Does the Racial Heritage feat, combined with a feat that improves an inherent feature (claws, poison, etc) grant you that feature?


Rules Questions

501 to 550 of 1,170 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


@MrTsFloatinghead: In a home game, you can, as GM, throw a player out just because they looked at you funny, and that's all fine and dandy. But it doesn't mean your position is the correct one. Citing rules is a more solid method to make sure that you, as a GM, aren't doing blahblahblah whatever, just because you have some sort of undiscussed, non-game issue with some random player. It is with this matter that citing rules becomes a matter of showing fair consideration with your reasoning behind removing an otherwise disruptive player, and not just because there is some negative (or in some cases, neglective) "favoritism" going on between the GM and the player.

With a real-life example let's talk about the GM being an owner of a candy factory, and taking children on a field trip. Let's say the manager (i.e. GM) says that the children have access to this random box of candy. But one of the children asks, "Can I have some other candy? I really like randomcandy instead." The Manager pondered, but would then say "Sure, I'll let you have some randomcandy." However, since it was loud enough for all of the other children to hear,...

Darksol, none of what you said here addresses the RAW question at the heart of the thread, and thus it amounts to nothing more that your (IMO narrow minded) advice on the subject. I have already made my position on this issue clear - I understand your fears, but they aren't fundamentally about a problem with the rules, they are about having problems with PEOPLE, and thus you should not expect to solve the issue by appealing to rules. If you want to continue to offer advice to people about why it's important to make sure nobody imagines "wrong" in a fantasy game, I suggest you take it to the advice forum.

Now, on the rules issue at hand: Your position on what is/is not RAW seems to be "if the rules don't expressly allow it, then it is not allowed, because anything else is arbitrary, and being arbitrary is bad". If that is the case, then how do you textually justify humans having limbs that the rules don't expressly give them, while simultaneously justify excluding a vestigial tail which we know humans in the real world do have, and which RAW would then be sufficient to use the feat that RAW we all agree the character can take?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Torbyne: RAW, the character is only counted as having that related (sub)type for all effects regarding race. At no point does it say the player gains that (sub)type. RAI, it's the same thing as saying a Save or Die spell is a Death Effect. It's a Save or Die spell. If it doesn't come out and say "This is a Death Effect," or to be slightly more broad about it, if the spell doesn't have the [Death] descriptor, then it's not a Death Effect. It's a feat that alters how feats, traits, spells, magic items, and other abilities dependant upon (sub)types affect you; it in no way shape or form says that you gain so and so (sub)type.

In this exact context, we can say that it functions exactly like a Death Effect, but is not a Death Effect, just as we say the feat makes you function exactly as if you had the (sub)type, but doesn't say "you gain the [so and so] (sub)type."

@MrTsFloatinghead: In a home game, you can, as GM, throw a player out just because they looked at you funny, and that's all fine and dandy. But it doesn't mean your position is the correct one. Citing rules is a more solid method to make sure that you, as a GM, aren't doing blahblahblah whatever, just because you have some sort of undiscussed, non-game issue with some random player. It is with this matter that citing rules becomes a matter of showing fair consideration with your reasoning behind removing an otherwise disruptive player, and not just because there is some negative (or in some cases, neglective) "favoritism" going on between the GM and the player.

With a real-life example let's talk about the GM being an owner of a candy factory, and taking children on a field trip. Let's say the manager (i.e. GM) says that the children have access to this random box of candy. But one of the children asks, "Can I have some other candy? I really like randomcandy instead." The Manager pondered, but would then say "Sure, I'll let you have some randomcandy." However, since it was loud enough for all of the other children to hear,...

That's not quite right though, a save or die might kill a character and in that regard it causes death but this feat is much more than a similarity to a new sub type. Any effect, of any kind, from any source that acts upon sub type will affect you. It's not just a short list of feats or spells, there are no such type based effects that dont apply and any rules regarding type affect you. If a character sheet is where you track information on how your character works than you should add the new sub type because you will never get to say, "oh, it only counts as a new sub

Type and doesn't really affect me."


Torbyne wrote:

That's not quite right though, a save or die might kill a character and in that regard it causes death but this feat is much more than a similarity to a new sub type. Any effect, of any kind, from any source that acts upon sub type will affect you. It's not just a short list of feats or spells, there are no such type based effects that dont apply and any rules regarding type affect you. If a character sheet is where you track information on how your character works than you should add the new sub type because you will never get to say, "oh, it only counts as a new sub

Type and doesn't really affect me."

If the Racial Heritage feat gave you a new subtype, it would explicitly state so in the rules for that feat. It does not - the verbiage states that any effects that affect that race ALSO affect you, but it does not grant you the abilities of that race explicitly nor does it mean you have the subtype of that race. This is backed up by other instances in the rules as written where subtypes are explicitly granted or changed, such as when a monk becomes an outsider. His subtype actually changes, and the wording of that ability states it as such.

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Now, on the rules issue at hand: Your position on what is/is not RAW seems to be "if the rules don't expressly allow it, then it is not allowed, because anything else is arbitrary, and being arbitrary is bad". If that is the case, then how do you textually justify humans having limbs that the rules don't expressly give them, while simultaneously justify excluding a vestigial tail which we know humans in the real world do have, and which RAW would then be sufficient to use the feat that RAW we all agree the character can take

Except that IS the case, because this:

PRD wrote:

HUMANOID

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.

Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are typically presented as 1st-level warriors, which means they have average combat ability and poor saving throws. Humanoids with more than 1 Hit Die are the only humanoids who make use of the features of the humanoid type. A humanoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

d8 Hit Die, or by character class.
Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
One good save, usually Reflex.
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die or by character class. The following are class skills for humanoids without a character class: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Heal, Profession, Ride, and Survival. Humanoids with a character class use their class's skill list instead. Humanoids with both a character class and racial HD add these skill sto their list of class skills.
Traits: A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.

Yes, it says usually, but that doesn't change the fact that that is the RULE AS WRITTEN for the HUMANOID type, of which humans (a racial subtype) fall into.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gents,

I'm worried that this is the sort of contentious thread that will spawn many heated, dare I say petulant, responses to any FAQ answer the design team gives.

