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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 443 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

If i am a Half-Orc with this feat combo at level 3 is my Tail Slap a D4 as per the RAW or is it D6 as i am a medium sized creature and the natural attack would size up with me? Likewise, if i continue dragoning it up with feats and i get Draconic Paragon does my fly speed or maneuverability change at all? i think its yes to the first and no to the second since its only base speed that is normally affected by size. Some one poke holes in my thinking?

FYI, its all for a Freebooter, Natural Combat style, Toothy, Horc Ranger concept. Descended from a long line of adventurous adventurers.

Grand Lodge

May I ask how you intended on taking Racial Heritage feat with your character who is not a human?

The APG wrote: wrote:
Prerequisite: Human.


Half orcs count as human & orc; there was an FAQ a short while back on the subject, so they can qualify for racial heritage.


I think there was some one asking for a FAQ. About if you could get a tail by going that way or if the heritage feat wouldent give you a tail.
But if your GM is good with your half orc getting a tail then i think you should get a medium one. But by RAW you get a secondary natural attack doing 1d4.

Grand Lodge

Anybody got a link? I don't see it.

edit: Found the FAQ's

Grand Lodge

Well assuming the FAQ qualifies, then Cap. Darling is correct it's a d4.


So by that same logic a half orc can take an alternate racial trait for a primary bite attack or burn a feat for it later to gain an oddly worded secondary bite attack? I was assuming on that one that it was supposed to be a primary but described it as using a natural attack after manufactured weapons I the feat description. Likewise a medium "kobold" has a d4 tail but a kobold enlarged to medium has a d6? It's not for pathfinder society though so it might be best to just work it out with my GM at this point...

Dark Archive

8 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW you can absolutely take the feat but unless I have missed a relevant FAQ (entirely possible) it will have zero effect. The feat specifically says, "Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail." Racial heritage lets you be considered as a Kobold for "Requirement: Kobold", it never says anything about being granted additional limbs and the Tail Terror feat specifically calls out an increase in your ability to use your tail... which you don't have. The feat is thus worthless unless you gain a tail through other means.

For reference, compare this with the Draconic Glide feat which specifically calls out "You grow a pair of wings." and thus would work fine with Racial heritage.


Well if we are looking just at RAW, it does not state anywhere that Kobolds have tails. Its not a normal part of the race for anything, its just fluff in illustrations outside of this one feat. So do we then assume all Kobolds have tails without this feat? It would seem to be the case but that tail is just fluff at this point. If any character takes racial heritage Kobold then they are kobold just as much as human or elf or orc and have features to distinguish them as such... in this case they would have slightly scaly skin that does nothing without a feat and a tail that does nothing without a feat.

Although for humor's sake it could just be a butt swipe for 1D4 plus 1/2 STR. Its instinctual. ;)

Dark Archive

It actually does, the physical description section of the Kobold player race option in the APG specifies they have tails. The Racial Heritage feat says nothing about growing extra body parts, tails or scales or any such thing, simply that you can qualify for the requirement "<race>" with it, that's not fluff just straight text from the Paizo books.

If your GM allows you to grow a tail with it, then good for you! But RAW, which is what the we should try and stick to in the rules section of the forums, you can take the feat it simply does nothing for you.

Grand Lodge

Torbyne and Suthainn,

I am unclear what you are talking about.

ARG wrote:
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.

If we are dealing with just RAW and the FAQ, then that's that. No GM discretion about a tail growing or fluff text required. The character has a d4 Tail Slap.

Torbyne wrote:
gain an oddly worded secondary bite attack?

I don't understand what this is.


Corbin Dallas,

Here is what i am refering too.

This is an alternate racial trait:

Toothy: Some half-orcs' tusks are large and sharp, granting a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of piercing damage. This racial trait replaces orc ferocity.

This is a feat:

Razortusk
Your powerful jaws and steely teeth are deadly enough to give you a bite attack.

