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


Rules Questions

401 to 443 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am posting a post that I made in "the other thread."

--- Paste ---

So, the argument goes on, even common sense seems to take a back seat as a lone wolf becomes a small pack of nit picking the "rules" to get something that simply isn't there to take.

A feat (Tail Terror) is made for a particular race (Kobold), in that race's particular Player Companion book, to use with a limb that race usually has (Tail).

That is great for a Kobold.

Now another race (Human,Half-Elf or Half-Orc) takes Racial Heritage for that race (Kobold) and takes a feat for that race as ascribed in the Racial Heritage feat (Tail Terror) to make use of a limb that they actually don't have (Tail).

Now, common sense says no tail, no slap.

--- end of paste ---

I really don't know how this goes 400 posts.


thaX wrote:
I really don't know how this goes 400 posts.

Because people always try to get something for nothing regardless of common sense. Racial Heritage possibly needs some text added to it to smack down issues like this. Such as a human taking Racial Heritage for Half-Elf and Half-Orc does not suddenly give him the Elf Blood or Orc Blood racial abilities. It only allows that human to count as a half-elf or half-orc respectively. People are trying to get something for nothing from Tail Terror, which may also need some text added to it's prerequisites to specify that you must have a tail. What happens to the kobold who lost his tail in battle and it suddenly tries to take tail terror? It does not suddenly regrow a tail by taking Tail Terror, just as a human, half-orc, or half-elf with Racial Heritage (Kobold) does not suddenly grow a tail by taking Tail Terror.


I just don't get it. I keep seeing people say that this is not what the Racial Heritage feat is for. So what IS the feat for, if not to allow humans to take feats that they normally do not qualify for?

I mean, the feat says "you count as race X for the purposes of meeting prerequisites", so I look at that and see "this allows you to qualify for feats", but the argument I keep seeing is "this allows you to qualify for only SOME feats, based on what the GM thinks isn't cheese".

A GM is certainly in his rights to make decisions on things like this, but I have a hard time believing it's good game design to create feats that force a player to ask "Mother may I?".


Where does this racial heritage feat located? I can not find it.. is it in a suppliment somewhere? d20pfsd says advanced players guide but i can not find it

edit found it 168 haha

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Some feats with this "combo" will be useless for a character to take when they themselves can not make use of the benefits. A Half-Orc taking Tail Terror is an example of this.

One can take Kobold Confidence with this combo, though, which would grant the use of a mental stat instead of Con to determine the bonus the Fortitude save and the maximum Neg HP before dieing.

One can take Merciless Magic with this combo also, or Kobold Ambusher. None of these last three examples requires a tail.


Lynceus wrote:

I just don't get it. I keep seeing people say that this is not what the Racial Heritage feat is for. So what IS the feat for, if not to allow humans to take feats that they normally do not qualify for?

I mean, the feat says "you count as race X for the purposes of meeting prerequisites", so I look at that and see "this allows you to qualify for feats", but the argument I keep seeing is "this allows you to qualify for only SOME feats, based on what the GM thinks isn't cheese".

A GM is certainly in his rights to make decisions on things like this, but I have a hard time believing it's good game design to create feats that force a player to ask "Mother may I?".

No one is saying you don't qualify for the feat. There is disagreement on whether a tail is descriptive or mechanical and whether you need a tail to make a tail attack. There are several race restricted feats that don't require unusual anatomy.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Clearly, that is where the state of this disagreement is.

I am merely pointing out that the use of the feat, once it is taken, does not dictate the existence of the object that is used in the execution of said feat.

As was proffered in the other thread, I will ask in this way. If a pig somehow given the ability to fly innately, would it grow wings? Would this give it Wing Buffet (2) attacks when it does?


thaX wrote:

Clearly, that is where the state of this disagreement is.

I am merely pointing out that the use of the feat, once it is taken, does not dictate the existence of the object that is used in the execution of said feat.

As was proffered in the other thread, I will ask in this way. If a pig somehow given the ability to fly innately, would it grow wings? Would this give it Wing Buffet (2) attacks when it does?