Remember that it's just a game :)


el cuervo wrote:
Torbyne wrote:

That's not quite right though, a save or die might kill a character and in that regard it causes death but this feat is much more than a similarity to a new sub type. Any effect, of any kind, from any source that acts upon sub type will affect you. It's not just a short list of feats or spells, there are no such type based effects that dont apply and any rules regarding type affect you. If a character sheet is where you track information on how your character works than you should add the new sub type because you will never get to say, "oh, it only counts as a new sub

Type and doesn't really affect me."

If the Racial Heritage feat gave you a new subtype, it would explicitly state so in the rules for that feat. It does not - the verbiage states that any effects that affect that race ALSO affect you, but it does not grant you the abilities of that race explicitly nor does it mean you have the subtype of that race. This is backed up by other instances in the rules as written where subtypes are explicitly granted or changed, such as when a monk becomes an outsider. His subtype actually changes, and the wording of that ability states it as such.

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Now, on the rules issue at hand: Your position on what is/is not RAW seems to be "if the rules don't expressly allow it, then it is not allowed, because anything else is arbitrary, and being arbitrary is bad". If that is the case, then how do you textually justify humans having limbs that the rules don't expressly give them, while simultaneously justify excluding a vestigial tail which we know humans in the real world do have, and which RAW would then be sufficient to use the feat that RAW we all agree the character can take

Except that IS the case, because this:

PRD wrote:

HUMANOID

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and
...

One way or another the feat is missing a lot of words. It wasn't immediately clear that favored enemy could work off the feat, that was added later in developer comment. Based on favored enemy only factoring in type and sub type the feat has to make you count as that sub type. The RAW for the feat states only effects. The developer comment in effect stated sub type is an effect. As has been mentioned here many times, you can't choose which or when an effect from this feat is in play. Ergo racial heritage adds a sub type. You can interpret that to be a modified subtype such as what a monk gains but there is nothing in the feat to support a claim to a modified kind of sub type, it must match the heritage species.


Cheapy wrote:

Gents,

I'm worried that this is the sort of contentious thread that will spawn many heated, dare I say petulant, responses to any FAQ answer the design team gives.

Remember that it's just a game :)

Pathfinder or this thread? Either way we keep playing until someone wins! ;P


Torbyne wrote:
One way or another the feat is missing a lot of words. It wasn't immediately clear that favored enemy could work off the feat, that was added later in developer comment. Based on favored enemy only factoring in type and sub type the feat has to make you count as that sub type. The RAW for the feat states only effects. The developer comment in effect stated sub type is an effect. As has been mentioned here many times, you can't choose which or when an effect from this feat is in play. Ergo racial heritage adds a sub type. You can interpret that to be a modified subtype such as what a monk gains but there is nothing in the feat to support a claim to a modified kind of sub type, it must match the heritage species.

No. Being affected as if you had that subtype is not the same as actually having that subtype. Monks actually become outsiders at level 20. Racial heritage only treats you as if you had it for the purposes of applying feats, traits and magic abilities and spells -- it does not actually grant it to you. Thus, favored enemy treats you as if you have that subtype and therefore affects you, despite you not actually having that subtype. Logic for the win.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Darche Schneider wrote:
Ah, but you're the one who presents the hyperbole and claims of allowance of mechanical effects to be applied by things neither unmechancial or granted mechanics through the rules.

Too bad the rules disagree. Let's look at my 6-armed, 24-legged "Human," and see with just what that alone provides me:

Oh right.. And also in the rules is

Quote:
Tail: If you have a tail you gain a +1000 to balance checks and can make a grapple check at +9001 to your cmb.

Quite the same thing I guess then as seeking mechanical advantages without taking a feat.


Is anyone else having visions of Alien: Resurrection after reading Darksol's "human aberration" example?

Oh...wait! It's this very thread itself speaking!

Kiiiiiiill...meeeeeeee...


Core Rulebook (4th Printing) page 9 wrote:

The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

Now... correct me if I'm wrong, but this is RAW. So, it turns out that RAW supports whatever you want it to...

It's also important to point out that we're not even changing anything about Racial Heritage. We just don't see a good reason for limiting it in the way that you do. It's a matter of interpretation and some of you are apparently so pretentious that you fail to see that you are, in fact, using your own interpretations of the rules because that's all anyone can ever do when they encounter language... interpret it. There's also a lot of obvious bias toward your personal experience. It shows when you say things like "I can assure you no sane GM would _____" or when you claim that humans with tails aren't real and then assure us that they must only exist as a result of radiation poisoning and other such nonsense.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Racial Heritage wrote:


Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
from earlier in the thread wrote:

I am certain the Dev did not say you gain the (sub)type. He simply said you count as that (sub)type, in addition to the one you already have (Humanoid [Human]), for the effects of Favored Enemy, a class-feature ability that is dependant upon race/type.

The original question was valid, considering the RAW did not directly expand upon it; given the Dev statement, he merely provided an example of what the "so on" would encompass, which is the Favored Enemy effect, just for starters.

Remember that it says you "count as both human and that race for any effects related to race." Just because you count as it, doesn't mean you gain that (sub)type. You're treated as if you had that (sub)type in regards to race-related effects, but your actual (sub)type does not encompass it. Just like how you treat Coupe de Grace like a Death Effect, doesn't mean that it is a Death Effect.

I just wanted to repost the quote above to highlight it. It is clear and concise, unlike most of the babble that has been going back and forth on this subject.

For those just coming in. The subject in question came because of a thread that had a question about using Racial Heritage (Kobold) with Tail Terror. They wanted to know if the damage would be the 1d4 that the original Small creature would have gotten for damage would be the same for a medium creature.

At first, the Original Poster (Torbyne, I believe) didn't even consider that his Half-Orc would not have a tail to perform the maneuver with. When this was pointed out, one poster stepped in to say "now, wait a moment, that isn't really said in the feat in black and white, so the rules can bend..."

