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


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
ryric wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
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.

Tail Terror only promises a slap, not a tail to do it with.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bizbag wrote:
Tail Terror only promises a slap, not a tail to do it with.

+1


Bingo.


Bizbag wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
ryric wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
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.
Tail Terror only promises a slap, not a tail to do it with.

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.

Silver Crusade

I see no reason why the tail slap granted by Tail Terror couldn't be like the "hip thrust" joke for monk unarmed strikes that made its way around the boards a while back, or, if you prefer, a "booty bop".


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.


Quote:
Show me where, in Tail Terror, it says you must have a tail.

Right where it says what you make the attack with. Your tail. If through some combination of mechanical rules combinations you acquired the feat, but don't have a tail, the feat is useless to you.

Quote:
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'm more amazed that you can read a feat written for kobolds, which requires being a kobold as a prerequisite, in the section of the book on kobolds, and decide that the only possible interpretation is that it's there to allow half orcs to grow tails.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bizbag wrote:
I'm more amazed that you can read a feat written for kobolds, which requires being a kobold as a prerequisite, in the section of the book on kobolds, and decide that the only possible interpretation is that it's there to allow half orcs to grow tails.

+1

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
I'm more amazed that you can read a feat written for kobolds, which requires being a kobold as a prerequisite, in the section of the book on kobolds, and decide that the only possible interpretation is that it's there to allow half orcs to grow tails.
+1

Ditto


Unlike many other feats that change a characters body, i.e. "you grow claws." or "You gain a Bite attack." Pure Kobolds are assumed to have tails. (In fact since Pathfinder does not support losing an eye or limb or what have you, there is no way to avoid having a tail.) Any wording to the effect of "you grow a tail" or "you grow a tail strong enough" wouldn't make any sense for someone playing a pure Kobold. But on the flip side that wording works to explicitly stop the feat from working with Racial Heritage until such time as a new ruling or wording of Racial Heritage allows for alternate ancestry to manifest itself.


thaX wrote:

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:

Quote:


You can modify a tail to perform a tail slap.

It's not Tail Focus:

Quote:


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,

Quote:


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.


actually, "your" can be possessive AND conditional.

If i said "You can shoot me with your gun." and you do not own a gun, there is still the allowance of shooting me, if you had indeed possessed a gun. The statement wouldn't grant you a gun, or let you shoot me with someone else's gun.

Your interpretation of this feat allows bizarre cases such as making a tail slap if your tail had been severed, or (more likely) when polymorphed into a creature that has no tail (say using wildshape to turn into a gorilla or a plant).

honestly, this is like the "I can still take actions when dead" argument all over again.


thaX wrote:

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.

RJGrady wrote:


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:

Quote:


You can modify a tail to perform a tail slap.

It's not Tail Focus:

Quote:


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,

Quote:


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.


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.


Quote:
"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?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You know, if you have the Deformed trait, I would probably let it go.

Your deformity could be a tail.


kikidmonkey wrote:

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

Quote:


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,

Quote:


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.


Bizbag wrote:
Quote:
"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.

Sovereign Court 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. ;)


The shorthand feat descriptions mean nothing. Look at the actual feat, look at the parts described in the "Benefit" section. It says "Your"

I mean, if we only looked at the shorthand descriptions than Cockatrice strike is probably the best feat in existence: "Turn a target to stone with a critical hit"

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..."

Tail Terror:
"You can make a tail slap attack with YOUR tail..."

both feats are ASSUMING you actually have the "equipment" to perform what the feat says.


kikidmonkey wrote:


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.


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.

Shadow Lodge

RJGrady wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
ryric wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
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.
Tail Terror only promises a slap, not a tail to do it with.

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.

You're wrong.

this is all Racial heritage does
'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.'

Unfortunately If just this existed then I would say sure. But here's the rules as written counterpoint.
The racial heritage covers effects only, nowhere in there does it say you gain physical attributes. If you really want it I would say go alchemist and take the tentacle discovery or something along those line to get a tail.

Someone in the thread (I forget who) already mentioned that that is covered in Mythic Racial heritage.