Depends on the circumstances. If the pig gained an ability that states, "You sprout wings, giving you X fly speed with Y maneuverability and 2 Wing Buffet natural attacks," then the pig doesn't need pre-existing wings to fly. If the ability said, however, "You gain a +2 bonus to the Fly skill and Fly is always considered a class skill for you. You also improve your maneuverability by 1 step," that doesn't include the innate ability to fly; it just improves your ability when you benefit from flight by other means (ie. a Fly spell). Then, there's a third option: This pig has wings from birth, but no fly speed. He can't use his wings to fly. Now, lets say he gets an ability that reads, "You may fly with your wings, gaining a fly speed of X with maneuverability Y." Lets say all pigs can take this feat, but not all pigs are born with wings. It won't cause a wingless pig to sprout wings because it doesn't say you sprout wings. But if the pig were made with wings (where they came from is unimportant) or had some other ability that let them sprout wings, they could benefit from this ability. Maybe the ability that lets them sprout wings had slower speed or less maneuverability so they want to take the second ability that gives them a higher base from which to operate.

Same applies to Tail Terror: It won't sprout a tail because it doesn't say you grow a tail. It says you can use your tail [if you have one] for a particular purpose. If you have a tail from birth or have grown a tail by other means, then you can use it. If you don't have a tail, either because you never had one or because you had one and lost it, you can't use the ability despite having the feat, just like you can't benefit from Weapon Focus(Longsword) if you dropped your Longsword. But I'd say you can still have a Human with a smattering of scales and a tail even if you didn't take Racial Heritage(Kobold) at level 1. You don't suddenly ret-con a Kobold ancestor at the time you take the feat; you weren't a pure-blooded Human before but suddenly a Kobold inserted itself into your genealogy when you took it at lvl 7. You always had that Kobold ancestor and you may or may not exhibit certain physical traits as a result. The Human offspring of a Half-Elf and a Human may be born with somewhat pointy ears despite being racially classified as a Human. If there were a hypothetical feat that required you to be an elf to use your pointy ears for a certain effect, a Human child of a Half-Elf and a Human wouldn't qualify unless they both took Racial Heritage (Elf) and expressed pointy ears. Racial Heritage (Elf) is purely mechanical, but having pointy ears is an aesthetic quality. You either had them from birth or you didn't, but few would argue that, upon taking RH(Elf), your ears grew to points overnight.

So, if a player intends for his character to take Racial Heritage (Kobold) for the purpose of taking Tail Terror, it's very good roleplay to designate right from the start that he had a tail from birth. He doesn't necessarily need to show it off; it could just be a note to the GM. But it's poor form to suddenly bring up his tail "out of the blue". "Oh, this? Yeah, I've always had this, but since I kept it under my clothes all the time I never mentioned it to anyone... not even the GM. But now that I have Tail Terror, I'm going to unwrap it from around my waist, cut a hole in my pants, and display it for all the world to see."


ABCoLD wrote:

This thread continues to be epic nonsense.

Can people please point me to the post we're all hitting the FAQ button on so that this is more constructive than a circular sharing of disparate views?

I have one towards the bottom of page three, it's got a decent little number of requests. But there is a whole other thread spawned from this topic with a 60+ faq request going already too.


thaX wrote:

I am posting a post that I made in "the other thread."

--- Paste ---

So, the argument goes on, even common sense seems to take a back seat as a lone wolf becomes a small pack of nit picking the "rules" to get something that simply isn't there to take.

A feat (Tail Terror) is made for a particular race (Kobold), in that race's particular Player Companion book, to use with a limb that race usually has (Tail).

That is great for a Kobold.

Now another race (Human,Half-Elf or Half-Orc) takes Racial Heritage for that race (Kobold) and takes a feat for that race as ascribed in the Racial Heritage feat (Tail Terror) to make use of a limb that they actually don't have (Tail).

Now, common sense says no tail, no slap.

--- end of paste ---

I really don't know how this goes 400 posts.

