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.
|
| 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.
|
|
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.
|
Torbyne and Suthainn,
I am unclear what you are talking about.
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.
gain an oddly worded secondary bite attack?
I don't understand what this is.
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.
|
|
This short, reptilian humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail.
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?
|
|
This short, reptilian humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail.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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Torbyne and Suthainn,
I am unclear what you are talking about.
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
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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. |
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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"?
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?
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.
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.
A dragon turtle is supposed to be a giant snapping turtle they dont have teeth.