My position, along with the majority of the responses and posters in both threads, is that the combo in question (Racial Heritage (Kobold) with Tail Terror) can be taken, but a Human, Half-Elf, or Half-Orc (Who can take Racial Heritage) would need a tail to use it with. They do not have a tail with just these two feats alone, hence they can not do a tail slap that Tail Terror provides until such time that the character gets or acquires a tail.

When a tail is present to use, the damage would be a step up, to 1d6, for the Tail Slap provided.

So... why go on and on about this.

I suggest the game Munchkin for some of you. It is better suited to your gaming needs.


more pretentious crap.

neither that you hold a position nor that others (even a majority) share it makes that position correct. and telling us we should go play munchkin because we interpret the rules differently is the height of arrogance to me as a linguist. there is no difference between rules written and rules interpreted because the words have no meaning until interpreted by someone and each individual's interpretation is different. yes, the variance is limited and usually slight, but obviously our variance in the interpretation of "effects related to race" as well as the open ended and hardly restrictive example that follows is great. your interpretation that the example limits the effects to those things listed and the additional effect mentioned by a dev, is incorrect. the structure of the example is such that there necessarily must be more included than what is listed and the dev's comment in no way limits "and so on" to favored enemy.

does it not occur to you that the devs have always tried not to explicitly spell everything out because of the most important rule quoted above (not to mention the impossibilty of such a feat)? this emphasis on RAW is a recent development in the history of the world's oldest roleplaying game.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They didn't spell out that a tail is needed for a tail slap because the intent was for the Kobold, who does have a tail, to take the feat, so the question of a tail was not something that was in doubt.

It isn't that the position is "correct" in so far as the intent of the feat itself does not lend the ability to tail slap with it to be used by those without a tail. It was never meant to. That a tailless race can take the feat does not mean that they automatically get a tail. That is the heart of the argument of these past 900 plus posts. Others want the tail simply because without it the two feats are worthless.

The Prosthetic option is a work around for the issue, a good find for the poster that found it.

The Favored Enemy, however one takes the example to the crux of this discussion, was not a limited exception, it was an example of what "...and so on." meant. It is but one of many instances where the character can be effected, good or bad, because they choose to get Racial Heritage (Insert chosen race here). Another is the ability to take the feat Tail Terror, though why one would take it without having a tail is beyond my understanding.

My comparison stands... Bludgeoner needs a bludgeoning weapon, but that weapon is not automatically given to the character. Tail Terror, in that same thought, needs a tail. The character does not automatically sprout one because the player gave the character a feat that uses it.

It is Common Sense, something that should be taken into consideration when using Racial Heritage. There are other Kobold Feats that can be taken, ones useful to the character, it needs not be one that the character simply can not use.


i don't believe anyone has argued that tail terror should give you a tail for a while now. the argument is that there are no RAW that say a human can't have a tail, and since humans in the real world occasionally have tails, a human in pathfinder, and especially one with racial heritage (kobold), should be perfectly capable of having a tail that does nothing but exist and perhaps give a slight circumstantial modifier on social rolls.


el cuervo wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
One way or another the feat is missing a lot of words. It wasn't immediately clear that favored enemy could work off the feat, that was added later in developer comment. Based on favored enemy only factoring in type and sub type the feat has to make you count as that sub type. The RAW for the feat states only effects. The developer comment in effect stated sub type is an effect. As has been mentioned here many times, you can't choose which or when an effect from this feat is in play. Ergo racial heritage adds a sub type. You can interpret that to be a modified subtype such as what a monk gains but there is nothing in the feat to support a claim to a modified kind of sub type, it must match the heritage species.
No. Being affected as if you had that subtype is not the same as actually having that subtype. Monks actually become outsiders at level 20. Racial heritage only treats you as if you had it for the purposes of applying feats, traits and magic abilities and spells -- it does not actually grant it to you. Thus, favored enemy treats you as if you have that subtype and therefore affects you, despite you not actually having that subtype. Logic for the win.

Well that is your logic, once again, here is mine:

-Racial Heritage makes you subject to all effects of the chosen race.
-Favored Enemy was called out as being one of those effects.
-Favored Enemy only looks to a creature's type and sub type to determine if it activates.
-This clarification meant that Sub Type is an effect of race.
-Going back to my first point, if it is an effect than you are always subject to all aspects of that effect.
-The (to me) logical conclusion of this is that Racial Heritage now gives you a new Sub Type. It was not spelled out in the original feat, it was added in when a developer comment clarified what the feat was supposed to do because players were confused.

Logic for the win.


cuatroespada wrote:
i don't believe anyone has argued that tail terror should give you a tail for a while now. the argument is that there are no RAW that say a human can't have a tail, and since humans in the real world occasionally have tails, a human in pathfinder, and especially one with racial heritage (kobold), should be perfectly capable of having a tail that does nothing but exist and perhaps give a slight circumstantial modifier on social rolls.

The discussion has veered into this territory but the original question was what are the intended limits of Racial heritage, mostly looking at the "and so on" language used and the automatic assumption among some of the player base that having heritage would manifest in some physical but not immediately mechanically beneficial form.


Torbyne wrote:

Well that is your logic, once again, here is mine:

-Racial Heritage makes you subject to all effects of the chosen race.
-Favored Enemy was called out as being one of those effects.
-Favored Enemy only looks to a creature's type and sub type to determine if it activates.
-This clarification meant that Sub Type is an effect of race.
-Going back to my first point, if it is an effect than you are always subject to all aspects of that effect.
-The (to me) logical conclusion of this is that Racial Heritage now gives you a new Sub Type. It was not spelled out in the original feat, it was added in when a developer comment clarified what the feat was supposed to do because players were confused.

Logic for the win.