Probably something to do with the fact that common sense is about as universal of a concept as fun, moral, and pretty are. I say its common sense that if a feat grants you a feature in this case a tail slap rather then improving one say increasing flight or swim speed you gain the feature, and just to nip this off at the bud, no I do not believe kobolds have a tail feature no matter how often its pointed out that they have one in the descriptive text. You say it's common sense that since it doesn't say you have a tail anywhere you cant make a tail slap even if you gain the feat. I say its common sense that since tail terror doesn't list tail in the prereqs you don't need one to use it. You say its common sense that racial heritage doesn't grow you a tail. I say its common sense that a feat made to allow you to take other feats lets you use the other feats.. Common sense is a trap as far as any discussion goes and fequently just a code word for 'Because I don't like it'.


Actually I think most of think its common sense racial heritage doesn't grow you a tail you didn't have when you created the character. Very few GMs I would think would outright disallow you sitting down and explaining why you have the tail.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So all the pictures of Kobolds in the books are somehow wrong to show a Kobold with a tail?

Are they also wrong when the Human/Half-Elf/Half-Orc is shown without a tail?

Let's step back a moment and look at what is agreed on here.


  • As a Half-Orc, one can take Racial Heritage (Kobold) and get in turn get the feat Tail Terror.
  • The damage for the attack for a medium creature (with a tail of their own) is 1d6. This is despite the damage listed in the feat meant for a Small Creature.
  • This does not shrink your Half-Orc into a small creature as a result of taking Tail Terror.

I am glad we can at least agree on these points. Now, lets list the disagreements.


  • Taking a feat would not give you the item/class feature/physical means/Racial Trait that it requires to effectively use said feat.
  • Tail Terror is not somehow different than other feats because a tail is descriptive within the race entry in a book.
  • Taking Tail Terror would not give one an attack as a Half-Orc because the actual race that took it doesn't have tail.
  • If one needed a tail, perhaps to take advantage of a feat that uses said tail, then another feature somewhere would need to provide one, such as being a Cat Folk, turning into an animal that has one (Druid), or being a Kobold in the first place.

So, lets look at the Bestiary.

Bestiary wrote:
This Short, Reptilian Humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail.

It is pictured with artwork that depicts him having a tail.

I have yet to see anywhere where it says that human/Half-Elf/Half-Orc have a tail.

I contend that this feat alone, Tail Terror, does not actually grant a race a tail that it did not have before. I do not see why this is an issue. Some feats that are taken because one can through the Racial Heritage feat are, in fact, not usable by the character simply because he didn't have the feature that the feat uses.

A gnome feat, Extra Gnome Magic, for example, will not grant a half-orc with Racial Heritage with innate spell abilities. Hence,as a result, he would not gain those abilities so he can use the extra castings the feat provides.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

However, Kobold doesn't have "Tail (Ex) You have a tail. It does nothing but trail you. Might have a mind of its own"


Darche Schneider wrote:
However, Kobold doesn't have "Tail (Ex) You have a tail. It does nothing but trail you. Might have a mind of its own"

Humans don't have "Arms (EX) You have arms." Are arms fluff? By RAW, can I say my human has extra arms? Wouldn't that negate the Vestigial Arm discovery for Alchemists? Do you understand there is a difference between what is allowed and what is RAW?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Darche Schneider wrote:
However, Kobold doesn't have "Tail (Ex) You have a tail. It does nothing but trail you. Might have a mind of its own"
Humans don't have "Arms (EX) You have arms." Are arms fluff? By RAW, can I say my human has extra arms? Wouldn't that negate the Vestigial Arm discovery for Alchemists? Do you understand there is a difference between what is allowed and what is RAW?

Not the same thing.

Quote:
A gnome feat, Extra Gnome Magic, for example, will not grant a half-orc with Racial Heritage with innate spell abilities. Hence,as a result, he would not gain those abilities so he can use the extra castings the feat provides.

Comparing having tail to this.

Not whatever tangent your running off on.


Darche Schneider wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Darche Schneider wrote:
However, Kobold doesn't have "Tail (Ex) You have a tail. It does nothing but trail you. Might have a mind of its own"
Humans don't have "Arms (EX) You have arms." Are arms fluff? By RAW, can I say my human has extra arms? Wouldn't that negate the Vestigial Arm discovery for Alchemists? Do you understand there is a difference between what is allowed and what is RAW?

Not the same thing.

Why not?


BigDTBone wrote:
When you ask your opponent to prove a negative, you admit your position is indefensible.

