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


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Sczarni

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

It says "your venom". So clearly I have venom now. I'm going to deliver it with my tail. It doesn't say my human doesn't have a tail, so clearly I do. It's a venomous tail.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Krodjin wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Unfortunately, your venom lacks a DC or a delivery method.
It says "your venom". So clearly I have venom now. I'm going to deliver it with my tail. It doesn't say my human doesn't have a tail, so clearly I do. It's a venomous tail.

No need, a Human can just lick the target. Right RJGrady? Same thing as your concept of "you just grow a tail when you don't have one and take Tail Terror."


You have a venom. With no DC or delivery method.

Contrast to Tail Terror, which specifies you have a tail, and can deliver a tail slap for 1d4 damage.

There are a number of feats which don't have the mechanics to work if you take them with Racial Heritage. Tail Terror just doesn't happen to be one of them. Since kobolds don't have a tail attack, either, adding a tail attack to a human is as simple as adding it to a kobold.

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

Really. You may wish to review the rules section on afflictions. As you can see, Sleep Venom doesn't specify how it is delivered, the save DC, onset, or frequency.


That's because it is very clearly an alteration of the normal Vishkanya venom.

Vishkanya Venom: Injury; save Fort DC 10 + 1/2 the vishkanya's Hit Dice + the vishkanya's Constitution modifier; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Dex; cure 1 save.

The point being that it assumes you are a Vishkanya, because if you weren't, not only does this feat do absolutely nothing for you except waste a feat because you don't have the venom to begin with, it also implies that you are very, very silly.


In my view:

Racial Heritage (kobold) + Tail Terror
Kobolds don't have a tail attack, humans don't have a tail attack. Gives you a tail attack. Works fine.

Racial Heritage (kitsune) + Swift Kitsune Shapechanger
Kitsune have human and kitsune forms, humans do not. Legal but doesn't seem to do anything. However, you could take Fox Shape, which is mechanically complete, and this combination would function.

Racial Heritage (Vishkanya) + Sleep Vencom
This is very silly. It modifies some parameters of an ability that isn't defined for humans. It is not possible to make this work, mechanically, without first gaining some kind of venom ability.


And here is the point you are either missing or willfully overlooking, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Nowhere in the entirety of Tail Terror does it ever give you a tail. It says "your tail" the same way Sleep Venom says "your venom"

Sleep Venom does nothing for you because you would already need a venom, which Sleep Venom does not grant. Similarly, Tail Terror does nothing for you because you would need a tail, which it does not grant.

So, logically, you would have to argue that the two feats are different in their wording and approach (which they are not) or accept that these kinds of feats only improve what you were already supposed to have.


Tail Terror gives you a tail the same way Weapon Focus: Longsword gives you a longsword.

It doesn't.


Starfinder Superscriber

Kryptik, I hate to say this, but after 6 pages, we can see that RJ just won't see it that way, as he must have his half orc with a tail.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Unfortunately, your venom lacks a DC or a delivery method.
It says "your venom". So clearly I have venom now. I'm going to deliver it with my tail. It doesn't say my human doesn't have a tail, so clearly I do. It's a venomous tail.

You mean I can play a Spider Man villain with just the application of two feats.

"They call me ... Scorpion!!!"

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kryptik wrote:

Tail Terror gives you a tail the same way Weapon Focus: Longsword gives you a longsword.

It doesn't.

This is the same as the example I gave earlier in the thread with the Blugeoner feat. It does not give you a Blugneoning weapon automatically, why would Tail Terror give you a tail?

He hasn't given an acceptable answer to this. To grasp the concept of actually following rules, one must accept that some would go against your wants and needs. Mr Grady seems to not want to do this.


Kryptik wrote:

And here is the point you are either missing or willfully overlooking, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Nowhere in the entirety of Tail Terror does it ever give you a tail. It says "your tail" the same way Sleep Venom says "your venom"

It gives you a tail slap. Sleep Venom does not give you a venom attack. Tail Terror grants you a natural weapon. Sleep Venom modifies an existing trait. All I see is pages of people "missing or willfully overlooking" the fact that Tail Terror gives you a tail slap.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

For the character to use with his tail... if he has one.

Does an Half Orc have a tail? No?

Then you took a feat that the character can not use, unless he gains a tail through some other means. Like the mechanical one I mentioned as a house rule, one built as a part of the character's armor, or using second feat to gain a tail, much like the Eidolion Evolution.

On the same token, the Blugneoner feat give the character the ability to use a bludgeoning weapon to do non-lethal damage, and even to Rogue sneak attack as one does so, but the character would still have to acquire a club or like weapon to make use of the feat. (Basically, it makes all bludgeoning weapons able to be used as Saps)

Why would one example (venom) do something different than the other (Tail)?