The difference between your "logic" and mine is that mine doesn't rely on changing the meanings of words. Logic is not opinion -- logic is hard math; logic is based on strict reasoning. Logically, my explanation is the correct one, based on observations of the rule in question and observation of other rules as they are written in the rule books (see my comparison to the Monk ability that actually changes your type -- it is explicit in the rule that your type is changed, and other rules that change types are also explicit in describing this change). Your "logic" changes the meaning of the words as written in the feat. "You are treated as if you are also that race" will absolutely 100% never mean the same thing as "you are also that race." Sorry, but you're wrong.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/as_if

It's simple: are you that race? No. But are you treated as if you were that race for the purpose of other things? YES. It still doesn't mean you gain a "hidden subtype" because there's also nothing in the rules that explains how a character can have a "hidden subtype." Please stop reading so d**n far into this feat. It is all that it says in the description and nothing more. What you are describing does not exist in any of the PFRPG books.


el cuervo wrote:

The difference between your "logic" and mine is that mine doesn't rely on changing the meanings of words. Logic is not opinion -- logic is hard math; logic is based on strict reasoning. Logically, my explanation is the correct one, based on observations of the rule in question and observation of other rules as they are written in the rule books (see my comparison to the Monk ability that actually changes your type -- it is explicit in the rule that your type is changed, and other rules that change types are also explicit in describing this change). Your "logic" changes the meaning of the words as written in the feat. "You are treated as if you are also that race" will absolutely 100% never mean the same thing as "you are also that race." Sorry, but you're wrong.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/as_if

It's simple: are you that race? No. But are you treated as if you were that race for the purpose of ALL things? YES. It still doesn't mean you gain a "hidden subtype" because there's also nothing in the rules that explains how a character can have a "hidden subtype." Please stop reading so d**n far into this feat. It is all that it says in the description and nothing more. What you are describing does not exist in any of the...

Fixed that for you ;)

I dont see it as reading too far into it, i see it as having seen the developer comment that others in the thread have also referenced (so i feel fairly confident that it isnt just made up in my head) which clarified the meaning of the feat as it is currently written in a not completely clear way. So, with the clarification of the developer, the implication is that you have a new sub type. i see this makes you mad and that was not my intent but i dont see a fault in my logic. if you are always treated in all regard as having a sub type than by any name you want to use, you have that sub type. To say otherwise would open the door to when an effect is or is not in effect for your character and that opens the door to munchkins.


Cheapy wrote:

Gents,

I'm worried that this is the sort of contentious thread that will spawn many heated, dare I say petulant, responses to any FAQ answer the design team gives.

Remember that it's just a game :)

Well, until a PDT rep steps in and gives a ruling, I am confident this thread will only spiral downwards.

With 90 FAQ requests and counting, I have to give the PDT the benefit of the doubt and assume they are either *very* carefully considering the issue, or that they are involved in something very pressing, and that they will address the issue as soon as they can. If not...well...we'll just call that "disappointing" for now.

I do not think the PDT will (or should) hesitate to address an issue even if it is contentious. In fact, those are the kinds of situations they should address quickly.

It is often better to lance the abscess rather than let it fester, after all.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cuatroespada wrote:
i don't believe anyone has argued that tail terror should give you a tail for a while now. the argument is that there are no RAW that say a human can't have a tail, and since humans in the real world occasionally have tails, a human in pathfinder, and especially one with racial heritage (kobold), should be perfectly capable of having a tail that does nothing but exist and perhaps give a slight circumstantial modifier on social rolls.

Apologizes. I forget myself sometimes, I didn't include an explanation I had in a different post.

The "tails" that a very few (Real Life) humans have are not the same as the fully functioning tail that would, for a loin (Real Life), keep his balance (and help with balance when jumping to catch his Zebra (Real Life)meal), keep flies off his back, and possibly communicate with it to other lions (Real Life).

The "Tail" you mention that some (Real Life) humans get is akin to a stub, hanging there and not doing much, more of a hindrance than a boon.

This same "tail" would not be useful in relation to the feat in question (Tail Terror) and it is amusing that some would think that this Real Life exception would be enough to give credence to giving a functioning tail to a human (and their Half siblings) just because of a feat that needs one.

Humans have hands. A feat that gives claw attacks would feasibly give him growing fingernails.

Humans have tongues. A feat that lets them catch flies with it is not out of the scope of this.

Humans do not have tails. What more is there to say?


Torbyne wrote:
Fixed that for you ;)

No, you didn't, because the feat does not say ALL things. The developer's clarification does not change the meaning from as if you were that race to you are that race. You are inserting words into the rule that are not there and abstracting much too far from the developer's clarification. Stop this, it is madness. The words you want to be there, are not.


thaX wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
i don't believe anyone has argued that tail terror should give you a tail for a while now. the argument is that there are no RAW that say a human can't have a tail, and since humans in the real world occasionally have tails, a human in pathfinder, and especially one with racial heritage (kobold), should be perfectly capable of having a tail that does nothing but exist and perhaps give a slight circumstantial modifier on social rolls.

Apologizes. I forget myself sometimes, I didn't include an explanation I had in a different post.

The "tails" that a very few (Real Life) humans have are not the same as the fully functioning tail that would, for a loin (Real Life), keep his balance (and help with balance when jumping to catch his Zebra (Real Life)meal), keep flies off his back, and possibly communicate with it to other lions (Real Life).

The "Tail" you mention that some (Real Life) humans get is akin to a stub, hanging there and not doing much, more of a hindrance than a boon.

This same "tail" would not be useful in relation to the feat in question (Tail Terror) and it is amusing that some would think that this Real Life exception would be enough to give credence to giving a functioning tail to a human (and their Half siblings) just because of a feat that needs one.

Humans have hands. A feat that gives claw attacks would feasibly give him growing fingernails.

Humans have tongues. A feat that lets them catch flies with it is not out of the scope of this.

Humans do not have tails. What more is there to say?

Going to throw in my previous comment here, Pathfinder and Golarian specifically is rife with all kinds of mutations. The Mana Wastes, Lovecraftian Horrors, Steampunk prothestics, magical experiments, random mutations tables in multiple adventure modules... Using real life examples of humans with genetic abberations is not an apt comparison to a high magic fantasy setting. I dont care if humans can actually have a tail or not, this is just a statement of fact for conversations. No one freaks out with the human wandering around with D6 claws but just imagine if you had fingernails in the real world that compared to the damage you could inflict with a gladius or katzbalger. Heck, catfolk exemplar plus aspect of the beast plus improved natural attack will net you 1D8 per claw, what kind of hands do you have if it compares to a battle axe type of wound. And you say this doesnt hose you in any attempt at manual dexterity? Real world comparisons just do not apply to discussions of what goes on in Pathfinder.


el cuervo wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Fixed that for you ;)
No, you didn't, because the feat does not say ALL things. The developer's clarification does not change the meaning from as if you were that race to you are that race. You are inserting words into the rule that are not there and abstracting much too far from the developer's clarification. Stop this, it is madness. The words you want to be there, are not.