OR rather, because your physical appearance, in step 6 of character creation, where your physical appearance is an effect related to your race..

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That. Does. Not. Include. A. Tail.

Your skin is paler, takes on a slight tinge, or has some scaley texture. Your eyes are different, slanted, or closer/wider apart.
You have a long neck, a button nose, or stringy hair.
You may be from other regions and have particulars looks and manners from that region.

Tails is not an physical appearance, it is an appendage that most races does not have.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darche Schneider wrote:


Quote:
A gnome feat, Extra Gnome Magic, for example, will not grant a half-orc with Racial Heritage with innate spell abilities. Hence,as a result, he would not gain those abilities so he can use the extra castings the feat provides.

Comparing having tail to this.

Not whatever tangent your running off on.

So you know I am comparing the two circumstances. Did you mean to have a question mark after that first sentence?

It is not a tangent, it is a parallel. Each feat has a particular advantage that it gives (A secondary attack or extra uses of innate spells) that makes use of a race's attribute.(Tail or innate spells)

Each would need that attribute (Tail or Innate Spells) to use with the feats in question.

Taking them as a Half-Orc? No Tail. No Innate Spells. No dice. You have the feat, but can not use it. Not without the attribute that is used with it.


Very well.

I take the Misbegotten flaw. Now I have a tail.

Or become a follower of Lamashtu, and have a tail. Then get the mask and then.. oh my~

Silver Crusade

Darche Schneider wrote:

Very well.

I take the Misbegotten flaw. Now I have a tail.

Or become a follower of Lamashtu, and have a tail. Then get the mask and then.. oh my~

And that is perfectly fine. But neither the Racial Heritage feat nor the Tail Terror feat grant you a tail.


Only cause your RAI says that appearance isn't an effect of the race.


and once again we get back to the same argument's used to support that human's should be able to crap gemstones and have golden boogers.

The whole, it doesn't say I can't, argument is as silly sounding as always.


Ah, Appeal to ridicule again. Because when points are made, someone always comes running in with something completely and utterly absurd as a means of attempting to discredit those of whom you do not share the view point of.

A point is made (Appearance is an effect of race), so as usual, we must rush right in and start going on about how it doesn't say you can't play a floating eye with two heads that shoots stardust and moon beams from every orifice and you can take any feat you want because it doesn't say you can't.

Well, here is my appeal to ridiculous for you. It doesn't say you can select a racial archetype or racial favored class bonuses. Though, I suppose that is hardly ridiculous.


I suggest you look over what appeal to ridicule is.

This argument ended a long time ago, you have no evidence to back up your claim as your entire argument bases on the fact that you feel your interpretation is the right one, you won't know until the dev's faq it.


Oh I have looked up what AtR is.

Likewise you have the same state, no evidence to back up your own claim, other than an a rather outstanding forceful ego. Odd how much a difference a year makes.. Black Blood Troll back in 2012 had asked similar questions about the racial archetypes, which had either been largely ignored or multiple times people claimed that Archetypes and Racial Favored class bonuses were not effects.

My bodily phenotypical characteristics include the locale of the kobold clan within them varying immensely from those humans who's locale was not part of the kobold clan.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Darche Schneider wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Darche Schneider wrote:
However, Kobold doesn't have "Tail (Ex) You have a tail. It does nothing but trail you. Might have a mind of its own"
Humans don't have "Arms (EX) You have arms." Are arms fluff? By RAW, can I say my human has extra arms? Wouldn't that negate the Vestigial Arm discovery for Alchemists? Do you understand there is a difference between what is allowed and what is RAW?

Not the same thing.

Ok. This. This right here. This assertion is where you lose me. Just "having a tail" and "having an extra arm" are nearly identical things. It's using "description is just fluff" to say a character has an extra *limb* that can, with training, be used to make attacks. At the point where your fluff decision has mechanical consequences, it ceases to be pure fluff.

Arbitrarily deciding "I have a tail" is nearly equivalent to "I have an extra arm," and both can even be justified with Racial heritage just as easily. There is a four armed humanoid race, after all.

The funny thing is, I think most GMs would allow this in a home game. I would. That doesn't make it any less of a house rule.