*facepalm*

OK, I'm done here.


thaX wrote:


Does an Half Orc have a tail? No?

Then you took a feat that the character can not use, unless he gains a tail through some other means.

You are begging the question. You cannot assume the answer you are looking for, and then furnish it as proof of your argument.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This is the same as taking the Ability Focus feat, and having it grant one a special attack, when you had none before.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
This is the same as taking the Ability Focus feat, and having it grant one a special attack, when you had none before.

In what way is it the same?


Ya'll can stop feeding the troll at this point. He has shown clearly that he has no intention of changing his views, Let him house rule it all he wants.


RJGrady wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

And here is the point you are either missing or willfully overlooking, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Nowhere in the entirety of Tail Terror does it ever give you a tail. It says "your tail" the same way Sleep Venom says "your venom"

It gives you a tail slap. Sleep Venom does not give you a venom attack. Tail Terror grants you a natural weapon. Sleep Venom modifies an existing trait. All I see is pages of people "missing or willfully overlooking" the fact that Tail Terror gives you a tail slap.

Except no one has overlooked that fact. Everyone has said you gain a tail slap. You just don't have a tail to make it with. Just like the half-Orc who takes a trait and a feat to gain two bite attacks does not have two mouths. If you want to allow someone at your table to use this combination you certainly can, but the RAW is very clear (and I would say the RAI is none existent). No tail, no tail slap.


Talcrion wrote:
Ya'll can stop feeding the troll at this point. He has shown clearly that he has no intention of changing his views, Let him house rule it all he wants.

Like any of us have anything better to do.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You just don't have a tail to make it with. ... but the RAW is very clear

Show me.

I can clearly see where it says you have strengthened your tail. I see it says you attack with your tail. That's twice, it says you have a tail.

You say there is no tail. Show me the text that supports your assertion. Since it says repeatedly you do, I think you have a high hurdle to climb.

Racial Heritage says you qualify for any feat. If this particular combination does not work, it's up to you to demonstrate why. Some feats modify traits you may not have. But a kobold does not have a tail slap any more than a human does, so that does not apply in this case.

Show me where it says it's against the rules for a half-orc with Racial Heritage (kobold) to have a tail. Where it is forbidden, such that even if Tail Terror says they have one, there is a rule that indicates otherwise.


Is this thread for real? :O


I've had my doubts.

Sczarni

RJGrady wrote:
I've had my doubts.

That's rich, coming from you.

At this point all I can do is encourage you to build this character, travel to a con, or a PFS game and try it out.

Here's some free advice: Have a back-up character handy.

I'm out.


RJGrady wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You just don't have a tail to make it with. ... but the RAW is very clear
Show me.

You have been shown. Repeatedly. If you need to see it again then simply reread this thread.

Quote:

I can clearly see where it says you have strengthened your tail. I see it says you attack with your tail. That's twice, it says you have a tail.

It does. Because the feat is written for kobolds. Who have tails.

Quote:

You say there is no tail. Show me the text that supports your assertion. Since it says repeatedly you do, I think you have a high hurdle to climb.

Read the physical description for half-orcs. Did you see the part where it said they have tails? No, you didn't. Because they don't.

Quote:
Racial Heritage says you qualify for any feat. If this particular combination does not work, it's up to you to demonstrate why. Some feats modify traits you may not have. But a kobold does not have a tail slap any more than a human does, so that does not apply in this case.

It has been demonstrated. Repeatedly. Kobolds don't have any more tail slaps than humans do but they do have more tails. (By a factor of one.)

Quote:
Show me where it says it's against the rules for a half-orc with Racial Heritage (kobold) to have a tail. Where it is forbidden, such that even if Tail Terror says they have one, there is a rule that indicates otherwise.

It is not forbidden. It is simply incorrect. This is a combination never considered (most likely) when writing the two feats. If so they could have said "you grow a tail" or "you must have a tail." The rules forum is for discussing the rules. The rules say: half-orcs don't have tails, you need a tail to make a tail slap, neither feat causes the character to grow a tail.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to put this up one last time and hope people look at it..

This is not a clear simple obvious cut and dry sort of thing. The very real and valid argument to it working is as follows.

A tail is not a thing.. it is fluff like elves and their solid colored eyes and long ears. A tail attack is a thing and is a rule. This feat grants you a tail attack and in the rules as written you gain a tail attack which considering how many creatures with claw attacks have not claws which grow from paw/hand digits but pincers like a crab or scythes made of bone or the like or gore attacks made with a blunt skull or even tentacle attacks made with some sort of cytoplasmic pseudopod we may assume that these attacks are in fact not exactly always what they say but are often reskinned as generalizations to fit the critter. A ruling has been made that claws go on hands and feet get talons as far as bipeds are concerned.

