as his Racial Heritage (Game says nothing on what if anything happens, changes, RAW no effect)
2 Human takes Tail Terror (We all agree the Human meets the prerequisites "Kobold, +1 BAB") Does not imply that the character grows a tail, but tails aren't mentioned AT ALL anywhere under kobolds, requirments, as limbs, etc. The only place I can find anything on tails growing/having is in the Eidolon rules.
Humans (actual, you know, real world) can have tiny tails. It's rare but it's an actual thing. Real humans can have them, but Pathfinder humans can't? It's not a normal thing for humans to have tails, but it's not outside reality. Feats already grant limbs/body modifications/scales/horns/claws. This is part of the narrative that Pathfinder uses. The character must be assumed to already have been of an alternate racial heritage for the feat to make sense.
I understand the point that humans don't have tails, ergo Tail Terror doesn't function. This is a perfect example of something that needs FAQ'ing.
My two cents.
Suthainn, thank you for the link. I missed the italic'd description at the top of the pfsrd. This discussion isn't about "has a tail" it's about "has a tail that makes a mechanical difference in the game"
Suthainn, your argument makes sense and your point isn't unreasonable. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as some people are arguing.
|
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.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?
First, the feat specifies weapons, your hands are only considered lethal weapons in the case of gaining another feat (through taking it or being a Monk) and can be used as either or without penalty already without Blungeoner.
Second, the tail wouldn't cost anything either if it somehow magically grows from the taking of a simple feat. Just because a club is little or no cost to the character, that doesn't mean the character automatically has one when he takes the Blungeoner feat.
That is my comparison. To use the feat, you need the club/Mace/quarterstaff or equivelant. Same with this feat. To use a tail, you need a tail. Humans do not have tails.
... or powerful jaws, or "quick reflexes." I'm just wondering why, out of all the feats in the game, given two possible readings of a single sentence of descriptive text, you guys are choosing the interpretation that makes this feat different from all the other feats. I don't think every feat needs to be written in the style, "You have a tail, and can attack with it," especially as the feat was originally written for kobolds, who almost all have tails. I think it's pretty clear that the phrase "you attack with your tail" is a statement that you have a tail, not that you require one. Hence, the feat name, Tail Terror. I'm really wondering how you can qualify for a feat called Tail Terror, unambiguously, and yet not actually have a tail. That's why the descriptive text mentions the tail, and the prerequisites line mentions, "kobold, base attack bonus +1."
Hmm, changed my mind, indeed, no tail = no tail slap attack. Kobolts have a tail, but racial heritage does not give you a tail... there are non-kobolt legal characters with one though: some non-kobolt races have tails (tiefling, varana)... sadly, they can not take racial heritage because not human (which makes sense for varanas, but tieflings are often humans with 1 weird far ancestor).
So by the same token, RJGrady, would you allow someone who took Racial Heritage(Vanaras) and took Tree Hanger to hang from a tree?
I don't see any reason why not. It doesn't appear to be reliant mechanically on having the prehensile tail trait.
|
|
I thought i knew how the feat worked when i started the thread and then i was convinced that i was wrong and now i am sort of unsure again... but that is why there is the FAQ request on page 3 :)
To steer the conversation on a slightly different track; *IF* a tail is within the intent of Tail Terror/Racial Heritage, would you gain the 1D4 tail specified by the feat, which is sized for a small size creature (per the natural attack table) or would you gain a 1D6 medium sized tail slap? I know purest RAW you would have a 1D4 (Again, only if th FAQ comes back with a clarified ruling) but by purest RAW the feat Razortusk doesn't give you a normal primary bite attack either, you have to logic your way through the wording of that one too.
If there was a feat that would give you a tail (much like the Eidolon Evolution) then it would likely be a tail that is the same size as the character gaining it.
This feat, Tail Terror, does not give you a tail. It only allows you to attack with a tail. If you have no tail then taking this feat is most likely not a wise decision.
This whole concept takes twerking to a whole new level.
I'm really wondering how you can qualify for a feat called Tail Terror, unambiguously, and yet not actually have a tail.In the same way you can unabiguously qualify to take a feat called Spell Focus yet not be able to cast spells.
Spell Focus only promises focus, not spells.