I never claimed I had any more evidence, in fact if you've read though the thread you'd realize that has been my stance for the majority of the time, that it's a back and forth argument over the fact that both sides believe the dev's intended things their way and the Raw is unclear.


Talcrion wrote:

I never claimed I had any more evidence, in fact if you've read though the thread you'd realize that has been my stance for the majority of the time, that it's a back and forth argument over the fact that both sides believe the dev's intended things their way and the Raw is unclear.

Ah, then we are of alike mind at the current predicament of a standstill we currently face.

Quote:
Arbitrarily deciding "I have a tail" is nearly equivalent to "I have an extra arm," and both can even be justified with Racial heritage just as easily. There is a four armed humanoid race, after all

What race would that be?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Darche Schneider wrote:


Quote:
Arbitrarily deciding "I have a tail" is nearly equivalent to "I have an extra arm," and both can even be justified with Racial heritage just as easily. There is a four armed humanoid race, after all
What race would that be?

Kasatha, in Bestiary 4.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Darche Schneider wrote:
Talcrion wrote:

I never claimed I had any more evidence, in fact if you've read though the thread you'd realize that has been my stance for the majority of the time, that it's a back and forth argument over the fact that both sides believe the dev's intended things their way and the Raw is unclear.

Ah, then we are of alike mind at the current predicament of a standstill we currently face.

Quote:
Arbitrarily deciding "I have a tail" is nearly equivalent to "I have an extra arm," and both can even be justified with Racial heritage just as easily. There is a four armed humanoid race, after all
What race would that be?

Kasatha.


Ah, I see. So they graduated from the ARG's example of a race into something real.

Which of course they have the Multiarm (EX) trait.

Looking over the race builder, this is no racial thing that just gives you a tail. Its either gotta be a slapping or prehensile tail. I suppose this means you cannot build races with tails unless they take slapping or prehensile.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The intent of the devs...

They made a feat that was for a race that has a tail.

They never intended for another race that does not have a tail to take that feat. It is clear that a tail is expected of the race that takes this feat.

Just because another race can get a foothold into other racial feats, that doesn't mean every single one of them would be useful for him.

Tail Terror allows the character to make a tail slap. With a tail. If you happen to not have a tail, you will have to find another way to get one or wait on evolution.

The feat in question was intended for a Kobold. Who has a tail.

Not for a human/half-elf/half-orc. Who do not have a tail.

I know, that is to simple for some, they want complications of some sort, go into the reasoning behind the tale, the great story of exactly what went into the Racial Heritage and say "maybe" this was intended to be used to sprout other races tails.

I don't. No tail. No tail slap. I would suggest maybe taking another feat, or finding a way to get a tail.

Grand Lodge

Can i throw a spanner in the works and demonstrate that Humans have a tail it is called a "vestigial tail" and every one of us have one and boy they hurt when you bruise them. i digress. now maybe these partial Kobold humans (half-Orcs etc.) actually have a longer than normal tail hence the feat that has no requirement to actually have a tale and therefor is legal becomes justifiable to those who cant get past the rule.


Humphry B ManWitch wrote:
Can i throw a spanner in the works and demonstrate that Humans have a tail it is called a "vestigial tail" and every one of us have one and boy they hurt when you bruise them. i digress. now maybe these partial Kobold humans (half-Orcs etc.) actually have a longer than normal tail hence the feat that has no requirement to actually have a tale and therefor is legal becomes justifiable to those who cant get past the rule.

I know you mean well but this isn't going to end well :(


thaX wrote:
The intent of the devs...

Not sure how you know this.. must be some secret sort of mind link.. Or some excuse to try to give your statements more weight of fact then they have a right to

thaX wrote:
They made a feat that was for a race that has a tail.

They made a feat that turned a zero sum in the rules into a positive.. IE no tail attack into a tail attack.

thaX wrote:
They never intended for another race that does not have a tail to take that feat. It is clear that a tail is expected of the race that takes this feat.

Obviously not otherwise people wouldn't be saying its unclear.. Its funny how making a feat to let you get options from other races middies the water on that. Though to be fair they do lack your aforementioned gamer style vulcan mind meld much to their misfortune.

thaX wrote:
Just because another race can get a foothold into other racial feats, that doesn't mean every single one of them would be useful for him.