This is it.

There is nothing that says humans have no tails, orcs have no tails ect ect. You cannot say that because it doesn't mention them in descriptive fluff they they do not have them because frequently races are not described as having hands, feet or even heads.. You also can't use art as a basis for this for more or less the same reasons. Beyond all of that racial descriptions are not rules. I can say 'Has very good night vision' or has poor depth perception' or 'Csn heasr s broader spectrum of sounds then a human' If i do then not reflect this with a trait in the rules block this means eff all. Arguments that have their basis in non rules related parts of the game are *USELESS*. There is no *rule* basis in any way shape or form for the presence of a kobold's tail. If in this feats description it said 'Must have tail.' It would hold a bit more water but then the game would have to include or not a tail in every races list of traits like it were speed or darkvision.

The fact that you all can not see a feat growing a tail on someone has as little to do with it being an, if stupider, rules acceptable thing as something without wings flying isn't relevant. Sure it doesnt really work in the real word but if thats how you justify acceptability in this game you have either suffered a *severe* psychotic break and believe in dragons, wizards, vampire and their ilk or you play the most boring games of pathfinder ever with everyone being various commoners and experts with things like skill focus: Profession gamer.

Racial Heritage kobold could grant a tail if you want it to because once more a tail is not a thing any more then blue hair if you take it for gnome or green skin if you take it for goblin is.

It is a stupid stupid way to get a tail attack alas stupid does not make it against RAW it means RAW has messed up. Until they rule differently by making the feat require a tail, and making a tail's presence a thing that is an either yes or no rule thing by RAW it works fine. Now a GM can rule it however they want and many will say no tail no tail attack but there is absolutely no rule that supports this. If they do that it will be an odd amount of rules added to the game for almost zero reason to do so because as abuses go this has so little impact on the game compared to the work of fixing it as to be laughable. so I'm fairly certain that the ruling will be 'Ask your GM' and left at that. This statement will still lead both sides to loudly proclaim 'Ha I was right.' and the other side will keep saying 'No you're not you're a dumdum head.' It would be nice if there was a ruling that was more solid but I wouldnt reccomend holding your breath for it.


VargrBoartusk wrote:
I'm just going to put this up one last time and hope people look at it..

The irony being that you yourself have not read any of the posts made earlier, simply reiterating does not make you more correct on the matter. And trust me, people have read the argument before, its just simply dismissed as the rule has always been, if you lack an appendage, you cannot use it or anything that requires it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe your just really good at using your massive Orc ass in combat.


Well in my game Half-Orcs and Humans have no tails to use this combo with. I will go by RAW. So taking this combo will not grant you the slap till you can also get a tail somewhere. Who knows maybe you can come up with something that lets you grow a tail? If so great! If not then I suggest you start with a Kobold if you want the slap.

This is my final decision as a GM based solidly on RAI.


I'm really suspicious of the RAI argument when you have this:

Quote:


Agile Tongue (Grippli)
Your long pink tongue is capable of manipulating small items and even stealing objects.
Prerequisites: Grippli.

Benefit: You have a prehensile tongue with a range of 10 feet. You can pick up items weighing no more than 5 pounds, make Sleight of Hand checks, perform the steal or disarm combat maneuvers, or make melee touch attacks with your tongue.

But humans have tongues, so that's okay, right?

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


It does. Because the feat is written for kobolds. Who have tails.

The point of Racial Heritage (kobold) is to make you eligible to take feats that are written for... who again?


Diekssus wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
I'm just going to put this up one last time and hope people look at it..
The irony being that you yourself have not read any of the posts made earlier, simply reiterating does not make you more correct on the matter. And trust me, people have read the argument before, its just simply dismissed as the rule has always been, if you lack an appendage, you cannot use it or anything that requires it.

First off.. Not actually ironic. Second off rather presumptuous I've read the whole thread. While people may have read it no one has responded to it

Second, What has been is irrelevant if it isn't in there now. I.E. There used to be a rule that you got XP for each GP worth of treasure since this rule no longer exists there in in fact no phantom rule syndrome and every rule in the game is in fact somewhere written.

What does make me correct on the matter as much as anyone can be correct in a game with something such as rule zero is

A) There is no list of what limbs what races have. Descriptive fluff does not do this.. Descriptive fluff often fails to mention many limbs entirely and often adds things. The description itself mentions that kobalds have claws which from a game perspective they do not. If in fact a half orc with the racial heritage feat in question can not have a tail because none of the descriptive fluff grants him one then Ipso Facto humans can not wield weapons or walk despite such things as their racial package granting them a movement speed because humans do not have arms and legs because the descriptive fluff does not say they do in fact have them.