Prerequisite: Half-orc.

Benefit: You can make a bite attack for 1d4 points of damage, plus your Strength modifier. You’re considered proficient in this attack and can apply feats or effects appropriate to natural attacks to it. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite is considered a secondary attack and is made at your full base attack bonus –5, and adds half your Strength modifier to damage.

In the feat you can use the bite stand alone and it is similar to a primary natural attack or you can use it in a full attack as a secondary attack with half strength. The wording makes it seem as though this is not a true natural attack. Kind of off point about tail issues though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Go with Scion of Humanity Aasimar.

An Aasimar can naturally have a tail, so it works out.

He can't do anything with the tail, until he gets the feat though.


Corbin, they are saying that the feat does not give you a tail slap, it allows you to make tail slaps with your tail.... however because you are not a kobold, you have no tail with which to slap. Therefore the feat does nothing.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Go with Scion of Humanity Aasimar.

An Aasimar can naturally have a tail, so it works out.

He can't do anything with the tail, until he gets the feat though.

Well that would get me two claws from Ranger and Tail with three feats, plus wing buffets way late... any way to grab a bite attack as an Aasimar? Short of going barbarian or alchemist? (trying to avoid those two after debating the 6 natural attack beastmorph alchemist with the GM)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

One of the alternate Aasimar racial traits also include talons.

Grand Lodge

Bestiary wrote:
This short, reptilian humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail.
APG wrote:
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.

So those arguing against want the descriptive text held separate from the mechanical benefits. Also, the FAQ has to be ignored since it qualifies a character for said benefits.

Additionally, those arguing against want the descriptive text of the Kobold Bestiary entry to disqualify a character from having a tail because they are not a Kobold.
Then- Those arguing against want the descriptive text from the feat to be ignored that states that the blood of a Kobold flows in the characters veins.

Am I interpreting the oppositions position correctly?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Corbin Dallas wrote:
Bestiary wrote:
This short, reptilian humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail.
APG wrote:
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.

So those arguing against want the descriptive text held separate from the mechanical benefits. Also, the FAQ has to be ignored since it qualifies a character for said benefits.

Additionally, those arguing against want the descriptive text of the Kobold Bestiary entry to disqualify a character from having a tail because they are not a Kobold.
Then- Those arguing against want the descriptive text from the feat to be ignored that states that the blood of a Kobold flows in the characters veins.

Am I interpreting the oppositions position correctly?

More or less.

Grand Lodge

That is nonsense. The character has a d4 secondary tail slap.

I mean I don't like this FAQ myself. But regardless of my personal feelings rules are rules FAQ's are FAQ's and benefits are benefits.

Heh.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corbin Dallas wrote:


Additionally, those arguing against want the descriptive text of the Kobold Bestiary entry to disqualify a character from having a tail because they are not a Kobold.
Then- Those arguing against want the descriptive text from the feat to be ignored that states that the blood of a Kobold flows in the characters veins.

Am I interpreting the oppositions position correctly?

No. Kobolds physically have a tail, APG description. Your character has the blood of a kobold running in their veins, no physical changes, feat description. Tail Terror grants you an attack with your tail, feat description. You have no tail. That's all she wrote.

Corbin Dallas wrote:

Torbyne and Suthainn,

I am unclear what you are talking about.

ARG wrote:
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.

If we are dealing with just RAW and the FAQ, then that's that. No GM discretion about a tail growing or fluff text required. The character has a d4 Tail Slap.

Except that's not what the feat says, those are the *requirements* to take the feat, great you qualified and took it!

Now, RAW the effect of getting the feat is as follows. "Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail." ... except you don't have a tail. You have a *FEAT* which improves a tail attack, not a feat which gives you a tail. It may seem to be semantics but in the rules forum the specific wording of feats does matter a lot.

