Bingo.
Tail Terror only promises a slap, not a tail to do it with.Spell Focus only promises focus, not spells.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.
It grants a tail slap. How you figure that happens I guess is up to you. But I think the feat name, "Tail Terror," is a strong hint. There is nothing, of course, that suggests it does NOT grant a tail, nor anything in the feat that says you need already have a tail.
Show me where, in Tail Terror, it says you must have a tail.
I'm just amazed this discussion has gone on for pages with people straight-facedly claiming that "You can make a tail slap attack with your tail," means you don't have a tail. It says right there, possessive pronoun, there is a tail that is yours.
|
I am gonna say I am sorry right at the beginning of this post.
You (R.J. Grady) are the one that seems to have an issue with this combo. Just because a Feat grants a particular aspect to the character (A tail slap in this example, or using a lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal non-lethal damage and get sneak in mine) doesn't give the character the means or appendages to do the particular with.
If you don't have a tail in the first place, a feat isn't gonna grow you one. If you don't buy a bludgeoning weapon, a feat isn't gonna give you one.
Not hard to understand, but you seem to create your own wall to bang your head against to refute this.
Sure, someone can mechanically make a tail as a part of his armor to use this feat with, or get a feat to grow a tail using an Eidolon Evolution, but this particular feat does not grow you a tail.
I am gonna say I am sorry right at the beginning of this post.
You (R.J. Grady) are the one that seems to have an issue with this combo. Just because a Feat grants a particular aspect to the character (A tail slap in this example, or using a lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal non-lethal damage and get sneak in mine) doesn't give the character the means or appendages to do the particular with.
If you don't have a tail in the first place, a feat isn't gonna grow you one. If you don't buy a bludgeoning weapon, a feat isn't gonna give you one.
Not hard to understand, but you seem to create your own wall to bang your head against to refute this.
Sure, someone can mechanically make a tail as a part of his armor to use this feat with, or get a feat to grow a tail using an Eidolon Evolution, but this particular feat does not grow you a tail.
We're not talking about feats in general. We're talking about this feat in particular, which says you attack with YOUR TAIL.
"Your." "Tail."
It's not Sickening Tail:
You can modify a tail to perform a tail slap.
It's not Tail Focus:
Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose one type of tail.Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected tail.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of tail.
It says,
You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.
and it really doesn't matter what the intent of Tail Terror is with regard to half-orcs, because it wasn't written for half-orcs. What is pertinent is what Racial Heritage was intended for. And you can argue about angels dancing on the head of a pin, but if you do, you had better make sure your angels understand basic grammer.
"Your" is not a conditional. It's a possessive. "Can" means able to. There are no conditional statements, no hypotheticals, no subjunctives in the description of that entire feat. Nor does it refer to any body part you lack, because you attack with "your tail." It says you can attack, and it's with your tail.
Not a mechanical tail. Not a synthesist's tail or an alchemical tail.
Your tail.
At the beginning of this discussion, I was like, "Here's my interpretation." But the more we go round, and the more I stare that feat, the more I realize that anyone claiming it doesn't grant you a tail is not going by the RAW. You haven't caught some cute little technical corner case. You're just making stuff up. Unless you are a member of the Paizo dev staff, and choose to issue some kind of clarification, there is no way to arrive at your conclusion based on the text of that feat. It grants you a tail slap with your very own personal tail that is your tail, which belongs to you.
I am gonna say I am sorry right at the beginning of this post.
You (R.J. Grady) are the one that seems to have an issue with this combo. Just because a Feat grants a particular aspect to the character (A tail slap in this example, or using a lethal bludgeoning weapon to deal non-lethal damage and get sneak in mine) doesn't give the character the means or appendages to do the particular with.
If you don't have a tail in the first place, a feat isn't gonna grow you one. If you don't buy a bludgeoning weapon, a feat isn't gonna give you one.
Not hard to understand, but you seem to create your own wall to bang your head against to refute this.
Sure, someone can mechanically make a tail as a part of his armor to use this feat with, or get a feat to grow a tail using an Eidolon Evolution, but this particular feat does not grow you a tail.