You're right.. Just the ones that grant new options or modify mechanics that both races have.. One of which we is a tail attack because it takes both races from equal <no tail attack> to positive <tail attack> because to us mechanics are what matters and we see humans and kobolds being mechanically equal for the feat.

thaX wrote:

Tail Terror allows the character to make a tail slap. With a tail. If you happen to not have a tail, you will have to find another way to get one or wait on evolution.

The feat in question was intended for a Kobold. Who has a tail.

Maybe

thaX wrote:
Not for a human/half-elf/half-orc. Who do not have a tail.

Unless maybe they made some feat.. That they could take.. A feat that let them get stuff for other races

thaX wrote:
I know, that is to simple for some, they want complications of some sort, go into the reasoning behind the tale, the great story of exactly what went into the Racial Heritage and say "maybe" this was intended to be used to sprout other races tails.

Actually some of us just see the feat as giving a d4 natural attack just like one that grants a bite or a claw and don't want to complicate it with a bunch of 'kobolds can use this because they have an arbitrarily mention butt decoration' nonsense... But maybe I'm wrong about why I feel this way.. Maybe you know what everyone thinks and not just the Devs.. If that is the case.. Well You're likely not very pleased with my inner monologue's stance on you.

thaX wrote:
I don't. No tail. No tail slap. I would suggest maybe taking another feat, or finding a way to get a tail.

Really ? I would suggest not treating your opinions as if they are facts and then not trying to use them to oafishly bludgeon your way into the enchanted realm of correct.. Which to me seems what is actually important to you.

Dark Archive

I think that I am getting dizzy with the amount of circles this thread is going in.

Shadow Lodge

VargrBoartusk wrote:


thaX wrote:

Tail Terror allows the character to make a tail slap. With a tail. If you happen to not have a tail, you will have to find another way to get one or wait on evolution.

The feat in question was intended for a Kobold. Who has a tail.

Maybe

thaX wrote:
Not for a human/half-elf/half-orc. Who do not have a tail.

Unless maybe they made some feat.. That they could take.. A feat that let them get stuff for other races

thaX wrote:
I know, that is to simple for some, they want complications of some sort, go into the reasoning behind the tale, the great story of exactly what went into the Racial Heritage and say "maybe" this was intended to be used to sprout
...

There is no maybe. The feat was made for Kobolds. Kobolds happen to have a tail. Racial Heritage was made so that you can take feats intended for other races. Racial Heritage does not give you the body parts of the other race.

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Really ? I would suggest not treating your opinions as if they are facts and then not trying to use them to oafishly bludgeon your way into the enchanted realm of correct.. Which to me seems what is actually important to you.

The statements made by thaX were not opinion. You and the others who claim you don't need or get a free tail are the only ones that have injected opinion as facts and tried to redefine every term to make it fit your argument.


But we really don't know what the Developers intended. Isn't is possible that they actually DID intend for a Human to take feats like Tail Terror?

After all, if the intent was otherwise, wouldn't they have published errata, or added a "Special:" line to Racial Heritage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You cannot know my intent until you have fulfilled my desires.

I desire... Macaroni Pictures!


PatientWolf wrote:
*stuff*

You know why I like being me ? If the Devs agree with your 'side' of the argument <My side of which is actually still you can read it both ways fairly easily and despite having mentioned that several times it still eludes some folks.> I get to go 'Huh maybe the language should be clearer.' which they tend to do for further printings anyways, and because I want ranting fact this, and perfectly clear that, I don't look like a belligerent jackass. A bit condescending maybe, but I am condescending a lot of the time so that's cool. If my 'side is right i get to say 'Huh maybe the language should be clearer.' However until the Devs comment one way or another its all opinion.. Thank you for playing though.. Your consolation prize, A lifetime of my apathy will be sent your way soon.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They intended for Humans (and their half-bred siblings) to be able to get feats/traits/etc that were meant for another race. I expect that common sense should be used in getting and looking at getting those feats. If one has a tail attack and your character has no tail, perhaps one should look at other feats instead of setting one up for an argument with the GM.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:

It grants a tail slap.

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

Settled Dev

It does not grant you a tail.

401 to 443 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.