To use a slightly silly example this is the same way that if you were a creature without a mouth (for some crazy reason) you could take Racial Heritage - Half Orc, then get the Razortusk feat. Great, you have a bite attack! Except your weird crazy race has no mouth so you have nothing to make that attack with.

Feats that improve or grant an attack via a limb require you in most cases to already possess said limb, in most cases they don't grant the physical change to actually grow an additional body part. That at least is the point of view that I'm approaching it from, table variation is of course more than likely, but explicitly as written it seems to me to work that way.


Yes it is allowed, it's good for certain builds but not for everyone

Between that, aspect of the beast, and martial mastery a monk can do a lot of damage with this.

I made a build once "Reptile" which was literaly 2 ranger (Aspect of the beast feat) with level 1 feat being human heritage and level 3 being tail terror.

the level five feat was the feat that allows you to fight with natural weapons as unarmed strike... i then used natural versatility to apply that to my bite (Toothy), claws, and tail.

I went pure wis and used a guided mighty fist amulet...........

everything else was pure obnoxious

Grand Lodge

As I pointed out in a previous post you are asking things to be separated that are not separate. We can disagree until the cows come home on how RAW is applied in this case.

The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.

It is a nice little corner case you have spun though.

Grand Lodge

Ranger 2 Alchemist 2+ (Rogue 1+ if vivisectionist is banned like PFS)

you can gain an extra head and two extra arms if you gain some alchemist levels. and then gaining feral mutagen (which gives you +2 claw +1 bite attack assuming you have the correct amount of Limbs)

archetypes that work with this are vivisectionist + beastmorph.

this would give you 1x 1d4 bite attack 1x D8 bite attack 2x d4 claw attacks 2 x d6 claw attacks 1x D4 tail attack

go either STR based and be awesome or Dex based (which requires weapon finesse + an amulet of mighty fists "agile") and you are super awesome high AC and do heaps of damage

all primary except the tail

Beastmorph gives you heaps of cool things including pounce.

big TIP. boost your will save somehow as you will be very susceptible o dominate and killing the rest of the party

Dark Archive

Corbin Dallas wrote:

As I pointed out in a previous post you are asking things to be separated that are not separate. We can disagree until the cows come home on how RAW is applied in this case.

The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.

It is a nice little corner case you have spun though.

Not even remotely, I am giving a strictly RAW interpretation. Not in the FAQ, not in the feats, not in the fluff, nowhere in this situation do you find anything that says anything about growing new limbs, you won't find it because it isn't there. I know you think it is implied but implication does not equal RAW. I'm not asking for or arguing for any separation, because there is none needed, the feats and faq agree, you qualify to take the feat, but taking a feat that enhances a limb you do not have does nothing, case closed.

Grand Lodge

Suthainn wrote:
Not even remotely, I am giving a strictly RAW interpretation. Not in the FAQ, not in the feats, not in the fluff, nowhere in this situation do you find anything that says anything about growing new limbs, you won't find it because it isn't there. I know you think it is implied but implication does not equal RAW. I'm not asking for or arguing for any separation, because there is none needed, the feats and faq agree, you qualify to take the feat, but taking a feat that enhances a limb you do not have does nothing, case closed.

We can argue "RAW interpretations" till Armageddon. I have no interest in debating with you how RAW is applied. The community at large can't even agree on that topic. We apparently lack a common frame of reference to continue productive discussion.

I stand by my explanations.

The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.

Case closed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corbin Dallas wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Not even remotely, I am giving a strictly RAW interpretation. Not in the FAQ, not in the feats, not in the fluff, nowhere in this situation do you find anything that says anything about growing new limbs, you won't find it because it isn't there. I know you think it is implied but implication does not equal RAW. I'm not asking for or arguing for any separation, because there is none needed, the feats and faq agree, you qualify to take the feat, but taking a feat that enhances a limb you do not have does nothing, case closed.

We can argue "RAW interpretations" till Armageddon. I have no interest in debating with you how RAW is applied. The community at large can't even agree on that topic. We apparently lack a common frame of reference to continue productive discussion.