The feat says this, "You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race." The only ways i can possibly see to interpet the word "any" is either all emcompassing which is functionally identical to using the word all in the sentence or to read it as "any only means some." This second interpetation makes no sense in the context however. How are you reading "any effects related to race" as only refering to a few and specifically undefined number of effects? Or is the "and so on" supposed to be meaningless fluff to fill space in the book?


Darche Schneider wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Darche Schneider wrote:
Ah, but you're the one who presents the hyperbole and claims of allowance of mechanical effects to be applied by things neither unmechancial or granted mechanics through the rules.

Too bad the rules disagree. Let's look at my 6-armed, 24-legged "Human," and see with just what that alone provides me:

Oh right.. And also in the rules is

Quote:
Tail: If you have a tail you gain a +1000 to balance checks and can make a grapple check at +9001 to your cmb.
Quite the same thing I guess then as seeking mechanical advantages without taking a feat.

I like how you mock what I listed it as evidence (which is in the book by the way; if I had it on me, I'd reference the page number and everything) and you have none to disprove it. Classic. The other thing is? A Tail doesn't have an inherent mechanical advantage, in comparison to something that does. It doesn't change the fact that both are limbs (in excess) and stuff I can take feats for.

The point I was making was that limbs that inherently grant extra capabilities just for being those limbs can't be denied, since you're applying that same rule to every other creature that has some or all of the extra limbs I was exampling, in contrast to the Human Aberration example I cited, having the same amount (or more) limbs, and denying it because it's "metagaming." (Except, by the rules regarding those extra limbs, and GM's slightly out-of-place interpretation in terms of allowing Humans excess or lack of limbs, it really isn't, and technically fits right in with how he set the ground rules for his game.)

If the problem is metagaming (or in this case, breaking the rules precedent, which is shaky at best), then the obvious solution as GM is to simply say "I'm sticking by what the book says for how to construct standard humanoids, and if you don't like it, then either build a character you'll enjoy that will work with how I'll run the game, or find another group that's willing to accept so and so for a character concept." Or you could be the jerk GM and just say "You suck and you look like a donkey. I hate donkeys because, well, they're donkeys, so get out of here." But not many people (assuming any) would like you as a GM if you went that route.

@ Torbyne: It changes nothing. RAW, that's how the feat is written, and arguing against that is as fruitless as it would be with a standard wall. RAI, the Dev essentially said it also includes abilities dependant upon race, using Favored Enemy as an example. Even if it walks, quacks, and flies like a Duck, it could actually just be a Duck Mating Call "whistle". Just like how a Save or Die, or a Coupe de Grace, functions exactly like how all Death Effects are simulated, does not make them Death Effects. Because they lack actually possessing the [Death] descriptor, or don't have a line that says "This is a Death Effect."

If you get into something that requires you to have just the so and so (sub)type, you won't qualify for it because it requires you to be just that (sub)type.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Torbyne: It changes nothing. RAW, that's how the feat is written, and arguing against that is as fruitless as it would be with a standard wall. RAI, the Dev essentially said it also includes abilities dependant upon race, using Favored Enemy as an example. Even if it walks, quacks, and flies like a Duck, it could actually just be a Duck Mating Call "whistle". Just like how a Save or Die, or a Coupe de Grace, functions exactly like how all Death Effects are simulated, does not make them Death Effects. Because they lack actually possessing the [Death] descriptor, or don't have a line that says "This is a Death Effect."

If you get into something that requires you to have just the so and so (sub)type, you won't qualify for it because it requires you to be just that (sub)type.

Sure, if there is an effect that calls out it only affects a specific type and sub type and does not apply if any other sub types are present than that would be the specific exception to Racial Heritage. But my statement is not that Racial Heritage replaces your sub type, it adds to it. Is there a rule somewhere that i am not up to speed on that clarifies how you can count as a sub type but only in one or two instances that are not explicitly stated? I get that some people are seeing how this is possible but i have yet to see any language where you are only partially effected as though part of that race and you all are losing me with your explanations. There is nothing in the rules to support being counted as for any effect without being subject to some effects. So maybe you dont write it down on your sheet, that doesnt mean it doesnt apply to you.


Torbyne wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Fixed that for you ;)
No, you didn't, because the feat does not say ALL things. The developer's clarification does not change the meaning from as if you were that race to you are that race. You are inserting words into the rule that are not there and abstracting much too far from the developer's clarification. Stop this, it is madness. The words you want to be there, are not.
The feat says this, "You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race." The only ways i can possibly see to interpet the word "any" is either all emcompassing which is functionally identical to using the word all in the sentence or to read it as "any only means some." This second interpetation makes no sense in the context however. How are you reading "any effects related to race" as only refering to a few and specifically undefined number of effects? Or is the "and so on" supposed to be meaningless fluff to fill space in the book?

Read this.

The PRD wrote:

Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

Now read it again.

You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race

^ There. I've highlighted the important part. "Any effects related to race" does not mean you become that race. You only count as that race for effects specifically relating to that race. You are not that race, you just count as it, again, for purposes related to applying effects for that race. You are still a human, you just happen to have some dwarven blood in your ancestral line. Yes, if someone then attacked you and had Favored Enemy (dwarf) that qualifies you to be affected by Favored Enemy and all that goes along with it but, and this is the most important part, you are still not a dwarf.


el cuervo wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Fixed that for you ;)
No, you didn't, because the feat does not say ALL things. The developer's clarification does not change the meaning from as if you were that race to you are that race. You are inserting words into the rule that are not there and abstracting much too far from the developer's clarification. Stop this, it is madness. The words you want to be there, are not.
The feat says this, "You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race." The only ways i can possibly see to interpet the word "any" is either all emcompassing which is functionally identical to using the word all in the sentence or to read it as "any only means some." This second interpetation makes no sense in the context however. How are you reading "any effects related to race" as only refering to a few and specifically undefined number of effects? Or is the "and so on" supposed to be meaningless fluff to fill space in the book?