A weapon is a thing that exists in the rules.. An Eidilon's evolution is a thing that exists in the rules and in this case happens to grant a tail with a mechanical effect. A tail is not a mechanics thing. Show me one place anywhere in the rules *not* the descriptive fluff that is not bulleted and obviously set aside as racial mechanics are where it gives a which race has what body part. Show me where it says I cannot arbitrarily decide to give me human character or elf or halfling for that matter a tail just because I want a tail. Sure like the kobold's tail it wont do anything.. not with out a feat that only kobold's can take under regular circumstances.
Some human being are in fact born with tails.. Small useless mutant tails but tails none the less. I'd assume half humans could also have this happen.
Now getting away from tails.. It doesn't matter.. The feat in particular that lets you take tail terror was designed specifically to let you do things like take that feat just like if there was a feat that turned useless stump wing into wings that worked if the previous wings did nothing mechanically and having useless wings was not in the feat requirement the feat was intended to let you take that also. Is its cheesy ? Barely. Is it broken ? Not even close. Its the thought of a half orc with a kobold sized tail silly ? Probably. Is this entire discussion asinine ? Definitively, though thats on both sides. Stop leveraging mechanics on descriptive fluff, the two have little to nothing in common with each other.
We're not talking about feats in general. We're talking about this feat in particular, which says you attack with YOUR TAIL."Your." "Tail."
It's not Sickening Tail:
You can modify a tail to perform a tail slap.
It's not Tail Focus:
Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose one type of tail.Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected tail.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of tail.
It says,
You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.
and it really doesn't matter what the intent of Tail Terror is with regard to half-orcs, because it wasn't written for half-orcs. What is pertinent is what Racial Heritage was intended for. And you can argue about angels dancing on the head of a pin, but if you do, you had better make sure your angels understand basic grammer.
"Your" is not a conditional. It's a possessive. "Can" means able to. There are no conditional statements, no hypotheticals, no subjunctives in the description of that entire...
Language used in the rules of any game is rules language and not proper English. Its does not follow the same laws of possession, tense, or anything resembling its father language if it does not choose to.
|
You know, if you have the Deformed trait, I would probably let it go.
Your deformity could be a tail.
Also, just look at the Greater Whip Mastery feat.
It says "your" a LOT in that feat, but never does it grant you a whip. Instead, it assumes that you already acquired one.
I hate to even utter this phrase, but, whips are not body parts.
Also, the feat's descriptive text is
You can use a whip to make combat maneuvers with ease.
So, it's pretty clear which whip they're talking about. "A whip," that is yours. Tail Terror, by contrast says,
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
So, I think that's pretty clear what's being talked about. You have a tail, which you have strengthened. Not "a tail." "Your tail." There is no way to read that sentence such that you avoid having a tail. A tail is thing which you have, which you have strengthened, past tense, that's what happened, the end.
"Your" is not a conditional. It's a possessive. "Can" means able to. There are no conditional statements, no hypotheticals, no subjunctives in the description of that entire feat. Nor does it refer to any body part you lack, because you attack with "your tail." It says you can attack, and it's with your tail.This is what you're bringing it down to? That "your" guarantees possession, and never occurs in a case where the possessed object doesn't exist? Why don't you drive across the country in your Lambourgini, then cross the river on your speedboat, then fly back home in your 747? You have all those things, right? I mean, I used a sentence with "your" proceeding them, so they are guaranteed to exist? It's not possible that you don't actually have these expensive modes of transportation, so you can't actually do what I gave you permission to do?
I don't have a speedboat, which I have strengthened.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Look, at this point we're just going in circles. I don't think restating the same arguments over and over with differnet words is going to convince anybody on the opposing side. Both sides have valid points and both sides have weak points. In my case, just because I don't find any of the "for" arguments compelling doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. If this really matters to you FAQ it and move on. In a home game either ruling can be used without exploding the game. In PFS I'd expect large table variation so I'd avoid using Tail Terror in ways that might cause a random GM to say "no" until we get clarification, if we do.