I stand by my explanations.

The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.

Case closed.

Don't be a jerk. It's obviously not "case closed" since there's heavy debate on it. Just make your point and move on.

Anyway, I do feel it can go either way. Obviously in normal circumstances half-orcs don't have a tail, but the argument would be that a half-orc with racial heritage (kobold) would have a tail because of his kobold heritage.

Personally I don't think racial heritage is normally meant to create such a drastic physical change, but I certainly don't think adding a 1d4 tail slap is going to be unbalancing.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
One of the alternate Aasimar racial traits also include talons.

Is that from the Blood Of Angels book? Not seeing it in my Advanced Race or the PRD online.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
One of the alternate Aasimar racial traits also include talons.
Is that from the Blood Of Angels book? Not seeing it in my Advanced Race or the PRD online.

Yes.

See all here.


Ooh, pretty... i will remember this when i roll up a Swashbuckler. Gives me a good justifiction for my hair to allways be in perfect flowing locks too. A celestial Nathan Fillion/Errol Flynn hybrid...

But back to the point at hand; the feat normally assumes a 1D4 tail slap from a small sized creature, if you are a medium sized creature would you follow the normal natural attack progression to 1D6?

Dark Archive

Corbin Dallas wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Not even remotely, I am giving a strictly RAW interpretation. Not in the FAQ, not in the feats, not in the fluff, nowhere in this situation do you find anything that says anything about growing new limbs, you won't find it because it isn't there. I know you think it is implied but implication does not equal RAW. I'm not asking for or arguing for any separation, because there is none needed, the feats and faq agree, you qualify to take the feat, but taking a feat that enhances a limb you do not have does nothing, case closed.

We can argue "RAW interpretations" till Armageddon. I have no interest in debating with you how RAW is applied. The community at large can't even agree on that topic. We apparently lack a common frame of reference to continue productive discussion.

I stand by my explanations.

The character has a d4 secondary Tail Slap.

Case closed.

The feat doesn't say you grow a tail. Anywhere. It lets you do something new with a tail you already have, nothing more. No tail equal no tail slap.

This is not a RAW interpretation. The rules don't say what you want them to say. Nothing in any of the abilities you have taken says you grow or gain a tail. So you don't have a tail.

Case closed.


But mechanically you have paid the same resources as a Kobold for the same benefit (ignore my previous question about D4/D6 for the moment) Would you also argue that Racial Heritage (Tiefling) wouldnt let you take Armor Of The Pit as humans dont normally have scaly skin and gain no benefit from the feat? Or Expanded Fiendish Resistance as the first line reads "You gain extra fiendish resistances." and you dont have any existing resistances before this feat?

Dark Archive

Torbyne wrote:
But mechanically you have paid the same resources as a Kobold for the same benefit (ignore my previous question about D4/D6 for the moment) Would you also argue that Racial Heritage (Tiefling) wouldnt let you take Armor Of The Pit as humans dont normally have scaly skin and gain no benefit from the feat? Or Expanded Fiendish Resistance as the first line reads "You gain extra fiendish resistances." and you dont have any existing resistances before this feat?

The benefit test of Armor of the Pit is "You gain a +2 natural armor bonus". So it would not require any extra limbs or features that humans or halforcs don't naturally have.

Racial heritage for races with extra limbs or wings or similar things means that not all their options will work well if you don't have the limbs. It would not be benefitial to take the feat unless you had some way of growing/gaining a tail.

Dark Archive

Torbyne wrote:
But mechanically you have paid the same resources as a Kobold for the same benefit (ignore my previous question about D4/D6 for the moment) Would you also argue that Racial Heritage (Tiefling) wouldnt let you take Armor Of The Pit as humans dont normally have scaly skin and gain no benefit from the feat? Or Expanded Fiendish Resistance as the first line reads "You gain extra fiendish resistances." and you dont have any existing resistances before this feat?