Read this.

The PRD wrote:

Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

Now read it again.

You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race

^ There. I've highlighted the important part. "Any effects related to race" does not mean you become that race. You only count as that race for effects specifically relating to that race. You are not that race, you just count as it, again, for purposes related to applying effects for that race. You are still a human, you just happen to have some dwarven blood in your ancestral line. Yes, if someone then attacked you and had Favored Enemy (dwarf) that qualifies you to be affected by Favored Enemy and all that goes along with it but, and this is...

Ah, at least now i see where you make the distinction. But i am not talking about racial titles, i am looking only at Type and Sub Type. If you count as the same sub type, which you must for Favored Enemy to activate, than you are in effect of that sub type. For instance i am not trying to argue that Racial Heritage (Kobold) adds Kobold to your race but that it adds the Humanoid Sub Type (Reptillian) to your character as any time something looks for "Sub Type (Reptillian)" on you it will activate. This is functionally identical to having the sub type and the difference is not worth mentioning, for all intents and purposes you have the sub type. To do otherwise would require divorcing Favored Enemy from activating based on Sub Type and change it to being race specific (Favored Enemy (Kobold) and Favored Enemy (Lizardfolk) being seperate abilities).


Torbyne wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Torbyne: It changes nothing. RAW, that's how the feat is written, and arguing against that is as fruitless as it would be with a standard wall. RAI, the Dev essentially said it also includes abilities dependant upon race, using Favored Enemy as an example. Even if it walks, quacks, and flies like a Duck, it could actually just be a Duck Mating Call "whistle". Just like how a Save or Die, or a Coupe de Grace, functions exactly like how all Death Effects are simulated, does not make them Death Effects. Because they lack actually possessing the [Death] descriptor, or don't have a line that says "This is a Death Effect."

If you get into something that requires you to have just the so and so (sub)type, you won't qualify for it because it requires you to be just that (sub)type.

Sure, if there is an effect that calls out it only affects a specific type and sub type and does not apply if any other sub types are present than that would be the specific exception to Racial Heritage. But my statement is not that Racial Heritage replaces your sub type, it adds to it. Is there a rule somewhere that i am not up to speed on that clarifies how you can count as a sub type but only in one or two instances that are not explicitly stated? I get that some people are seeing how this is possible but i have yet to see any language where you are only partially effected as though part of that race and you all are losing me with your explanations. There is nothing in the rules to support being counted as for any effect without being subject to some effects. So maybe you dont write it down on your sheet, that doesnt mean it doesnt apply to you.

Never said it replaced it. If it replaced it, you'd no longer qualify for any more Racial Heritage feats. You'd actually technically no longer qualify for the one you took in the first place, meaning the feat combination would, in essence, shoot itself in the foot and cease to function.

Is there something in the books as it stands that requires what I stated as one possible caveat? Perhaps, and perhaps not. As far as I know, I haven't come across that scenario in any real gameplay. The closest thing I can associate with that's published in-book that comes to mind is the Half-Blood Extraction spell. The RAW for it is on this page, and you can understand the apprehensive, possible implications if, for example, there is a Human that took Racial Heritage (Orc), or even Racial Heritage (Half-Orc) if we want to get into semantics. (For the record, if we want to discuss this one in depth, I suggest we make a separate thread for it. It is a good topic of discussion now that I put my mind to it. Anyway...)

It doesn't mean that you can't or won't come across these situations where not actually having that sub-type can pose problems. Sure, it covers nearly all of the bases in terms of RAW, but nearly everything is not the same thing as everything.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Torbyne: It changes nothing. RAW, that's how the feat is written, and arguing against that is as fruitless as it would be with a standard wall. RAI, the Dev essentially said it also includes abilities dependant upon race, using Favored Enemy as an example. Even if it walks, quacks, and flies like a Duck, it could actually just be a Duck Mating Call "whistle". Just like how a Save or Die, or a Coupe de Grace, functions exactly like how all Death Effects are simulated, does not make them Death Effects. Because they lack actually possessing the [Death] descriptor, or don't have a line that says "This is a Death Effect."

If you get into something that requires you to have just the so and so (sub)type, you won't qualify for it because it requires you to be just that (sub)type.

Sure, if there is an effect that calls out it only affects a specific type and sub type and does not apply if any other sub types are present than that would be the specific exception to Racial Heritage. But my statement is not that Racial Heritage replaces your sub type, it adds to it. Is there a rule somewhere that i am not up to speed on that clarifies how you can count as a sub type but only in one or two instances that are not explicitly stated? I get that some people are seeing how this is possible but i have yet to see any language where you are only partially effected as though part of that race and you all are losing me with your explanations. There is nothing in the rules to support being counted as for any effect without being subject to some effects. So maybe you dont write it down on your sheet, that doesnt mean it doesnt apply to you.

Never said it replaced it. If it replaced it, you'd no longer qualify for any more Racial Heritage feats. You'd actually technically no longer qualify for the one you took in the first place, meaning the feat combination would, in essence, shoot itself in the foot and cease to function.

Is there something in the...

... That is an interesting one. I find it more interesting than the tail question actually. Maybe it should be a stand alone FAQ request because i think you are implying you couldnt use the spell as you dont have half orc racial traits to lose though the spell certainly seems to be race based and an effect. Quantom-Orcs for the win :)


thaX wrote:

They didn't spell out that a tail is needed for a tail slap because the intent was for the Kobold, who does have a tail, to take the feat, so the question of a tail was not something that was in doubt.

It isn't that the position is "correct" in so far as the intent of the feat itself does not lend the ability to tail slap with it to be used by those without a tail. It was never meant to. That a tailless race can take the feat does not mean that they automatically get a tail. That is the heart of the argument of these past 900 plus posts. Others want the tail simply because without it the two feats are worthless.