I'm actually pretty sure that given enough time, and enough stubborn attempts to make the feats say other than what they do, most people will eventually realize I'm right. ;)
Greater Whip Mastery is written exactly the same as the Tail Terror:
"You are so quick with YOUR whip that you never drop it due to a failed disarm or trip combat maneuver attempt. Further, you gain the ability to grapple using YOUR whip. To do so, use the normal grapple rules with the following changes..."
I already pointed out that it doesn't, and that "your tail" does not mean the same thing as "your whip." Also, that second line from Tail Terror is from the Benefit section of the feat, not the description.
Benefit: You gain a single racial trait of your choice from the race you picked when you took non-mythic Racial Heritage. That racial trait can't modify your size or ability scores. You also gain the racial language of the race (if any) if you don't already know it. For races with multiple racial languages, you gain all of them.A tail is a physical trait. So if you want it with the orc you would have to pick up racial heritage, then do your time and pick up the mythic feat. Except the description of the monster outlines the traits, and no tail is listed, so Rules as written it won't happen unless you come up with another way to sprout a tail, in a home game I think most GM's would lump the tail in.
Though going standard level would give for example a kitsune, or a catfolk a tail slap.
All kobolds have the following racial traits.
–4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, –2 Constitution: Kobolds are fast but weak.
Small: Kobolds are Small and gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a –1 penalty to their CMB and CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.
Normal Speed: Kobolds have a base speed of 30 feet.
Darkvision: Kobolds can see in the dark up to 60 feet.
Armor: Kobolds have a +1 natural armor bonus.
Crafty: Kobolds gain a +2 racial bonus on Craft (trapmaking), Perception, and Profession (miner) checks. Craft (trapmaking) and Stealth are always class skills for a kobold.
Weakness: Light sensitivity.
Languages: Kobolds begin play speaking only Draconic. Kobolds who have high Intelligence scores can choose any of the following bonus languages: Dwarven, Gnome, and Undercommon.
I don't see a tail trait listed. When talking about race, "trait" actually has a specific rules meaning.
So, if tail is a trait required to take Tail Terror, then kobolds don't qualify for it. They have no tail trait.
Both descriptions I listed were taken from the exact same sections in the long descriptions of the feats. Their wordings are identical. And to say that "your whip" and "your tail" mean different things is just cherry picking on your part to try to keep yourself correct.
I hope when you say "your spouse" and "your lunch" you are talking in two different fashions. Also, that's not what cherry picking means. I think you meant splitting hairs. But I assert that you are equivocating.
Okay, let's say you have a PC, who lost his hands.
Sucks huh?
Now, you level, and take a feat that grants a claw attack.
Do you grow a new pair of hands to use them?
I...i confess i love this simple presentation question. TY sir for coming up with what i couldn't put words to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have already presented ways a PC could have a tail.
If you are refusing to do any of them, and insisting on just relying on the feat, then you are probably just being a jerk.
The combo works, but just needs a little more to make it work, then some are willing to admit.
Hell, I showed how the feat combo could work, with just using a trait.
Okay, let's say you have a PC, who lost his hands.
Sucks huh?
Now, you level, and take a feat that grants a claw attack.
Do you grow a new pair of hands to use them?
How is that even relevant? If you lost your hands, that negates a trait you previously have. If you attack with "your tail" and something cuts off your tail somehow, well, no more tail slap. If you want to turn around and say, "Well, that's the same thing as not having a tail prior to taking this feat," well, no it's not. Because the language of Tail Terror grants you a tail. The flavor and mechanical benefits both support this.
In fact, I don't think a mechanical tail works, because it's not "your tail" in the most straightforward reading of that phrase.
Ordinarily, I get tired of these kind of debates pretty easily. In this case, though, it's basically effortless, because the opposing argument wants to come from a strict reading of the text, and there is no text to support it.
|
|
Okay, let's say you have a PC, who lost his hands.
Sucks huh?
Now, you level, and take a feat that grants a claw attack.
Do you grow a new pair of hands to use them?
How is that even relevant? If you lost your hands, that negates a trait you previously have. If you attack with "your tail" and something cuts off your tail somehow, well, no more tail slap. If you want to turn around and say, "Well, that's the same thing as not having a tail prior to taking this feat," well, no it's not. Because the language of Tail Terror grants you a tail. The flavor and mechanical benefits both support this.