Would you allow a half-orc with racial heritage (kisune) to take the feat "Realistic Likeness"?

For those who do not want to look it up:
Realistic Likeness

When you are in human form, you can take the shape of a specific individual.

Prerequisite: Kitsune.

Benefit: You can precisely mimic the physical features of any individual you have encountered. When you use your racial change shape ability, you can attempt to take the form of an individual, granting you a +10 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks made to fool others with your impersonation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there a reason why we need 100's of threads for this topic?
Doesn't "Crazy Dubious Shennanigans with Racial Heritage Feat" suffice to cover the topic?


But they are both based off a feature of Tieflings that humans dont naturally have, i thought the counter arguement to taking Racial Heritage was that it does not alter a creature's body in any way and does not allow feats that would alter the body?


Agreed, you can't simply rewrite what a feat says and then tell everyone else they are wrong and that the case is closed lol.

RAW=Rules as Written not Rules as Wanted.


Happler wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
But mechanically you have paid the same resources as a Kobold for the same benefit (ignore my previous question about D4/D6 for the moment) Would you also argue that Racial Heritage (Tiefling) wouldnt let you take Armor Of The Pit as humans dont normally have scaly skin and gain no benefit from the feat? Or Expanded Fiendish Resistance as the first line reads "You gain extra fiendish resistances." and you dont have any existing resistances before this feat?

Would you allow a half-orc with racial heritage (kisune) to take the feat "Realistic Likeness"?

** spoiler omitted **

The difference i see is that Realistic Likeness progresses from a listed racial trait, the kind of thing that would be listed as costing a race point in the race builder whereas a tail is a, especially for a Kobold, flavor feature that is not called out in any way as being a benefit or a racial trait until you pay for the feat to use it.


I think the conclusion here must be clear it with your GM and if it is PFS expect table variation.
Case( likely not) closed;)


A tail is not a flavor feature. You need a tail to make a tail slap. If the feat doesn't grant a tail, then it's not much use to a tailless creature--unless it can wild shape or something.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Torbyne wrote:
the feat normally assumes a 1D4 tail slap from a small sized creature, if you are a medium sized creature would you follow the normal natural attack progression to 1D6?

It also assumes you have a tail, so without the tail you don't have a 1d4 or 1d6 attack via a Tail Slam.


blahpers wrote:
A tail is not a flavor feature. You need a tail to make a tail slap. If the feat doesn't grant a tail, then it's not much use to a tailless creature--unless it can wild shape or something.

This. I'd probably allow a player to have this, but it'd be a custom feature, not a RAW feature.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

A bite still requires a mouth?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
A bite still requires a mouth?

Teeth, to be precise.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Bizbag wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
A bite still requires a mouth?
Teeth, to be precise.

If you have teeth, without a mouth, how do you bite?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
A bite still requires a mouth?
Teeth, to be precise.
If you have teeth, without a mouth, how do you bite?

Who said anything about not having a mouth?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Bizbag wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
A bite still requires a mouth?
Teeth, to be precise.
If you have teeth, without a mouth, how do you bite?
Who said anything about not having a mouth?

Well, even a toothless creature can bite.

It's the mouth that make it happen.


Quote:

Well, even a toothless creature can bite.

It's the mouth that make it happen.

I don't know if I've ever seen a toothless creature with a bite attack. Care to link one?


A dragon turtle is supposed to be a giant snapping turtle they dont have teeth.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Bizbag wrote:
Quote:

Well, even a toothless creature can bite.

It's the mouth that make it happen.

I don't know if I've ever seen a toothless creature with a bite attack. Care to link one?

Google "birds".


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Quote:

Well, even a toothless creature can bite.

It's the mouth that make it happen.

I don't know if I've ever seen a toothless creature with a bite attack. Care to link one?
Google "birds".

OK, so teeth or a beak.

1 to 50 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.