The Prosthetic option is a work around for the issue, a good find for the poster that found it.

The Favored Enemy, however one takes the example to the crux of this discussion, was not a limited exception, it was an example of what "...and so on." meant. It is but one of many instances where the character can be effected, good or bad, because they choose to get Racial Heritage (Insert chosen race here). Another is the ability to take the feat Tail Terror, though why one would take it without having a tail is beyond my understanding.

My comparison stands... Bludgeoner needs a bludgeoning weapon, but that weapon is not automatically given to the character. Tail Terror, in that same thought, needs a tail. The character does not automatically sprout one because the player gave the character a feat that uses it.

It is Common Sense, something that should be taken into consideration when using Racial Heritage. There are other Kobold Feats that can be taken, ones useful to the character, it needs not be one that the character simply can not use.

Since the ways people dont see your argument as applicable have been just as disregarded by you as your arguments have been by them I'm not going to type yet again why I dont see things your way.

I will say that I love how to me your definition of common sense still seems to be 'What I think is right.' It's very inverse Descartes and all. Myself I like to go with a more classic useage that states common sense is basically an ability to observe, comprehend, and make decisions things which is shared by or 'common to' nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate. A good example of real world common sense is 'When one wishes to avoid injury one should not set themselves on fire.' I wouldn't qualify a at best 70/30 split in which both sides have at times had the lower end of it as remotely common.


Kryptik wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Gents,

I'm worried that this is the sort of contentious thread that will spawn many heated, dare I say petulant, responses to any FAQ answer the design team gives.

Remember that it's just a game :)

Well, until a PDT rep steps in and gives a ruling, I am confident this thread will only spiral downwards.

With 90 FAQ requests and counting, I have to give the PDT the benefit of the doubt and assume they are either *very* carefully considering the issue, or that they are involved in something very pressing, and that they will address the issue as soon as they can. If not...well...we'll just call that "disappointing" for now.

I do not think the PDT will (or should) hesitate to address an issue even if it is contentious. In fact, those are the kinds of situations they should address quickly.

It is often better to lance the abscess rather than let it fester, after all.

I'm actually pretty sure this is one of the areas that was left deliberately fuzzy so that each GM could wiggle it as they wanted to personally suit their needs and the PDT doesn't want to have to make a hard ruling on it because either way they go with it it's going open and close doors they might not want to.


"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

So you don't count as the chosen race when not considering effects related to race.

Like being the race.


Torbyne wrote:

Well that is your logic, once again, here is mine:

-Racial Heritage makes you subject to all effects of the chosen race.
-Favored Enemy was called out as being one of those effects.
-Favored Enemy only looks to a creature's type and sub type to determine if it activates.
-This clarification meant that Sub Type is an effect of race.
-Going back to my first point, if it is an effect than you are always subject to all aspects of that effect.
-The (to me) logical conclusion of this is that Racial Heritage now gives you a new Sub Type. It was not spelled out in the original feat, it was added in when a developer comment clarified what the feat was supposed to do because players were confused.

By that logic, I could cast Instant Enemy to change someone's type/subtype for a minute per level?

Or will you concede that favored enemy can work without an opponent actually having a certain type/subtype?


Forseti wrote:

"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

So you don't count as the chosen race when not considering effects related to race.

Like being the race.

Not relevant, you can say the same about any and all things. I am a human but i dont count as one when not looking at anything that affects humans. Not that i count as anything else mind you but when no one is looking i am secretly not human. Or rather, i am not human until something looks to check if i am and then i register as a human but then go back to being not right after being tested for humaness.


Forseti wrote:
Torbyne wrote:

Well that is your logic, once again, here is mine:

-Racial Heritage makes you subject to all effects of the chosen race.
-Favored Enemy was called out as being one of those effects.
-Favored Enemy only looks to a creature's type and sub type to determine if it activates.
-This clarification meant that Sub Type is an effect of race.
-Going back to my first point, if it is an effect than you are always subject to all aspects of that effect.
-The (to me) logical conclusion of this is that Racial Heritage now gives you a new Sub Type. It was not spelled out in the original feat, it was added in when a developer comment clarified what the feat was supposed to do because players were confused.

By that logic, I could cast Instant Enemy to change someone's type/subtype for a minute per level?

Or will you concede that favored enemy can work without an opponent actually having a certain type/subtype?

Or that spell is a specific exception to the general rule that states you and only you who cast the spell gets to act as though a creature is of a different type. No other race based effects are changed. Racial Heritage is currently written as a blanket catch all for any effects. That is a big difference.


Of course it's relevant. If they meant to say that you count as a different race for all intents and purposes, they'd have said that straight up. They wouldn't have resorted to using a sentence that implies that there's just a select few things that you count as the other race for.

Torbyne wrote:
Or that spell is a specific exception to the general rule that states you and only you who cast the spell gets to act as though a creature is of a different type. No other race based effects are changed. Racial Heritage is currently written as a blanket catch all for any effects. That is a big difference.

Your 'logic' (using that term loosely) stated that the subtype must be changed by Racial Heritage because that's the only way favored enemy works. I just proved that that premise is not true. So, there is room for Racial Heritage not to change or add to subtype.

In fact, not only is there room, there's also the fact that the feat doesn't even imply it


Forseti wrote:
Torbyne wrote:

Well that is your logic, once again, here is mine:

-Racial Heritage makes you subject to all effects of the chosen race.
-Favored Enemy was called out as being one of those effects.
-Favored Enemy only looks to a creature's type and sub type to determine if it activates.
-This clarification meant that Sub Type is an effect of race.
-Going back to my first point, if it is an effect than you are always subject to all aspects of that effect.
-The (to me) logical conclusion of this is that Racial Heritage now gives you a new Sub Type. It was not spelled out in the original feat, it was added in when a developer comment clarified what the feat was supposed to do because players were confused.

By that logic, I could cast Instant Enemy to change someone's type/subtype for a minute per level?

Or will you concede that favored enemy can work without an opponent actually having a certain type/subtype?