Prerequisite(s): Racial Heritage.

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.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
I'm right. ;)

I will only realize that when Paizo confirms you are right.


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?

Well, it is a magical world, and there are, if not direct, at least indirect support for him to magically grow a tail.

retraining rules:

Some of the options listed below involve retraining features of your character that are essentially permanent parts of your heritage, such as a sorcerer's bloodline. The cost of retraining these things presumably includes magical or alchemical alterations to your body. The GM might rule that these changes are unavailable in the campaign, are only available under rare circumstances, take longer, are temporary, require some sort of quest, or are more expensive than the listed cost.

If you can retrain having darkvision into something else and then not having darkvision.. Is it that far of a reach to say taking a feat involves a magical process that sprouts a tail?

You have no problem with magic being thrown around dealing massive damage, or making unbelievable changes to the world, but when a guy wants to walk around with a tail your argument against this is "What your just going to magically sprout a tail"

Did I miss the memo where this changed from a FANTASY role playing game to something else?

Edited to correct my piss poor spelling.. :-)


Clectabled wrote:

Well, it is a magical world, and there are, if not direct, at least indirect support for him to magically grow a tail.

** spoiler omitted **

If you can retrain having darkvision into something else and then not having darkvision.. Is it that far of a reach to say taking a feat involves a magical process that sprouts a tail?

You have no problem with magic being thrown around dealing massive damage, or making unbelievable changes to the world, but when a guy wants to walk around with a tail your argument against this is "What your just going to magically sprout a tail"

Did I miss the memo where this changed from a FANTASY role playing game to something else?

Edited...

I don't have a problem with talking to your GM and asking if you could play a human with a tail, as part of your Kobold heritage, subject to their approval, as always. I think that's an interesting idea. I just don't think the feat automatically gives you one, independent of GM discretion.

And my problem isn't that the person has the tail at all, it's the idea that he presumably never had one before, but then is presumed to have one once he takes the feat. That's the sort of abandonment of verisimilitude that is characteristic of 4th Edition. It's part of the reason I prefer PRG to it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bizbag wrote:
abandonment of verisimilitude that is characteristic of 4th Edition. It's part of the reason I prefer PRG to it.

+1

I really don't like these sorts of polluting the rules with awkward and clearly not the meaning type rules interpretations.


00exmachina wrote:


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.


kikidmonkey wrote:
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.


no, cherry picking is correct: to select the best or most desirable

you are choosing which interpretation of "your" to apply to each one to keep your argument intact.

and yes when referring to "your spouse" and "your lunch" I am speaking in the same fashion, I'm using the definition of "your" that is "relating to or belonging to you". I don't even know how i could apply a seperate meaning to either.

And I'm not trying to deceive, I am applying the same standard to both feats, both feats say "your" when referring to the thing that you are granted additional abilities, both feats assume you have actually have it. Neither feat require the "thing" in question as a prerequisite, neither give you the "thing" upon acquirement of the feat. Both modify the "thing" when you possess it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

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?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
RJGrady wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.


Quote:
How is that even relevant? If you lost your hands, that negates a trait you previously have.

Oh, so appendages ARE traits you have, despite not appearing in the list of racial traits? "Has two hands" doesn't appear in the Human racial traits, after all.

Wait, but you said:

Quote:

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.

So are you lying now or were you lying then? Do you or do you not need to have your limbs listed as traits?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

Bizbag wrote:

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.

Quote:

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'm thinking Scythe Ninja.


fretgod99 wrote:

I think I'm going to make a human and take the Sleep Venom feat for Vishkanyas.

Quote:

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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.


RJGrady wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

I think I'm going to make a human and take the Sleep Venom feat for Vishkanyas.

Quote:

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.

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.


RJGrady wrote:
Unfortunately, your venom lacks a DC or a delivery method.

Really?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Unfortunately, your venom lacks a DC or a delivery method.
Really?

Touche!


BAM!

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Unfortunately, your venom lacks a DC or a delivery method.
Really?

Quick everybody reply to RJGrady's post so he can't edit it!

201 to 250 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.