In fact, I don't think a mechanical tail works, because it's not "your tail" in the most straightforward reading of that phrase.
Ordinarily, I get tired of these kind of debates pretty easily. In this case, though, it's basically effortless, because the opposing argument wants to come from a strict reading of the text, and there is no text to support it.
Absolutely relevant, as it notes that you must have the required limb, to use the natural attack that utilizes that limb.
Wearing shoes does not give you feet.
You can't throw up your arms in disagreement, and ignore the content of what you are disagreeing with.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Absolutely relevant, as it notes that you must have the required limb, to use the natural attack that utilizes that limb.
Wearing shoes does not give you feet.
It is so absolutely relevant that it stings to think about it. Unfortunately the only thing that will make RJGrady stop is a dev swooping in and saying "RJGrady is right" or "RJGrady is wrong".
No amount of solid logic will stop him.
Correct.
Also, when you tell me what my argument is, and refuse to allow to clarify what it is, that is known as the strawman fallacy.
So are you lying now or were you lying then? Do you or do you not need to have your limbs listed as traits?
Those aren't even contradictory statements. And my position is the same whether a tail is a "trait" or not. (It's not.)
I think I'm going to make a human and take the Sleep Venom feat for Vishkanyas.
Sleep Venom
You can change the nature of your toxic spittle to put your enemies to sleep.
Prerequisite: Vishkanya.
Benefit: As a swift action, you may alter the effects of your venom so the target falls unconscious. This changes the initial and secondary effect of your venom to the following: initial effect staggered for 1d4 rounds; secondary effect unconsciousness for 1 minute. You must make the decision to alter your venom before you apply it to a weapon.
Normal: Vishkanya venom deals Dexterity damage.
The feat says "you may alter the effects of your venom", so clearly the feat also must grant me venom if I didn't have it beforehand.
What do you guys think is the best build for me to take advantage of how these rules were clearly not intended to work?
I think I'm going to make a human and take the Sleep Venom feat for Vishkanyas.
Sleep Venom
You can change the nature of your toxic spittle to put your enemies to sleep.
Prerequisite: Vishkanya.
Benefit: As a swift action, you may alter the effects of your venom so the target falls unconscious. This changes the initial and secondary effect of your venom to the following: initial effect staggered for 1d4 rounds; secondary effect unconsciousness for 1 minute. You must make the decision to alter your venom before you apply it to a weapon.
Normal: Vishkanya venom deals Dexterity damage.The feat says "you may alter the effects of your venom", so clearly the feat also must grant me venom if I didn't have it beforehand.
What do you guys think is the best build for me to take advantage of how these rules were clearly not intended to work?
Knock yourself out. I can't discern what functionality you would gain.
Okay, let's say you have a PC, who lost his hands.
Sucks huh?
Now, you level, and take a feat that grants a claw attack.
Do you grow a new pair of hands to use them?
No you just get claws growing out of your stumps unless the ability spesificly says something along the lines of 'If you lost your hands to something <Not that there's really even rules for it outside of a vague thing in the pirate book> You gain no claw attack. What with mechanics and the fluff of fingers being largely separate.
Knock yourself out. I can't discern what functionality you would gain.I think I'm going to make a human and take the Sleep Venom feat for Vishkanyas.
Sleep Venom
You can change the nature of your toxic spittle to put your enemies to sleep.
Prerequisite: Vishkanya.
Benefit: As a swift action, you may alter the effects of your venom so the target falls unconscious. This changes the initial and secondary effect of your venom to the following: initial effect staggered for 1d4 rounds; secondary effect unconsciousness for 1 minute. You must make the decision to alter your venom before you apply it to a weapon.
Normal: Vishkanya venom deals Dexterity damage.The feat says "you may alter the effects of your venom", so clearly the feat also must grant me venom if I didn't have it beforehand.
What do you guys think is the best build for me to take advantage of how these rules were clearly not intended to work?
What functionality? I'd get to lick a dagger and make it poisoned! Who doesn't want to do that?
Unfortunately, your venom lacks a DC or a delivery method.
Unfortunately, your venom lacks a DC or a delivery method.
Really?