That doesn't work.. the spell says You <the caster> may treat as not the target is treated as


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:
Forseti wrote:

"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

So you don't count as the chosen race when not considering effects related to race.

Like being the race.

Not relevant, you can say the same about any and all things. I am a human but i dont count as one when not looking at anything that affects humans. Not that i count as anything else mind you but when no one is looking i am secretly not human. Or rather, i am not human until something looks to check if i am and then i register as a human but then go back to being not right after being tested for humaness.

Negative. I am a meat popcicle.


Forseti wrote:

Of course it's relevant. If they meant to say that you count as a different race for all intents and purposes, they'd have said that straight up. They wouldn't have resorted to using a sentence that implies that there's just a select few things that you count as the other race for.

Torbyne wrote:
Or that spell is a specific exception to the general rule that states you and only you who cast the spell gets to act as though a creature is of a different type. No other race based effects are changed. Racial Heritage is currently written as a blanket catch all for any effects. That is a big difference.

Your 'logic' (using that term loosely) stated that the subtype must be changed by Racial Heritage because that's the only way favored enemy works. I just proved that that premise is not true. So, there is room for Racial Heritage not to change or add to subtype.

In fact, not only is there room, there's also the fact that the feat doesn't even imply it

They do make mistakes sometimes, or state things less than clearly. That is why there is a FAQ process in the first place. This whole tangent is based on a developer clarifying the intent of the feat in a different thread which both shows that they dont get print things perfectly every time they try and that this particular feat has caused confusion before.

As to the spell, "Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes." Notice how it keeps using that word "Type." Favored Enemy works off of types and sub types. This spell does not change that mechanic, it just makes a specific exception in a limited case on how to treat a creature's type in regards to a specific ability. It also only affect how type is treated in a direct relationship to one ranger so a second ranger with the same Favored Enemy would not gain the same benefit. There is a clearly set example of a specific rule trumping a general and this spell lays out the limits of how it trumps the general. It is not an appropriate analogy for Racial Heritage which has no language to limit the scope of its effects.


It only lacks language to limit the scope of its effects if you ignore the part that limits the scope of its effects.

And of course I don't believe Instant Enemy changes the targets type/subtype. That would be ludicrous. I just mentioned that spell to demonstrate that favored enemy can trigger off other things than just type/subtype. It can trigger off spell effects, and it can also trigger off feats, in the case of Racial Heritage.

For the effects of the favored enemy ability, a character with Racial Heritage counts as being the race he picked for that feat. Just like someone targeted by Instant Enemy counts as a different thing for the effect of the caster's favored enemy ability. No nonsense like actual changes to subtype are necessary to make either the feat or the spell work. No such change is even hinted at anywhere in the feat.


Forseti wrote:

It only lacks language to limit the scope of its effects if you ignore the part that limits the scope of its effects.

And of course I don't believe Instant Enemy changes the targets type/subtype. That would be ludicrous. I just mentioned that spell to demonstrate that favored enemy can trigger off other things than just type/subtype. It can trigger off spell effects, and it can also trigger off feats, in the case of Racial Heritage.

For the effects of the favored enemy ability, a character with Racial Heritage counts as being the race he picked for that feat. Just like someone targeted by Instant Enemy counts as a different thing for the effect of the caster's favored enemy ability. No nonsense like actual changes to subtype are necessary to make either the feat or the spell work. No such change is even hinted at anywhere in the feat.

Nice bold words but where are you getting them from? The feat says any effect of race and the developer comment made it clear that sub type is part of those effects. The spell you cite to disprove me does not make favored enemy work off a spell, it makes a temporary change to a creature's type for an extremely limited scope and even there the language is clear that it is acting on type to make it work. The feat in question has no wording to limit the scope of the sub type effect. It is an always on and currently no way to suppress modification of your types.


which part exactly limits it's scope?

also, that doesn't demonstrate that favored enemy can trigger off of anything other than type. it shows that something other than Racial Heritage can cause something to be treated as another type. as though that were a secret...


I thought you were a linguist?

"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

That limits the scope to effects related to race.

Things that aren't an effect related to race aren't affected by Racial Heritage.


Forseti wrote:

I thought you were a linguist?

"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

That limits the scope to effects related to race.

Things that aren't an effect related to race aren't affected by Racial Heritage.

See, we agree on this. But I state subtype is an effect of race due to developer comment. Now you get mad at me and say hurtful things.


No, I'd like to read that developer comment for myself. The search function isn't much help finding a developer post with both the words "effect" and "subtype". If you link me, I'll read it. I can't comment until I read it.


i am... that language isn't necessarily as restrictive as the way you interpret it. i keep trying to explain that, but some degree of conceit keeps you from admitting that your interpretations aren't universal.

edit: i mean to say that the phrase "effects related to race" isn't necessarily as restrictive as you think.


I believe that anything that is an inherent characteristic or property of race, isn't an effect related to race.


Forseti wrote:
No, I'd like to read that developer comment for myself. The search function isn't much help finding a developer post with both the words "effect" and "subtype". If you link me, I'll read it. I can't comment until I read it.

I will concede this one, i am unable to find the post i thought i had read. It seems to be an assumption on the part of the forums users that Racial Heritage can make you vulnerable to Bane or Favored Enemy but i can not find anything from Paizo to back this up and it is more probable than that these features do not interact with Racial Heritage.


Torbyne wrote:
Forseti wrote:
No, I'd like to read that developer comment for myself. The search function isn't much help finding a developer post with both the words "effect" and "subtype". If you link me, I'll read it. I can't comment until I read it.

I will concede this one, i am unable to find the post i thought i had read. It seems to be an assumption on the part of the forums users that Racial Heritage can make you vulnerable to Bane or Favored Enemy but i can not find anything from Paizo to back this up and it is more probable than that these features do not interact with Racial Heritage.

After all that arguing, you now say that the developer comment which you have based your entire argument around cannot be found. Well, hope you've learned something.

501 to 550 of 1,170 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does the Racial Heritage feat, combined with a feat that improves an inherent feature (claws, poison, etc) grant you that feature? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.