B) there is in fact no place where it mentions an actual tail is needed for a tail attack. This is stupid but there's not much to do about it other then use 'logic' to make it so.

Until someone gives me page numbers and rules <Because I state that there is no such rule and thus can not provide you a link to said nothing.> this is not cut and dry.. Its is not clear.. It is not obvious *both* sides have equal validity though in my opinion the the actual RAW I have found supports pro tail more even if it is stupid and if you can with complete seriousness try to say the the RAI of a feat designed to let you take another races feats is not intended to let you take a feat based on something that's not actually <weather intentionally or as an oversight because mistakes and unforeseen consequences happen> listed as a prereq for the feat then we have an untenable situation.

Instead there seems to be a lot of Yes-huh and nu-uh, baiting people, and picking apart peoples phrasing rather then actual attempts to refute what they say.. In short.. Hey its a RPG BBS I'm not surprised.


RAI:
- The crux of the whole thing is the Racial Heritage feat. This feat was intended to allow you to get training normally reserved for other races. "Training" not metamorphic shapeshifting. While normally by RAI it IS a matter of training to teach a kobold to use his tail in an attack. You can't train someone to grow a tail. If you want to look at it from the other side take a Kobold with the feat and chop off his tail and he can't use his tail attack either. A human with the tail slap training is no different than a kobold with an amputated tail.

When RAW fails you look to RAI.

Grand Lodge

There, I grew a tail

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've always interpreted this usage to mean that the human in question has some messed up genetic ancestry and has some body parts humans don't normally have. After all, if great-grandpa was a frog, I'm still a human but with some luck and training maybe I can learn to stretch my tongue like my Grippli ancestors. Same with the stubby little tail that I got from Grandma Kobold.

I require some story behind it, and unless you're taking the feat at first level, I'll be skeptical.

Grand Lodge

Isn't one of the feat's requirements is you have to take it at first level to account for all sorts of weird genetic mutations?

huh.. Apparently it isn't. That is just weird. I think it should be limited to First level only.


Aranna wrote:

RAI:

- The crux of the whole thing is the Racial Heritage feat. This feat was intended to allow you to get training normally reserved for other races. "Training" not metamorphic shapeshifting. While normally by RAI it IS a matter of training to teach a kobold to use his tail in an attack. You can't train someone to grow a tail. If you want to look at it from the other side take a Kobold with the feat and chop off his tail and he can't use his tail attack either. A human with the tail slap training is no different than a kobold with an amputated tail.

When RAW fails you look to RAI.

This is actually the first time I've seen the feat limited to just training, it very clearly (to my reading) is about inhuman ancestry that the character themself may not know of. It allows all kinds of feats that have nothing to do with training such as Catfolk exemplar claws or orc bites. The weird thing is by strict reading of the feat you don't have any fur or large teeth as the feat does not rcurrently allow physical changes to your appearance beyond anything specifically called out as growing due to a separate feat.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Warm & Fuzzy wrote:
Is this thread for real? :O

Sadly it is.

One thing I learned from this thread is to question the validity of anything RJGrady says.

Silver Crusade

James, now you know how I felt in the Sound Striker thread with you.


James Risner wrote:
Warm & Fuzzy wrote:
Is this thread for real? :O

Sadly it is.

One thing I learned from this thread is to question the validity of anything RJGrady says.

You should question the validity of anything I say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
You should question the validity of anything I say.

This statement is valid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Warm & Fuzzy wrote:
Is this thread for real? :O

Sadly it is.

One thing I learned from this thread is to question the validity of anything RJGrady says.

You should question the validity of anything I say.

I have my doubts...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My question is the one implied when one takes the feat. Tail? If yes, Tail Slap. If no, can not tail slap.

I would think it simple, but it seems not to be.


thaX wrote:

My question is the one implied when one takes the feat. Tail? If yes, Tail Slap. If no, can not tail slap.

I would think it simple, but it seems not to be.

It boils down to the simple fact that quite a few feats have an assumed requirement that some are trying to claim is provided by taking the feat.

For example an Awakened Tiger with a level in fighter could gain Weapon Focus: Longsword. It meets all the requirements to take the feat. However having proficiency in the use of the weapon and the ability to use it with greater skill than most does not mean that it has the ability to wield such a weapon automatically.

Some might argue that since it has proficiency it obviously knows how to wield the weapon somehow since the rules clearly state he no longer has a penalty to wielding it.

But a tiger does not have hands capable of wielding the sword, even though it was subjected to a magical effect that granted it the ability to eventually learn how to use the sword.

Grand Lodge

ABCoLD wrote:


But a tiger does not have hands capable of wielding the sword, even though it was subjected to a magical effect that granted it the ability to eventually learn how to use the sword.

It does have a mouth however.

The one thing I don't understand though is why its absolutely necessary for a feat to say 'you grew a tail' and you can't you know.. Say your human had a tail from day one?

After all, spina bifida is a real thing that causes unusual growth for someone's spine. Considering somewhere down the way, the human in question has the genetic makeup of something not human... Why can the character not be mutated? It has absolutely no alteration to the mechanics of the character until applications of the feat are in place.


Espy Kismet wrote:
ABCoLD wrote:


But a tiger does not have hands capable of wielding the sword, even though it was subjected to a magical effect that granted it the ability to eventually learn how to use the sword.
It does have a mouth however.

Yes and there could be an argument on whether blondie could use her hair for a tail slap or if she's simply someone who dipped Witch 1 for Prehensile Hair and Lunge....

Or is that Whip Mastery and an unusual whip?

Or an Abberant Sorcerer that's very specific?

So confusing. :(

Grand Lodge

I'd say possibly tail slap or Equipment Trick (Rope). Considering a rope could be made out of hair.


ABCoLD wrote:
thaX wrote:

My question is the one implied when one takes the feat. Tail? If yes, Tail Slap. If no, can not tail slap.

I would think it simple, but it seems not to be.

It boils down to the simple fact that quite a few feats have an assumed requirement that some are trying to claim is provided by taking the feat.

No, it doesn't boil down to that. It boils down to some people thinking that it boils down to that.

My position is that Tail Terror works fine when played exactly as written, whether you are a kobold or a human with Racial Heritage (kobold). There are feats you could take that would be non-functional or only partly functional, but Tail Terror is not one of them. As it specifies you attack with your tail, there is no reason to speculate as to whether you have one.

You could ask whether someone with just Racial Heritage (kobold) could have a (not particularly useful) tail but I do not think there is an answer in the rules.


Quote:
The one thing I don't understand though is why its absolutely necessary for a feat to say 'you grew a tail' and you can't you know.. Say your human had a tail from day one?

IF your human has a tail from day 1, then you can utilize this feat. I'm not aware of a RAW way to have one, but regardless, it would cost you something - an alternate racial trait, or another feat, or a trait, or something. The presumption that Tail Terror automatically grants a tail where one never previously existed is the one that RJGrady has been so insistent on and which I find to be ludicrous.


Bizbag wrote:
The presumption that Tail Terror automatically grants a tail where one never previously existed is the one that RJGrady has been so insistent on and which I find to be ludicrous.

It presumes it. I guess if you didn't previously have one, it would grant it. But I would tend to believe you would take this feat if you felt your character should have a tail.

I would love to hear your explanation with this is so much more ludicrous than suddenly learning how to stretch your tongue ten feet and disarm weapons with it.


Quote:
I would love to hear your explanation with this is so much more ludicrous than suddenly learning how to stretch your tongue ten feet and disarm weapons with it.

Because one goes out of its way to grant the tongue to the player, whereas the other simply makes the assumption the player already has one, which you seem to believe is the same as the Grippli feat, for example.


RJGrady wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
The presumption that Tail Terror automatically grants a tail where one never previously existed is the one that RJGrady has been so insistent on and which I find to be ludicrous.

It presumes it. I guess if you didn't previously have one, it would grant it. But I would tend to believe you would take this feat if you felt your character should have a tail.

I would love to hear your explanation with this is so much more ludicrous than suddenly learning how to stretch your tongue ten feet and disarm weapons with it.

Do you believe that the difference between "You can make a tail slap attack with your tail." and " You have a prehensile tongue with a range of 10 feet." is purely semantics?

Compare to other feats that use the word 'your' such as Greater Whip Mastery "You are so quick with your whip that you never drop it due to a failed disarm or trip combat maneuver attempt."

Does the inclusion of the word 'your' in these feats grant you equipment? (Granting equipment is presumably a cheaper effect than granting additional appendages.)

Reconcile this with a character that gains two bite attacks not being able to use both without having two mouths.

Edit: Cite specific examples also of Racial Heritage granting you any cosmetic or mechanical benefit other than the ability to gain access to traits (as in the game mechanic known as Traits), feats, and be affected by spells and magic items as a member of that race, etc. Distinguish this from Racial Heritage (Mythic).

251 to 300 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.